Biblical Anwers To Common Arguments Against Creation
edited: Thursday, September 27, 2007
By Eddie Thompson
Rated "G" by the Author.
Posted: Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Become a Fan
(The author examines a few common questions asked by those debating the Biblical account of origins. Please help me by contacting me if the answers to the questions listed below are written in wingdings on your computer.)
BIBLICAL ANSWERS TO COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST CREATION
The lack of knowledge concerning the Biblical account of creation is frustrating. Atheists make erroneous arguments about concepts and positions the Bible doesn’t support in the first place. Silly questions are offered as proof that the Biblical account of origins couldn’t possibly be true , and unsuspecting proponents of creation by intelligent design, in ignorance, often end up defending an argument the Bible does not support. Proponents of an intelligent design of our world have no need to fear scientific scrutiny. The fossil record, the laws of our universe, and logic lend themselves more to the theory of creation by intelligent design than to that of evolution.
Most of the false arguments are rooted in perspective. By rejecting the theory of intelligent design out of hand, many fail to logically inspect the possibility that evolution’s explanation of origins leaves much to be desired. Suspension of disbelief is actually more important for the evolutionist than the creationist when it comes to origins. Following are just a few of the questions debated by those with differing views of origins that constitute erroneous arguments where both sides play fast and loose with the Biblical account of origins:
1. If the world was created approximately ten thousand years ago, why does the evidence seem to suggest that the earth is millions of years older?
~~You may be surprised to know that the Bible does not say that the earth was created during the seven days of creation. The earth was reshaped and reformed into the present condition and dispensation during those seven days. The earth itself already existed, though formless, probably due to a previous judgment of God. The surface was covered with water and darkness. (Genesis 1:1-2)
2. The Bible says that there were days and nights before a sun or moon even existed. How can there be days without first having a sun?
~~This is exactly the sort of argument an atheist would immediately espouse because he fails to look at the entire picture. He fails to give this intelligent Designer the benefit of forethought and planning. The number “24,” like all numbers, means something in the Kingdom of God. It deals with government, as in the 24 elders of His throne room—12 from the Old Testament and 12 from the New Testament. (Revelation 4:4) The atheist fails to allow that the concept of time existed before the actually principles which would govern time could be put into place. First the designer formatted the 24 hour concept, and then put in place those governmental bodies which would oversee this format, the sun and the moon. (Genesis 1:14-19) The Kingdom of God didn’t need a sun or moon to dictate the concept of time, and the time will come when that will be true again. (Revelation 21:23)
3. What about the dinosaurs?
~~There is much that is not discussed in the Bible. The text is designed to shed light on our present dispensation. Who knows how many times the earth had been used by civilizations or dispensations in the past? Who knows how many times God destroyed the earth by flood, as He did in the times of Noah. (Genesis 7:23) Afterwards, He made a promise to Noah that He would not destroy the world by flood again. (Genesis 9:11) This suggests there was almost a frustration with God at having destroyed the world that way so many times in the past. We see the world in a state of destruction at the beginning of our dispensation before it was reformed. There is certainly room to suggest that any fossil record recording dinosaurs or any other form of creature is acceptable from the point of view of the proponent of intelligent design of our world. The Bible does not restrict the possibility.
4. Who did Adam and Eve’s children marry when they were forced from the Garden of Eden?
~~This common fallacy in the repertoire of the atheist argument comes from a misunderstanding of just who Adam and Eve are in the first place. Again, atheists and creationists may be surprised to know that the Bible clearly states that on the sixth day God created men and women. (Genesis 1:27) We know that Eve was not created until much later, long after Adam had named the animals and grown lonely. (Genesis 2:20-25) So there were other females, and no doubt males, created on day six of creation. Adam was taken from the males of the sixth day—or perhaps created at some other time altogether…the Bible doesn’t necessarily restrict this point—and placed in the Garden. (Genesis 2:15) The children of Adam and Eve could have found mates from among those humans created on the sixth day of creation who were not privy to the Garden of Eden. In fact, if Adam’s breath from the nostrils of God separated him from other males, (Genesis 2:7) the explanation for the scripture that says the “sons of God joined with the daughters of men” could be that Adam’s offspring mixed with the offspring of those other men and women formed on the sixth day of creation. (Genesis 6:4)
There are many other shots non-believers take at believers concerning the Biblical account of origins. Some try to twist scripture to illustrate that the account in Genesis contradicts itself. These fallacies usually occur when trying to compare the activity in the Garden of Eden to the days of creation. These events are separate. The use of logic could prevent some false argument from arising.
Science offers us the fossil record which, for the most part, agrees with the Biblical account that most of what exists today suddenly appears in the earth’s record in a manner supporting the theory of creation by intelligent design. Evolution is hamstrung by the fact that most of its missing links are still missing. There is even some evidence available that indicates a young universe: the rate of deceleration of the earth’s rotation upon its axis, the amount of space dust on the moon’s surface, the existence of comets which lose material on each circle around the sun, and other such observed items. If the universe was as old as suggested by some, the earth would no longer spin on its axis, the dust on the moon would be deeper, and all comets would have practically dissolved over time.
