Are creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists?

God "first devotes" an entire chapter to "telling us about the first week" (you know what a week is if you are not an evolutionist in this case) -- in Gen 1-2:3.

Then we see Him summarize that same timeline in Exodus 20:8-11.

These are good texts to gloss over, ignore and flee from if you are an evolutionist.

But that is ok- because we have so many quotes from evolutionists that do that very thing and yet they will still admit to "a priori bias" openly giving all "a clue" as to the methods they prefer to use. The OP is pretty good about pointing that out!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you claim that Genesis 1 is more directly from God than the rest of the Bible? Unlike Job 38-39, it isn't written as a speech from God. Even if it were, the example in Job shows that God's speech does not need to be prosaic and blandly literal. Now, I wholeheartedly accept that all Scripture is inspired by God, and not just the quotations of God's words. Inspired Scripture includes passages that speak in non-literal ways. God speaks through poetic psalms, parables and visions as well as through the gospel accounts and records of Israel's history and the growth of the church. Showing that God is speaking through a text does not prove that the text is literal.

God revealed the coming tribulation to John through a vision that included seven bowls of God's wrath to be poured out on the earth (Revelation 16). In Genesis 1 we have an account where creation is described in a similar template of seven items with a repeated refrain after each, except here the items are days instead of bowls. I see no reason to claim that those bowls are literal and will actually contain God's wrath, or that the days are literal and actually contained God's work and rest. Both God's wrath and his creative work are real, but that does not require us to take the framework of how these real things are presented as entirely literal without any literary skill in its composition.

The Bible's most obviously historical books reveal sources, whether direct eyewitnesses (Nehemiah 1:1-2; John 21:24; Matthew and Mark are also written by eyewitnesses), investigation (Luke 1:1-4), or other books (1 Kings 11:41; 1 Chronicles 9:1; etc.). None of these characteristics are present in the early chapters of Genesis -- the creation of the heavens and earth had no human witnesses. When God reveals something no human has yet seen, whether to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John or others, the style is frequently apocalyptic, poetic and full of symbolism. In other words, if Genesis 1 is non-literal, it is entirely in keeping with how God reveals other unwitnessed things elsewhere in the Bible.

Another Exodus reference is Exodus 31:17. From it, we can see that these references are not entirely literal. After all, God does not literally refresh himself because he never suffers a lack of refreshment. This appears to be an anthropomorphism: God's actions are being described in human terms so we can better relate to them and follow God's example.

The Sabbath day of the creation week also shows up in the New Testament in Hebrews 4:1-11. In this passage we find out that God's rest is ongoing and we can still enter it today. Even if the universe is only 6,000 years old, that would mean that God's rest after creation -- the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 -- has spanned thousands of years! At the same time, we know that God's rest is not like our rest, and God has never stopped working, not even for the Sabbath (John 5:16-17).

So, Exodus shows us that the actions of the seventh day are not literal (since God doesn't literally become fatigued and in need of refreshment), and Hebrews shows us that the duration of the seventh day isn't literal (since it is a rest we can still enter today). If the capstone of the creation week isn't literal, it's fairly difficult to claim that the preceding six days are literal.

No need; they are part of the reason I came to the view I now hold. I see, however, that you appear to "gloss over, ignore and flee from" Job 38-39.

 

SIX DAYS shall you labor and do all your work... "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and rested the SEVENTH day".

Mercury "pretends" that reading this text lead him to conclude "SIX days you shall labor and do all your work for in SIX days the LORD DID NOT MAKE the heavens and the earth! RATHER THEY EVOLVED over billions of years - so do your LABOR in SIX days and rest the seventh... ANYWAY".

To eisegete what Mercury pretends to say is what Exodus 20:8-11 LEADS him to -- is to practice pure mythology and eisegetical "insertion" into scripture.

 

Here is another example of creationists purposely misquoting evolutionists.

 

Nope... unless you don't think Gen 1-2 is inspired. It is written as a narrative, not poetry. It is written in ways that simply don't make sense as poetry such as using very specific limitations to time.

Ummmm.... Nope again. You're reaching.

Repeatedly we find that nature does not produce code. Repeatedly we see the degeneration of genomes via mutation and not increases in complexity.

