Creationism vs. Evolution, Big Bang, and Abiogenesis? No

Friendly, spirited debates please people! Keep it clean.
User avatar
cezen
Elf
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
Status: Offline

Creationism vs. Evolution, Big Bang, and Abiogenesis? No

Postby cezen » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:34 pm

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.


Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.


First of all, Genesis first two verses do open with the fact that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Heavens representing the Sky and Stars. At least, that's how one could interpret it.
It doesn't mention how or when, so one could speculate the Big Bang. So, Genesis in no way contradicts the Big Bang.
I believe science is a tool of God, and he set it off, so that the Universe could in fact run itself.

Two, focusing on this quotes explanation for the first few creative days:
The Earth was formed from the dust and gas ring of a Solar Nebula, according to scientists.
So, ring of dust and gas detached from it and floated around in space, and some came together becoming the Earth.

This supports possibility that there was still gas and dust in the Earth's atmosphere, possibly blocking the sunlight.
After all, theory for how the Ice Age started suggests that the debris from an Asteroid hitting Earth blocked the sun - and caused an Ice Age.
Also, there's the fact that the the Moon is said, by scientists, to have formed from similar debris in the Earth's Atmosphere - from an Asteroid hitting the Earth.

So, between the debris that was definitely in the atmosphere that eventually became the moon or the dust and gas that I postulate might have been lying around, since the Earth was first formed from a ring of dust and gas, this interpretation is entirely possible - and does not contradict science.

So when God said "let there be light", the atmosphere cleared to the point that light was shining actually through onto the Earth.

And when God said "let there be lights in the expanse of the sky", the atmosphere cleared to the point that you weren't only seeing light, but you could actually make out the shapes and forms of both the Sun and Moon when looking up into the sky. And, the light difference was extreme enough you could use it to tell the difference between day and night.
It possibly cleared because the debris that could have been possibly blocking the light - the debris from the asteroid that hit the Earth - formed into the Moon by around that time.


All of this is making use of Figurative Language.
Language used in writing or speech that is not meant to be interpreted literally, as the intent of the language is to create a special effect, idea, image, or feeling.

The use of words, phrases, symbols, and ideas in such as way as to evoke mental images and sense impressions. Figurative language is often characterized by the use of figures of speech, elaborate expressions, sound devices, and syntactic departures from the usual order of literal language.


Three,
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground---the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being
Genesis Chapter 2:4-7

This could symbolically represent Abiogenesis. Life beginning with Amino Acids. "Breathing life" representing God giving the amino acids energy through any of the proposed methods; lightning, ultraviolet light, ect. Basically, energy could be interpreted as the "breath of life". Dust could symbolize the Amino Acids(which are small particles).

There is no time indicated in the scripture, so it could have happened over any amount of time.

Now, later in the creative days, it says
Genesis Chapter 1:25-27
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

After previously "forming man from dust and making him a living being", it says that he made all the animals - and then decides to make man in his own image.

Couldn't that be interpreted as evolution? He makes all the animals, then gives the animal that was us, man, our own species, so we look different.

The fact that he previously mentioned creating man, means that we were alive in some form before he us into his own image.

In conclusion:
Bible: God first made man from dust, and breathed the breath of life so it became a living being.
Science: Man first formed from small molecules called Amino Acids which were energized from any various possible methods which became the first life.
Bible: God made animals according to their kind. And God saw it was good. Then God said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"
Science: There were animals. And then, the first human beings gradually evolved into their own species, from them.

Science and Creationism are compatible.
Creationism isn't literal.
It doesn't have to be

Christian: No, creationism is true. Evolution is impossible. Now watch me spout how ignorant I am of how it works in an attempt to refute you.
Evolutionist: No, evolution is true. Creationism is impossible. It says he created the Sun and Moon after Earth and watch me spout bull about how the Bible says 6,000 year old Earth without researching the fact that it doesn't.
(these are supposed to represent the extreme people on each side)

Use science to enrich your understanding of Genesis.
Truth is: Texas sucks.

How is Gunny feeling on First Earth?
Image

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Creationism vs. Evolution, Big Bang, and Abiogenesis? No

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:25 am

cezen wrote:It doesn't mention how or when, so one could speculate the Big Bang. So, Genesis in no way contradicts the Big Bang.
I believe science is a tool of God, and he set it off, so that the Universe could in fact run itself.

