Debates discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
The Archives
>
Creation vs. Evolution
Mod
Mod
Wow, that is an interesting theory!!
I am so delighted to see and hear everyone! And I am so happy to "contribute" my little mind on this topic as encouraged by our inspiring HeadMod... :)As I wrote awhile ago, I am a Bible believer, so obviously, my conviction is from what the Bible says. As an example, when Genesis said, "And the evening and the morning were the first day (as sighted by Kat), second day, third day...etc", I take it literally because it make good sense, as I heard it before: "When the verse in the Bible make sense, use no other sense." If we believe the powerful hand of the God of the Bible, it should not be hard for us to believe that He created the animals with their species only by His words (and it was so), so as with the plants and their species, and the birds and fishes... and if there is the said adaptation amongst these, I believe that it is the result of the curse of nature as part of Adam's punishment because of his disobedience to God's command.
Also, in the Ten Commandments in Exodus which was written by Moses too, can we say that it is not literal? Then the Israelites should rest 1000 years in order to follow the commandments :)...
Yes, I agree that not all of the Bible is literal, that's why we are told to study it (know what it really say)... and to rightly divide it (putting things/words in its proper place) (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) so that we can understand and discern what the passage teaches us. And with regards to the Creation, I believe that the Bible teaches a literal 6 days. The 1000 years as 1 day with the Lord is the one I considered as poetic/figurative...:) Science only discovers what God has created, and it is because God created man in His image: with intellect, emotion, and will... that's why we are different from other creatures, and we were given this capability to explore, invent, experiment, reason, and even argue against our Creator, but He is Omnipotent! To God be the glory!
I hope I make sense... :)
Thank you everyone. :)
Mod
Asia (semi–hiatus) wrote: "E wrote: "Creation in exactly 6 days, I don't have a strong opinion on. I've heard the whole debate on "1000 years is one day to God" blah blah blah. To me, everything was created lol the "Science"..."
I agree. I know a lot of people are like the Bible proves science...but science proves the bible haha if that makes sense
I agree. I know a lot of people are like the Bible proves science...but science proves the bible haha if that makes sense
Lily wrote: "Asia (semi–hiatus) wrote: "E wrote: "Creation in exactly 6 days, I don't have a strong opinion on. I've heard the whole debate on "1000 years is one day to God" blah blah blah. To me, everything wa..."
Yeah. Like Husky and Bulldogs. They're adaption, or breeding. But they're still dogs. I know a lot of examples of Adaptation. But Macro is more....Gorilla turned bat. and no one has ever seen that
Yeah. Like Husky and Bulldogs. They're adaption, or breeding. But they're still dogs. I know a lot of examples of Adaptation. But Macro is more....Gorilla turned bat. and no one has ever seen that
Mod
Amen!
Mod
"Gorilla to bat" 🤣🤣🤣 I laughed soo hard!
Lily wrote: "Kara wrote: "Lily wrote: "Asia (semi–hiatus) wrote: "E wrote: "Creation in exactly 6 days, I don't have a strong opinion on. I've heard the whole debate on "1000 years is one day to God" blah blah ..."
HAHAHA. It was just the first thing that came to mind. Apparently I read somewhere evolutionists believe that Squirrels turned into birds, birds turned into apes and apes turned into humans......
HAHAHA. It was just the first thing that came to mind. Apparently I read somewhere evolutionists believe that Squirrels turned into birds, birds turned into apes and apes turned into humans......
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Yeah. They were probably the babies or tiny version. also I found a really good video about some the evolutionists who can't give the proof of evolution.
https://youtu.be/mQaReWoUyyQ
https://youtu.be/mQaReWoUyyQ
Mod
But the video is just funny to watch. Like ummm hello. WE WANT DIFFERENT KINDSSS NOT BACTERIA TURNING INTO ANOTHER BACTERIA!!!!! Micro-"Evolution" is just adaptation not evolution sillies
Mod
There were some arguments further back from Mary-Therese and E that I'll respond to in a bit. I'm currently just modding the debates since that's my job... XD
I agree with pretty much everyone on here. My belief is six day, literal, supernatural, miraculous creation by God. I believe that Genesis is literal, not figurative.