God did create nature and it does only do what He enabled it to do... However it could not and did not self create. Further, what we see in genetics and speciation is much better and easier explained by a created order of types that have adapted and mutated into separate species from a superior kind with a greater, more pristine genome.

Where does it say that it took Him millions of years of evolution to make the sun shine on the wicked?

Where does it say that God took a million years to do this?

Against the very words of the text, you deny that God could have created the world in 6 days... why do you now accept that He can will sun or rain in less time?

Yes it does. Evolution denies that a supernatural God was necessary at all for creation. It is wholly inconsistent to say Genesis doesn't mean what it says and that the direct implications of evolution don't matter.

BTW, macroevolution has yet to be demonstrated as a "biological process". Organisms adapt within their genome and mutations occur within the genome that while conceivably producing a situational survival advantage leaves the organism "less" fit/complex than it previously was.

 

I was thinking you had not evidence at all for the bogus charge - now you have confirmed it.

Is it true that evolutionists simply have no case at all!!!??

Apparently so!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury
The closest we get to God telling us directly what he did in creation is the speech of God to Job in Job 38-39. Unlike Genesis 1-2, this is written as a divine speech from God.

Hit the nail on the head sir.

Notice when I make that same point - evolutionists simple "flee the point entirely".

That IS the evolutionist reponse to denying Gen 1-2:3, Gen 6-8, Jonah and almost every other part of scripture "inconvenient to atheists".

Nowhere is it more striking and unmasked than in the case of their rejection of Paul's argument in Romans 1 for Intelligent Design "Clearly SEEN IN the things that have been made". There you will see the central ground of PURE ATHEISM boldy claimed by our evolutionist friends!

NOT ONLY do they "deny" the "account" of Gen 1-2:4 they ALSO deny that God (as anyting intelligent) could be "clearly seen IN NATURE" IN the things that have been made - seen clearly BY the unbelieving world as Paul claims!!.

There is no limit to the Bible the atheist evolutionism requires the evolutionist to compromise and deny.

 

speaking of Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 - Bob said



Quote:
These are good texts to gloss over, ignore and flee from if you are an evolutionist.
The greek deity Mercury then "pretends" and "spins"

AS IF that was true!

Notice then that any quote of those texts is "patently glossed over and avoided" by the pretending and intently-gaming Mercury.

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nope... and to date, that data does not "require" total dependence on natural cause.

Your statement here is an example of why I don't think you are open-minded or perhaps even honest with yourself about it. Your response is metaphysical and/or philosophical... not scientific.

If I found an arrowhead on the ground, it would not require any more than natural cause... but would that be the best explanation for it? No. The necessary events of natural cause would be incredibly improbable. And so it is with evolution. I have said before that it is possible... just so improbable as to be unreasonable.

No it isn't. You want to compare it to other sciences... it can't be. You want to condemn creationism because its processes and causes do not avail themselves to experimentation... be consistent- evolution's necessary mechanisms and events are not testable either.

Of course these are placed in order as necessitated by the theory and are completely speculative. The best proof that these sequences are unreliable is another necessary idea for evolutionists- convergent evolution.

You would have us believe that the lineage designed to force whales and hooved animals into common ancestory due to similarities between supposed ancestors but conveniently ignore for the moment that evolution requires many species to share similarities that arose independently. This is a clear case of trying to have it both ways... of course you don't mind when evolutionists engage in such speculation... only when creationists make a mistake.

You've stated that creationists' dishonesty partly caused you to become an evolutionists. I find that extremely odd since there have been many outright cases of fraud and dishonesty amongst evolutionists... such as claiming certainty on these ancestral trees when there is none. Further, things like Haeckel's drawings are patently dishonest and still go into science textbooks because they are consistent with evolution's needs... never mind that they are inconsistent with reality.

Nope. You have assumptions of such.

Try convergence.

Pure speculation and not considered reliable even by honest evolutionists.

Nope. You have assumptions of such.

No. These are all things that have been tested, observed, then interpretted within the limits of naturalism/evolution.

Like I said, the assumption of naturalism artificially limits the range of conclusions.

Once again you reveal without even knowing it that your basis is not science but metaphysics.

You know very well that I have stated a belief in the biblical record. God said that He created it good and that sin corrupted creation. Further it is only you that has made himself judge over whether God made things the way they should have been made. Perhaps He made them optimized for a world without sin, corruption, and decay but since those things now exist they are no longer optimum.