Many evolutionists consider the argument finished. Their faith that God does not exist sustains them more than the support they have in scientific evidence for their belief, yet they attack creationists for being sustained by faith. After a couple of centuries of attacking the Biblical account of origins, most people on this planet still align themselves with the concept of an intelligent designer of our world. That fact alone speaks volumes.
Web Site: Alabaster Publishing Company
Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!
|Reviewed by random lickspittle (Reader)
|Hello, while i do not believe in creationism, this is not ann attack on youre beliefs, it is simply a quaestion that i have been wondering about for a long time conserning the basis of christianity. The bible was written by those who followed jesus christ, correct. if this is the case then you have placed all the arguments you have written firmly in the hands of one man. you msy srgue that he is the son of god but i just have to ask, sorry about any disrespect that might be interpreted with the following: How do you know that he wasnt simply a lunatic or a revelutionary trying to turn people to his point of view with promises of a less cruel god than those of the romans? I mean, the only argument i think of is that god would have struck him down, but then, why hasnt the same happened to diciples of other religions. This is just honest curiosity, please do not get angry.|
|Reviewed by J.D. Dunn (Reader)
|As a non-literalist Christian, I appreciate any attempts to reconcile the Biblical stories with reality. I do want to point out that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God or lack thereof. Evolutionary theorists have no position either way.
I do have a bigger problem, though, with the Theological War strategists who feel it is okay to lie or use fallacious thought to convert (or to strengthen their own beliefs).
-"Evolution is hamstrung by the fact that most of its missing links are still missing." This is just not true. There is a direct link of evolutionary fossils. To suggest otherwise is to be dishonest or is moving the goal posts farther back. If the fossil record and remains don't satisfy you, then genetic links should.
-The 'earth deceleration' myth has been debunked. It's a mistaken calculation by creationists.
-The 'moondust' myth has likewise been debunked. YEC depend on data from before 1960 (before we even landed on the moon) to come up with this claim.
-"Evolution is based on faith in the unseen origin, and so our schools are actually teaching the RELIGION of Evolution! Ain't that somethin', we can't say "Jesus loves you" but we can teach the religion of evolution. (Even Darwin changed his mind before he died.)"
Virtually all of the above is untrue and really bats for the cycle. Evolution itself has nothing to do with the origin of life. It has to do with changes over time. The Theory of the Descent of Man has to do with the origin of human life, and that is seen in the fossil record and in the discovered remains. Religion doesn't enter into it. Would a police detective be relying on religion to say a murder occurred at a crime scene even if he didn't witness it?
Darwin didn't change his mind before he died. That's a myth propagated by creationists. (I guess if the devil can use the truth to tell a lie, a 'true' Christian can use a lie to tell the Truth?)
-"God does exist, take my word for it" is an Appeal to Authority, and if I don't take His word for it, why would I take someone on the internet's -- especially someone with admitted less authority?
-"Science always seems to answer questions with questions." Actually, science answers questions and then questions those answers to see if they hold up. That's just how it works, and it works quite well.
-"I ask them to prove to me that God does not exist and they do not know what to say." Another fallacious argument. You can't prove a negative. For a counter-proposal - Why don't you prove *I'm* not God?
-"if people say there is no god, who do you think made all the beautiful stars, the sky, the trees, the animals?" Who do you think made all the beautiful God?
As I said, I appreciate attempts to reconcile the good book with the advancements we've made in the ensuing 1700-2000 years in which it was written, but using or repeating lies, falsehoods and fallacious thinking only sets back the cause of finding Truth.
|Reviewed by Rich Regals (Reader)
|I hate how people always see it as religion OR science. Science can be about understanding Gods mysteries, not taking them down. I don't get the literalist view on the bible though... There are some things that should very probably not be taken exactly literally (stoning people etc.), so I don't see that the creation myth needs to be exactly correct as written to validate the book as a whole.
Why isn't evolution just like this series of floods, a method of God improving what he created, an ongoing creation miracle...
|Reviewed by John Martin
|Well said. Eddie. But why argue with atheists, their first premise is wrong. God does exist, take my word for it.. If the first premise is wrong, then everything based on it is wrong. When asked … If there is a God how come…? My answer is simple… Why don’t you ask him?|
|Reviewed by Jimmy Morcaldi (Reader)
|In response to #1, The words don't give any hint that the earth had already existed prior to God's creating them. [In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, it was a formless wasteland..] The Bible explains that Earth's first appearance was precisely when God had created it along with the heavens on the first day (Genesis 1:1-5). Unless you insert a gap of billions of years between lines 2 and 3, then God proceeds directly after this to mold the formless wasteland into the earth we know today. "God THEN said, 'Let there be light'..." 'Then' specifies that his sweeping over the mighty waters is the instance in which the reshaping commenced. If lines 1 and 2 have no break of time between them, then the word 'Then' in line 3 specifies the reshaping to occur at the point in time directly after the act of creation. This means that God did not wait billions of years to build our modern earth. There was no gap separating its reshaping and its coming into existence.