I also agree with everything Arnie said up above. (thanks for responding, btw! ;D)
I'm not sure what I think about the unicorns thing. What's the evidence on that? Can you show me the source? Sometimes I think people say those things but don't really have any proof at all. If unicorns did exist, I think Noah would have brought them on the ark and the would have gone extinct later on.
As for the dinos, humans and dinos had to coexist as there are many passages in Job siting types of creatures that sound like dinos. I believe the went extinct during the ice age after the flood.
Mod
There were some arguments further back from Mary-Therese and E that I'll respond to in a bit. I'm currently just modding the debates since that's my job... XD
I ag..."
Oh. I thought the unicorns thing was a joke 😳😭😭
Mod
There were some arguments further back from Mary-Therese and E that I'll respond to in a bit. I'm currently just modding the debates since that's my ..."
Hahaha! I didn't think it was....
Was it?
Lily wrote: "Oooh!!! And dragons! :D"I think that possibly because the word dinosaur was only 'invented' in the 1800's, people called dinosaurs dragons before that
Mod
Kara wrote: "Asia (semi–hiatus) wrote: "E wrote: "Creation in exactly 6 days, I don't have a strong opinion on. I've heard the whole debate on "1000 years is one day to God" blah blah blah. To me, everything wa..."HA! HA! HA! Gorilla turned to bat!!! Have a good laugh too! :)
Go! Kara!!! :)
The KJV mentioned Unicorn/s several times... :)
Mod
Oh, thanks so much for that insight, Arnie! I had no idea!
Mod
Which verses?
So as a Christian, I obviously stand for Creation, but let me state why. Evolution simply just doesn't work. No offense to any of the great scientists in the world, but honestly, think about it, there are so many questions that pop up:
1. How come humans now reproduce instead of evolve?
2. How did it happen so fast?
3. Where can we prove that we came from monkeys/apes?
And many more.
So if we think about it, the scientists have no explanation that proves we came from monkeys and even if we did, how come we don't anymore?
Also, science says that evolution happened quickly, I would venture to say too quickly. I mean, how did it happen SO fast that literally we were apes/monkeys and then the next few years we become humans. I mean that's a little unrealistic.
Also, as far as I know, there's no explanation about the life in the process of evolution. In other words, science doesn't describe the "in between" stage of monkeys and humans.
For Christians, the Bible explains every single detail of how creation came to be, and how we humans were made. Don't believe me? I got you, look up the book of Genesis and read through that, that should help you out. The Creation story clearly states that God made the world and everything in it, giving us something to believe in, especially because all of the facts are there. Have a question and the Bible has an answer.
So some of you would say that I haven't proved anything, and you'd be right. I've just restated facts and voiced my opinion, and I will stand strong beside my opinion. Please remember that this is just my own opinion and I'm just glad to share, thanks!
Mod
No problem! You know me and going on rants lol
Mod
And I love you for it! XD
Lily wrote: "Arniegamilong wrote: "The KJV mentioned Unicorn/s several times... :)"Which verses?"
:) I think it is in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8... also in Job 39:9&10... oh! it's also in Psalms 29:6 & 92:10... you can also try to open at Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalms 22:21 and Isaiah 34:7... :) I just don't know if this is the kind of unicorns pictured in the movies though... :) Oh! and the Bible also mentions "Dragons" (which I know you already knew :) )... That's why I love my Bible so much! It always shows itself really Inspired by God... :)
✨ava✨ wrote: "So as a Christian, I obviously stand for Creation, but let me state why. Evolution simply just doesn't work. No offense to any of the great scientists in the world, but honestly, think about it, ..."