Good grief! What a case of the pot calling the silverware black. You turn God into some impotent liar who could neither create the world the way He said nor tell the truth about how it was created... You would even have Him taking credit for things He quite obviously did not and presumably could not[/] do since you claim naturalism is always to be favored regardless of which provides the better explanation.

Not without costs... and not in a way that has EVER been proven to create a whole new functioning biological system.

Empirically.... seems..... Yes, that is the evolution argument. Claim that it is certain while in reality it is only what "seems" to be... but only if naturalism is true.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW
"Which has absolutely nothing to do with assuming that everything in natural history occurred due to undirected events governed by naturalism alone."

Try again.

It means just what I said. We can trust empirical data. And, to date, that data does not require any more than natural causes.

Excellent point Scott. One sure to be "glossed over" if one is clinging to atheist darwinism "anyway".

And the sad truth is "AT THE VERY START" the data debunks the atheist darwinist views. At the very start - the CELL - a single living cell CAN NOT be "pulled together" in abiogenesis not with all the lab eqiupment in the world!

The "empirical data AT THE START" debunks atheist darwinism and "yet" the blind devotees to that failed religion -- the "true believers in darwinism" cling to it "anyway".

As if that is not bad enough - it not only FAILs at the START of the empirical and testable evidence it fails in bold broad areas like Entropy with Isaac Asimov ADMITTING that "it requires a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" as a key incredient to the speculative doctrine of "molecule to human brain" evolution!

The empiral evidence DOES NOT support any such progression found in the lab!!

Yet the blind trust of the true believer in atheist darwinism will "believe anyway".

How sad!

But that is what you would expect of atheists - they have no other choice, no other religion, no other god than the one described in atheist darwinism.

Why do some Christians join with them?

Truly a mystery.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When confronted with a complex system that "segments, decodes, corrects, constructs, translates, and transfers code at the micro cellular level" as in the cell's DNA and the system that operates on it (a system that NO atheist darwinist has been able to CREATE) the true believer in atheist darwinism scoffs at what God has done and what he CAN NOT do in this way!

Thus unmasking the "real atheist heart" of the matter! Taking a system that humanist reasoning CAN NOT match, duplicate, generate, fathom AND trying "dumb down what he can not match"! This is EXACTLY what one would expect of an atheist darwinist response! No less! No more!

ATheist darwinists SURVIVE in "islands of obfuscation and misdirection" scatterred around huge evolution-denying empirical problems by using such mindless tactics as we see in the quote above.

How sad. I say we pray for them to accept the data instead of clinging blindly to their failed dogma.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The statement you are disagreeing with is that "The closest we get to God telling us directly what he did in creation is the speech of God to Job in Job 38-39. Unlike Genesis 1-2, this is written as a divine speech from God." I don't see why you would disagree with that. Job 38:1 says, "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:". The rest of the two chapters goes on to record what he said. How is that not written as a divine speech of God? How does the form of the speech, whether poetry or narrative, change whether God said it? Where is Genesis 1-2 more directly attributed to God than the rest of the Bible?

Nope to what? Nope you don't take it literally? Nope creationists don't generally agree this account shouldn't be taken literally? Could you flesh out your answer a bit?

Agreed. God created the universe ex nihilo. Everything after that point was working with what he had made.

If that were true, then both creationists and scientists would be able to see clear distinctions between various kinds. Instead, creationists are all over the map on the scope of kinds. I've heard you claim that whales may be part of a kind that also includes some land mammals. I've heard others claim that there is only one cat kind, incorporating everything from lions, tigers, bobcats to house cats. Other young-earth creationists have said that the animals we have today all speciated from the kinds present in the Cambrian, meaning that all mammals, reptiles and birds are a single kind. Most creationists prefer to think of the kinds as far more narrow, but again they have no evidence for the barriers they suggest, except for personal preference.

Further, there is no testimony in Scripture that kinds should be interpreted this way. This is why the early creationists considered kinds to be equivalent to species. That seemed to agree with what the Bible said about reproducing after their own kind (after all, lions don't produce house cats), but modern creationists have backed away from that as the evidence of evolution across the species boundary became harder and harder to dismiss.

Scott, please read what you are responding to before responding to it. You've chopped my sentences up into pieces and responded to each part, and your response has no relation to what I was saying.