If the word's aren't taken for their literal meaning, then anyone can add 'probablys' to the whole book, and then what are you left with but a template for one's own imagination that allows them to make-up whatever story they would like to think happened. Something that is up for that much interpretation cannot be a solid basis for one's view of the theory of the origin's life. One might as well start from scratch with their own creation story. I think we should come to terms with reality and admit that we have no idea how it happened.
|Reviewed by D. Kenneth Ross
|I support the theory of intelligent design, however my belief is centered in my experience with OBE (out of body experience) which I had when my heart stopped in a hospital almost thirty years ago. The process the body goes through at death is an amazing set of occurrences. I was 'dead' for about three minutes. while the doctors were zapping me I was an interested observer from above the clamor of activity on the be beneath me. I was in the most tranquil state of having gone beyond pain and the restraints of simply living. I know what I saw and I also know what some scientists claim I went through, describing it as a natural process protecting any human from the finality of death. Or protecting one from trauma as the body shuts down. They insist this is simply a normal function everyone experiences at death, a release of endorphins. To that I will agree and then ask, "If this is so, what is the need for that process if we cease to exist immediately upon dying? None? Well, yes, if there really is nothing else, no feeling, nothing: and a resounding NO if its purpose serves as the transition between one existence governed by physical function and another higher form of being. At least ponder this.|
|Reviewed by Errr oooo
|I think people take the Bible to seriously. It doesn't matter about dates, names and events. It is about a belief that we can overcome anything. The book "Angels and Demons" really explains this better than I could. Science always seems to answer questions with questions. The church was started to communicate and create unity. Hence the word community.|
|Reviewed by Andrew Street
|Can someone explain to me the literalist interpretation of the Bible? I just dont get it. Surely a semitoic approach would make more sense, especially to a book that served to answer "Why" rather than "How". A brief look at the oral traditions of any of the tribes of Asia Minor and the Middle East will tell you that. Failing to do so is really taking the text out of its appropriate context, that is, plumping it straight into the 21 century society. And the fact is, regardless of your opinion on Evolution, if you have grown up in modern society you have been influenced by scientific methodology. Proof of that can be found in a literial interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. I just went full circle|
|Reviewed by Flying Fox Ted L Glines
|Good article, and way overdue! The only one I have a problem with is the answer to question #1. We have artifacts from archeological digs dating human (Indian) occupation of eastern California, the coastal area, and western Arizona at about 27,000 years ago, and progressive digs dating right up through only 1,000 years ago, as the Indians spread through North America following the last ice age. There is no room in this for Noah or his world-wide flood. Otherwise, the rest of the answers seem good, and this is a great article. And I think I'm with Cynth'ya on this one. Creation, seen from a scientific POV would look a whole lot like a Big Bang!
|Reviewed by Bryn'n Dykens (Reader)
|I am taking a college anthropology class (The study of man). My professor is tying very diligently to transform the entire campus into atheists. This is a controversial subject because I am a very devote Mormon! The class did not cause me to doubt God, but I did feel overwhelmed by the one sided curriculum. I greatly appreciated your article because it simply and clearly brought to light the opposing augments of evolution.
|Reviewed by Cynth'ya firstname.lastname@example.org
|Logic of man is way out of league with the logic of God. We discussed this same thing in bible class a few weeks ago. Evolution is based on faith in the unseen origin, and so our schools are actually teaching the RELIGION of Evolution! Ain't that somethin', we can't say "Jesus loves you" but we can teach the religion of evolution. (Even Darwin changed his mind before he died.)
Very good writing piece my friend and Brother!
|Reviewed by Lee Garrett
|A very intelligent analysis, insightful, and comprehensive.|
|Reviewed by Karen Chalfant (Reader)
|Wonderful article with many points well made! Thank you!|
|Reviewed by Judy Lloyd (Reader)
|Well I see it this way the bible says that a thousand years shall pass in the twinkling of an eye. Which is a wink. I ask them to prove to me that God does not exist and they do not know what to say.|
|Reviewed by Cynthia Borris
Nice to see you on the board. So if I cut, paste and convert the wingdings, I'll have the answers?
Point well made. Happy Easter!
|Reviewed by Karen Lynn Vidra, The Texas Tornado
|i love the way your mind works, pastor eddie; personally, i prefer to believe in creation. i have but one question, though, and it is a good one...if people say there is no god, who do you think made all the beautiful stars, the sky, the trees, the animals? man certainly couldn't have done that! very well done!
(((HUGS))) and much love, your friend in tx., karen lynn. :)
i am doing much better now; thanks for the prayers!