That's wonderful Ava! :) Clap! Clap! to you! :) Actually, as I see it, it needs more faith to believe in evolution than in the Bible creation... :)... just because their claims are harder to prove scientifically... while the Bible's claims can be easily proven by reason... :) Just saying... :)
Arniegamilong wrote: "✨ava✨ wrote: "So as a Christian, I obviously stand for Creation, but let me state why. Evolution simply just doesn't work. No offense to any of the great scientists in the world, but honestly, th..."
yes! i agree
Mod
Evolution simply just doesn't work. No offense to any of the great scientists in the world, but honestly, th..."
I completely agree, Arnie! While science is easily explained from the Biblical worldview, you have to try really hard and use lots of bandages to fit science into the theory of evolution.
Mod
Mod
Hi all! I stumbled across this debate when exploring the Goodreads groups. I have just completed my degree in Earth Science, and was raised in a very secular society. This discussion is fascinating to me, as I've never heard people discuss a creationist perspective!
I have a few questions I'd like to ask respectfully. I know very little about the creationist perspective so I apologise if I misrepresent an opinion (eg. From this thread I gather that it is often argued the world is 6,000 years old?).
I'll start with the one I'm most curious about - How do you explain the age of rocks?
There are many technologies we can used to accurately date minerals and geological formations to well, well beyond 6,000 years. I'm happy to discuss these if you'd like, but I'll omit for brevity.
We also know from research (again I will omit for brevity) that many types of rocks/minerals take more than 6,000 years to form. Notably, sedimentary rocks which form following millions of years of weathering and deposition.
Genuinely excited to hear your responses! :)
Arniegamilong wrote: "Kara wrote: "Asia (semi–hiatus) wrote: "E wrote: "Creation in exactly 6 days, I don't have a strong opinion on. I've heard the whole debate on "1000 years is one day to God" blah blah blah. To me, ..."
XD
XD
Carsie wrote: "So glad you decided to join the debate! I really appreciate the chance to discuss this topic with someone from the secular side of the debate. I've grown up in the Christian community all my life, ..."
You have some good points. I also think that your flood point was super good! That's also probably why we have found whale skeleton in Egypt. :)
You have some good points. I also think that your flood point was super good! That's also probably why we have found whale skeleton in Egypt. :)
Mod
I have just completed my degree in Earth Science, and was raised in a very secular society. This discussion is fascinati..."
Hii!!! Thank you for being so respectful! Like Carsie said, in Answers in Genesis and Acts & Facts, there's lots of scientists who are all creationists, which I think is really interesting! I love that you want to see both sides. Since you have a degree in Earth Science, just in your opinion, do you think that it would be possible for a hugely catastrophic event such as a global flood to distribute sediment in a matter of days or weeks instead of it having to take millions of years? And what of a similar conclusion with the continents being separated from each other? As in it happening relatively suddenly as a result of a global flood instead of extremely slowly with a Mid-Atlantic Ridge? I know you don't take a creationist stance, but just from what you know, what do you think of the idea of a 6,000 year old earth?
Carsie wrote: "So glad you decided to join the debate! I really appreciate the chance to discuss this topic with someone from the secular side of the debate. I've grown up in the Christian community all my life, ..."Excited to be here, and I will do my best to offer a clear secular perspective! I don't have much of a background in biology (I always found it pretty boring) but I will try my best. Please know I come from a place of respect and curiosity.
Thank you for those links! I had a read and it certainly offered an alternative viewpoint. It was very interesting to hear creationism being described so scientifically. I completely agree that if there was such catastrophic natural disasters we certainly would see it reflected in our geology!
My interpretation of these sources is that the author has started with a belief, and then used observations to fit this belief. In rigorous scientific practice, we are taught to begin with observations, rather than beliefs. We then construct theories based on multiple lines of evidence.