False witness. I've never said that. In fact, my view is that God created the universe in an instant about 13.7 billion years ago, and he has been actively sustaining his creation since then. God could very well have created the world in six days, but the evidence in his creation does not support that.

No more than gravity denies that a supernatural God was necessary at all for creation. No natural explanation denies that there is an Author of nature. Evolution only describes how life speciated. It doesn't describe how life emerged, or how evolution itself came about.

Your main problem here seems to be that you accept a form of naturalism where everything with a natural explanation is seen as happening apart from God. This is totally wrong if God is the Author of nature. Learning about biological processes, whether large-scale like evolution or small-scale like meiosis and mitosis, does not remove God from the picture, but rather sheds more light on the processes God has created and the work God is doing.

God really did knit you together in your mother's womb. Do you believe that? Do you think natural explanations for how babies develop take away from that truth?

An assertion not supported by evidence or scientists at large.

 

I've been very clear that I accept all Scripture as inspired by God. I've probably written more on this board about Genesis 1:1-2:3 than you. Genesis 1 is my favourite chapter of the Bible and the one I've studied the most. That doesn't prove I'm right, but it does show that I do not reject or ignore the account.

For your reading pleasure: The genre of Genesis 1.

Now, if you'd like to deal with the account further, I'm game. Would you like to describe how the stars are created on day 4? Oh wait, you don't think the stars were created then. You think they were made long before the six days, since you find the evidence from creation overwhelming in that regard. Maybe Scott could set you straight on that. Perhaps you'd like to describe what it means for God to command the earth to produce vegetation and living creatures? Or, bringing Genesis 2 into the mix, would you like to try and literally reconcile how God both created every bird by his word a day before making humans and formed every bird from the ground between Adam and Eve's formation? Did God just talk to himself before getting busy and forming dirt, or is God's word effective in and of itself? Which sequence of events is literally correct? Perhaps you could suggest which day angels, hell, bacteria and seaweed were created on, or why fish aren't given a food source in Genesis 1.

Lots of good stuff in there, including far more that has nothing to do with various controversies. I'd love to discuss it, but it's rare to find a young-earth creationist who's that interested in digging into the text.

 

One example of convergent evolution is that both whales and sharks have pectoral fins. So yes, these two groups of creatures share a similarity that arose independently. The cool thing about science, though, is that we can dig deeper. We can see how this feature is built in both. It turns out that in sharks, the pectoral fins are internally made of mainly cartilage, while in whales, they contain bones, and not just any bones, but the same bones that make arms and hands in other creatures. This photo is from a grey whale skeleton:


Click for larger image; see here for source and more photos.

So, the similarity really is only skin deep. If whales and sharks both had pectoral fins made of the same stuff, such as how an alien designer using common parts might make them, this would disprove common descent, since it would be evidence of chimeras rather than descent with modification. Instead, we see in whales a fin that contains a bunch of extra bones not at all necessary for its function and movement, but present due to common descent. When there are similarities that do not correspond with ancestry, the similarities turn out to be superficial. When they are due to ancestry, the similarities go all the way down. That's what separates common descent from other explanations: you don't have to data mine and focus on specific evidence while ignoring everything else to get evidence for common descent.

 

I do agree that unlike UTEOTW and other typical evol posters - you do not flee the text as quickly.

My point is that you do not exegete -- you merely eisegete in favor of atheist darwinism AS IF this is proprer exegesis -- it is not.

When you admit that Moses DOES intend us to BELIEVE that "IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth" you ADMIT that your views conflict with the INTENDED MEANING of scripture.

When you try to "get out of the text" you do not use exegesis to do it -- you simply "ignore it anyway". And that is "the point" here.

Wrong - I have responded to this about half a dozen times in our discussions. On day 4 "God created TWO GREAT LIGHTS" count them TWO!! The addendum "He made the stars also" is not stated in the language as having to have occured on day 4 as if "ON Day 4 God made a zillion lights in the sky" -- the number is still just TWO.

However - I personnally believe He also made the other planets in our solar system on that day - but that is my own view.

As I have already responded on this - the obvious fact you have ignored - failed to exegete - is the OBVIOUS MEANING Moses gives to his intended reader - the first order primary audience - HIS contemporaries! IT is "obvious" that they would view "EVENING and MORNING as ONE DAY" - nothing is more obvious! It is obvious that they would see him saying that God CAUSED vegetation to exist BEFORE the light of the sun - the DAY BEFORE not a ZILLION YEARS before!