Indeed! I think for some reason, people get this view of God as a cheap magician who just poofed everything into existence. But it makes much more sense to view the universe as the result of a highly intelligent designer, who has programmed and designed everything to even more exact specifications than the people who design computers and computer programs. We are "coded" with specific, ordered information, and if the material was not in that order, we would function as well as a random string of numbers would in a computer.

cezen wrote:
What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long.

All of this is making use of Figurative Language.

I don't know enough about the beginning of the universe or the earth to evaluate the theories you've put forth, but I really like that last part about the 'use of the Figurative Language.' First of all, as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to hold so religiously to the 6000 year earth model, as I see that as being only one interpretation. Even the man who originally suggested it said that it was possible, but ONLY if a number of uncertain factors in the Bible were interpreted a certain way. By no means did he believe that someone who believed the earth was more or less than 6000 years was a heretic.

As for how long a 'day' was, I'm surprised churches are so inflexible on this. I mean, in our own language, when we use the word 'day,' we generally mean a twenty-four hour period, or else we are talking about the time during the day when it is light out.

However, we may also use the word 'day' figuratively (for example, we might say 'in the day of the dinosaurs'), to refer to a period of time other than twenty four hours. If we can adjust the use of words in our own language to make things sound more poetic, or use a word figuratively rather than literally, why do we expect people back then to have been so rigid?

I've heard some of the 'young earth' arguments before, and honestly to my ears they sound sort of desperate (not to insult anyone who believes in young earth of course) in that they appear to be arguments based on the sole fact that the apparently the Bible 'says' the earth is young, and so they must find any evidence possible that contradicts the old earth theory. The old earth arguments seem much stronger to me, and I haven't found a reason why to think that accepting the earth is old contradicts the my beliefs about God and the Bible.

cezen wrote:This could symbolically represent Abiogenesis. Life beginning with Amino Acids. "Breathing life" representing God giving the amino acids energy through any of the proposed methods; lightning, ultraviolet light, ect. Basically, energy could be interpreted as the "breath of life". Dust could symbolize the Amino Acids(which are small particles).


I agree with your overall point that science and religion are not enemies, rather they enhance one another. However, I believe there is strong evidence against the Darwinist version of evolutionary theory (that all life came from a single organism) from purely scientific standpoint, not even bringing a personal religious belief into it.

I did believe simultaneously in Darwinism and what I learned at church for a long time, and it hasn't been until after I've begun to seriously question Darwin's theory that I've also begun to wonder if the two things are really compatible after all. The method of natural selection seems a cruel and violent way for God to shape an originally perfect world.

User avatar
holly11short
Gremlin
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:17 pm
Real First Name: Kate
Location: A point in the space/time continuum.
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Creationism vs. Evolution, Big Bang, and Abiogenesis? No

Postby holly11short » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:22 am

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking all of this. :) I actually haven't read the Bible myself, and I don't have a church that I go to, but my family and I are what we like to call "Non-Denominational" Christians. And personally I like it that way. But I remember talking to my dad once and basically saying what you said:
cezen wrote:
I believe science is a tool of God, and he set it off, so that the Universe could in fact run itself.

Science and Intelligent Design are perfectly compatible, and it makes me sad when people refuse to think outside of the box. People say that God can't exist because what makes this universe run is a complex system of compatible chemicals and there's been no proof of Him. But what I say to you, my friend, is God knows all. He is omniscient. So if He is so powerful, why couldn't He have designed that complex system and made the world as it is? Why couldn't He have designed the DNA that makes up who you are? Why couldn't He design the miracle that ice floats? God trying to explain these things to us would be like us trying to explain why the sun moves from East to West in the sky. I believe that's why He gave us our free will and our minds, so that we ourselves can figure out all of these great mysteries.
"That's what happens when you're a genius." The centaur smiled. "Look, I scraped an F for Foaly!"

The daruma doll fell o...
Spoiler:
VER!!!!

Hufflepuffs are great finders!
What the h*** is a Hufflepuff?


Return to “The Debate Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum : Disclaimer
cron

Login  •  Register