The author describes "ocean creatures" in the Himalayas, and folding belts as evidence for creationism. These observations can all be explained by plate tectonics, which results in uplift and folding. When I first learnt about this it blew my mind!! When two tectonics plates collide, they converge to form mountain ranges. Marine sediments (which originally formed at sea level) are uplifted to the top of the mountains. These processes occur over very long timescales (millions of years).
Lilyyy wrote: "Desdemona wrote: "Hi all! I stumbled across this debate when exploring the Goodreads groups. I have just completed my degree in Earth Science, and was raised in a very secular society. This discu..."
Hi there! Respectfully, I do not believe it is possible that the Earth is 6,000 years old. In short, we can sample groundwater/rocks/fossils. By using isotopes and/or radiometric dating, we can accurately date these samples to well beyond 6,000 years.
Groundwater is recharged by precipitation. Using bores to extract groundwater from aquifers, we can date the age of this groundwater through geochemical tracers. If that much rain/flooding occurred 6,000 years ago, our global aquifers should be completely dominated by 6,000 year old water - they are not.
Deep groundwater can be hundreds of thousands of years old in some regions of the world. It is very common for groundwater to be dated by environmental consultancies and/or governments. This is because the overexploitation of groundwater systems (extracting groundwater for agriculture/drinking water) has serious socioeconomic consequences.
I can think of other points that I feel refute the concept of a young earth, but I don’t think info dumping is super helpful. I am happy to follow along discussions and offer my opinion as certain topics come up. If you would ever like me to elaborate more, please ask. :)
Mod
I have just completed my degree in Earth Science, and was raised in a very secular soci..."
Oh, thanks for the reply! I've never seen anyone do radiometric dating or anything like that, but I did hear an argument that with dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions and millions of years old but Carbon-14 can still be detected in them. Carbon-14 has a half life of like 5,730 years, right? That means that half of the Carbon-14 should disintegrate every 5,730 years, so if the dinosaur bones were tens of millions of years old (or even more perhaps?) shouldn't the Carbon-14 have gone through so many half lives that you can't detect it anymore?
And then I think they said that with radiometric dating and sampling from various sources, scientists automatically assume that decay rates have been completely constant all throughout history. Of course assuming that, you would get that the Earth is millions of years old, but then again, if it was that old, how come the carbon still exists in large enough amounts to be able to be detected?
I don't even know how much you go into this with Earth Science, but the groundwater thing did sound really interesting! I haven't heard about that before :)
Lilyyy wrote: "I did hear an argument that with dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions and millions of years old but Carbon-14 can still be detected in them. Carbon-14 has a half life of like 5,730 years, right?"Unfortunately a very common misconception is that dinosaur fossils are dated using Carbon-14. C-14 is a great tool to date systems until around 50,000 years. You are absolutely right, detectable C-14 has completely decayed at this point.
There are other radioactive isotopes that can be used to date older systems. Potassium-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years so it can be used to date older rocks/fossils. Uranium-Lead can be used to date rocks that are over 4 billion years old.
The Australian museum's site describes some radioactive isotopes and their applications: https://australian.museum/learn/miner...
We assume that radioactive decay has a rate constant throughout geological time. In order for this rate to be altered, the fundamental properties of an isotope would have to change. I can see that from a religious perspective this could be possible. From a scientific perspective, it is not.
More on radioactive decay and radiometric dating here: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelv...
Carsie wrote: "Desdemona wrote: "My interpretation of these sources is that the author has started with a belief, and then used observations to fit this belief. In rigorous scientific practice, we are taught to b..."Thank you Carsie! It's true we all have bias. I actually agree that my faith in science can feel quite religious. I am often left in awe at the processes on our planet, so I seek explanations for it. I look at some of the things I've learnt and I think - I can totally see why people believe in God!
That's why I think science is amazing, it explains so many remarkable things. Unfortunately my brain is not wired to follow religion - but I like to think I can empathise with it. :)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Makes sense to me!😄