As I said "you believe in evolutionism" IN SPITE of the text of Genesis - not BECAUSE of it!!

AS I have stated a dozen times on this topic - Genesis 2:5 through the end of the chapter is NOT a chronology - but Genesis 1-2:4 IS!!

The CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE states in each case "EVENING and MORNING where DAY number X". This is NOT the case for Gen 2.

In Gen 2 the objective is NOT a chronological sequence (though you try to wrench that point in an effort to "prove by puzzle" that we should not believe God's word is accurate) the purpose of Gen 2 is to explain the origin of Marriage and the LAW that was violated in the fall of mankind.

It is to present the perfect, holy, sinless deathless system in which mankind first appeared and FROM which we fell!!

(ALSO not compatible with atheist darwinist doctrine on that point).

As stated repeatedly atheist darwinism is "believed ANYWAY" in spite of the central points of Gen 1-2:3 and Gen 2 - not "because of it"!!

Clearly this is "you talking to yourself" instead of marking the responses already posted on this subject and dealing with them. You need to cary your argument forward - by first dealing with the disconfirming facts already highlighted and trying to reach out to something like objective exegesis instead of simply seeking "a puzzle" as proof that we can not trust God's Word!

Step 1 - the PRIMARY meaning to the first order intended audience! Moses' contemporaries. AS they read the text WHAT is the obvious intended meaning for them. "WAIT for atheist darwinism so you can NOT believe what I am writing dear friends"??? Do you really think that idea of yours could be eisegeted into the TEXT?? If so -- you have been "talking to yourself" too long.

Step 2 - understand the difference between a chronological sequence and a discriptive narrative intended to show the basis for Marriage that does not employ a chronology!

In other words - deal with the obvious if you expect to be taken seriously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't think Exodus 20:11 points to a literal six-day creation any more than Luke 22:19 points to real presence within the bread. In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

Yes, two great lights, and also the stars. The number of great lights is two, but God also made the lesser lights, the stars. All are described on the fourth day.

Well yes, it's as obvious that vegetation is mentioned on the third day as that the stars are mentioned on the fourth day. However, you pick and choose where you accept the details of the days as being tied to the day they are mentioned on. At least Scott is consistent in this regard.

I agree there's no reason the primary audience would have read billions of years into the text, just as there's no reason they would have read billions of light-years into the size of the universe. Genesis 1 describes stars and birds as inhabiting the same place -- the firmament -- which was created to separate the waters below and the waters above. Stars and birds are placed into this firmament. No hint of the immensity of space here, just as there's no hint of geological time frames. I don't see that as a problem because I don't think Genesis 1 is where God reveals science to us. I think it reveals theology: important truths about God, creation, humanity and their relationships to each other. As for scientific truths, God made humanity the regent king and steward over his creation, and that implies a mandate for us to learn about our domain. God has many surprises waiting for us in creation, and he hasn't spoiled them all by blurting the answers before we uncover them. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out" (Proverbs 25:2).

As for why vegetation is described on the third day, that has to do with the symmetry of the creation days. Days 1 and 4 correspond (making light; filling light with luminaries). Days 2 and 5 correspond (making sea and sky; filling sea and sky with creatures). Days 3 and 6 correspond (making dry land; filling land with creatures). Each of the first three days creates a realm, and those realms are complete except for the creatures that inhabit them. This includes making dry land with all the vegetation. The second set of three days is all about making creatures for the realms, and this is why the luminaries are described as "ruling" day and night: they are described as creatures, not as mere set dressing, like the vegetation. This symmetry also explains why animals are created over two days while humans share a day with other land animals. Because the division is based on which realm creatures inhabit, and not on importance, humans don't get a day for themselves separate from the animals.

Genesis 2:4 and following has a sequence of events just as clearly as any historical text, including the gospels. However, you ignore that sequence because it contradicts the sequence in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:4-6 describes a time when no plants of the field existed because there was no man and no rain. Then, a mist is described, man is formed, and rivers are described. Then God plants a garden and causes trees to grow, since the impediments to plants have been solved. Similarly, verse 18 describes a problem with man being alone, then all the beasts and birds are formed and brought to him to name, and when he doesn't find a fit helper among them, Eve is formed from his flesh and bone. The only time the sequence of events is interrupted in the account, the author repeats the same event to mark this (Genesis 2:8, 15).

The account has a very clear sequence, but it is a sequence different from Genesis 1. This is only a problem if one expects these accounts to reveal historical and scientific details. Instead, Genesis 2-3 is no more (or less) historical than Ezekiel 16. Both these passages are revealing the broad strokes of history, but they do it through a story that includes characters that represent more than individuals and elements that are not literal. The lady Jerusalem is not just a woman any more than Adam is just a man (a point that Genesis 5:2 also demonstrates). The two trees are not merely magic trees, but rather are symbolic (indeed, the tree of life shows up again in Revelation with the same symbolic meaning).

Most literalists know that Genesis 3:15 cannot merely be literal because we have no record of it literally being fulfilled. Most understand that it is to be taken allegorically to refer to Jesus and Satan. However, that verse is not an aberration, and the entire account is suffused with the same potent imagery. Just as we'd miss the point of that verse if we thought it was just about human descendents fearing snakes and stepping on them, we can also miss much of the depth of the rest of the account by reducing it to entirely literal description. The loss is at least as great as reading Ezekiel 16 as just being about a promiscuous woman.

I encourage you to do this too. In our post-Enlightenment scientific age, it is tempting to turn these texts into scientific treatises. That is not how the original audience would have taken them. In fact, many of the interpretations creationists reach from these chapters have only come about due to our increased scientific knowledge. Nobody would claim that the firmament wasn't a literal solid dome if not for what science has taught us.

If the only way a sequence can be shown is through an account structured neatly into days with a repeated refrain after each day, then there would be no other sequential accountings of events in the Bible. The gospels never use this approach. Neither does Acts. Instead, Acts and other narrative accounts, whether historical or parable or otherwise, show sequence much the same way Genesis 2-3 does: through describing one event "and" another event "and" another event.

Another example of a creationist misquoting an evolutionist. What you quoted is not an idea of mine, but rather your false witness against me. As long as you claim I believe "atheist darwinism" you are being intentionally dishonest.

 

Although I personally believe that the recreation and restoration of the Earth took place in six literal days, I can accept that the only theories of creation that is not possible in Scripture is an absolute six-day creation and natural evolution. The day-age theory, etc., are not incompatible with Scripture.

 

Unfortunately many creationists do misquote evolutionists, perhaps more often out of misunderstanding rather than dishonesty.

Most evolutionists ARE biased; they assume that everything must have a scientifically verifiable explanation. It is true that many will arrogantly dismiss creationism as ridiculous without admitting that God COULD have created the world in 6 literal days if He had wanted to.

On the other hand I have found many creationists who will literally advance any argument as long as it purports to discredit evolution. The idea of thermodynamics disproving evolution is one such explanation - it is laughable (to anyone with some knowledge of physics and chemistry) to think so - but yet many creationists cling to it. Again I think this is more often out of lack of knowledge rather than dishonesty. Some of those "answers in Genesis" explanations sound pretty good to those who don't have a strong background in the sciences.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a 6 day literal creation. But I do wish sometimes that creationists should be honest in interpretation of the data. If science suggests that the earth is very old or that some evolution occurred does that mean one HAS to believe it?

 

The vapid and yes "vaccuous" arguments that "Christians misquote atheists" on the topic of atheist darwinism are always of the form "you can not quote an atheist evolutionist that exposes a flaw in the myth of evolutionism IF you do not FIRST prove that the evolutionist quoted ALSO becomes a Christian and embraces the Genesis account".

Such arguments against Christians have no logic and no merit. I am surprised that people pay any attention to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It would be good "if that were true".

#1. In Exodus 20 God summarizes the Gen 1-2:3 "7 day event" and says "FOR IN SIX DAYS God CREATED.. God MADE.. and rested the 7th day... therefore SIX DAYS YOU shall labor and do all your work and rest the seventh day". The iron clad lockstep assignment of time in Genesis 1 with our time in innescapable in Exodus 20. You have to WANT to believe an atheist darwinist account "anyway" to truly avoid exegeting Exodus 20 properly.

#2. In the Genesis account we have plants arrive the day before the Sun. How many "ages" would science claim "came along" while plants evolved without the sun?!! Answer: None!

In Christ,

Bob