Young Writers Society

You really are going to go with that, Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden existed, you really going to try suggest this? Okay let's try clear up some facts, the Garden of Eden is yet to be found or even proven it existed outside the bible, there is no verifiable proof or historical proof it existed. There is actual documented proof for these accounts of evolution, links. The bible isn't a historical document or scientific document, everything science claims is proven with backlogs of data, and if a theory is proven false it is discarded. Thus this is why science holds religions like Christianity in less regard as the information contained in these books have proven to be false through years of research, centuries even.

well personally i believe in evolution but everyone is entitled to their own opinion .however i am not going to denounce creationism because if you think about it anything is possible and scientific logic does not make something impossible.the garden of eden could have existed but it is (currently) inaccessible to our kind

Firstly, let's remember that everyone is allowed to believe what they wish. Evolution can be an extremely sensitive topic for people. So, please. Be understanding.

As for me, I am a very, very strong Christian, yet I still believe in The Big Bang Theory (it's also a hilarious TV show, for those of you who don't know), as well as evolution.

None of you guys have to take to heart what I am saying, but I am directing this towards a Christian audience. Depending on how you look at the Bible, if you look at the original Hebrew texts, we see that the Bible actually makes room for a very long creation period as well as evolution. Theories of evolution as well as a long creation process do not disprove the original account of Genesis.

Let's look at interpretation. You can be Creationist or Evolutionist and still believe in the account of Genesis. The writers of the Old Testament used Hebrew poetic properties, which include a lot of figurative language (a primary characteristic in Hebrew writings). Many Evolutionists believe that Genesis should be taken figuratively and symbolically. However, there is still a way to take it literally and still be an Evolutionist.

I now many of you Christians are Creationists. However, evolution is a valid belief system, and Theistic Evolutionists are free to believe it if they choose. It doesn’t mean they disregard the Bible in any way.

***I’m going to use the terms "old earth" for those who believe earth was created over billions of years, and "young earth" for those who believe literally the Genesis account of the six day creation.

Let's look at the original Hebrew:

The Hebrew word for "day" is the word "Yom." Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day.

One must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has. Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.

Let's start with the possible meanings of Yom;

Source: The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Source: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

“from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger.”

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.

Other uses for the word Yom:

Day is not the only translation for the word Yom in the Bible. Here are some other translations:

---Time---
Genesis 4:3
Deuteronomy 10:10
I Kings 11:42
Isaiah 30:8
In the case of Isaiah, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years... billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years, then why not billions of years in Genesis?

---Year---
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year."
I Kings 1:1
2 Chronicles 21:19
Amos 4:4
In each case here, Yom represents years, not days.

---Age---
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age."
Genesis 18:11, 24:1, Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7, Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime.
Joshua 23:1 and 23:2
Zechariah 8:4

---Ago---
One time Yom is translated "ago."
1 Samuel 9:20

---Always---
Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7.

---Season---
Three times yom is translated "season."
Genesis 40:4
Joshua 24:7
2 Chronicles 15:3
In each case here yom represents a multi-month period.

---Chronicles---
When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).

---Continually---
When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).

---Ever---
Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9. Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The Old Testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. Thus, Yom, in 16 verses, represents eternity.

---Evermore---
In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore” in Deuteronomy 28:29.

As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days... it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.

Yom can be used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.
Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.
Genesis 4:3, In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
Genesis 43:9, Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Genesis 44:32, Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Deuteronomy 4:40, Here, Yom represents a physical lifetime
Deuteronomy 10:10, Here, Yom is a time period equal to forty days.
Deuteronomy 18:5, Again, Yom is translated as eternity
Deuteronomy 19:9, Here, Yom represents a lifetime.

As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent hours, days, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.

(Spoiler) Theologically: (Know that the spoiler might be a little preachy. I do think I make some good points, but just be warned.)



With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods.

Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.

Now about Evolution!!!

Young earth creation science advocates have always argued that a belief in evolution is denial of the Genesis account of fiat (from nothing) creation. They believe that God said it, and poof!, there it was. For the purposes of this discussion, lets look at Day Three, Five, and Six of creation. First, here is the Day Three passage:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11-12)

Notice that God did not say, "Let there be grass," and there was grass. God told the land to produce the vegetation. It was the land doing the producing, not God. God told the earth to bring forth grass, and in verse 12, "the earth brought forth grass..." In essence, God let the land "do its thing" on its own. Instead of fiat, out of nothing creation, the text for Genesis actually supports evolution better. The same is also true of Day Five:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-21)

In this passage where God creates ocean life, He tells the ocean to bring forth the creatures. He does not say, "Let there be whales;" or "let there be sharks." Verse 21 shows the result, that "God created great whales." Verse 20 gives the process God used to create..."Let the waters bring forth..." Again, this seems to support evolution better than fiat, out of nothing creation.

Now let's move on to Day Six:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:24-27)

Again, notice that God instructed the earth to bring forth the living creature. Verse 25 says that "God made," and verse 24 gives the method. God did not say, "Let there be cattle," or "Let there be tigers." He instructed the earth to bring them forth. This again is strong evidence for God's use of evolution.

Even the account of man's creation supports this. Genesis 2:7 says,

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God made man from the dust of the ground... from previously existing material. Young earth creationists admit this, but the implications for evolutionary theory are staggering. It shows that it agrees with the previous creation of life on Days Three, Five, and Six, in that the earth brought forth the creatures.

The Scripture references for the creation of plants and animals seem to support evolutionary theory better than it does fiat creation. As you can plainly see, evolution is not contrary to the creation account, and Christians should feel free to believe in evolution.

CONCLUSION

You can be a Christian and still believe in Evolution, believe in a long Creation period, and still believe in a divinely inspired Word of God that is the Bible. Furthermore, just because God may have used evolution, does it make us any less valuable as human beings? Does it make us less loved by God? Obviously not. You do know about what Jeuss did for us, right? ; )

"...for we were born only yesterday and know nothing,
and our days on earth are but a shadow." Job 8:9

Though it is good to be concerned about the truth, I have learned that as a Christian being involved in debates like this only end up in dead results. People usually come away no more convinced of other parties theories than their own. To me, what matters is now and what you do with your life now. Worrying about the past only brings doubt and fear for the future, and what it holds. And usually the fear of the future springs from the thought of death, because, in reality, our days on earth are but a shadow.

As a Christian I have faith, and faith is no blind assumption, faith is being sure of the hope I hold for the things unseen. While the earth debates about the beginning of itself, many lives are going unchanged and many hearts unattended, brokenhearted. Though the world, theories, man's decisions and thoughts, and the very earth itself changes, Jesus Christ does not. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He offers a life that lives with purpose. Not to bicker about how things came about, but to concentrate on changing lives through Christ's love. That is what Jesus is about, and that is why the present is so important, because no one knows how long they've got before it's all over. In the end, constantly being worried and concerned with something that not everyone is fully convinced of (meaning the how man came about) comes to nothing when you die. What matters is the people you affect what you leave on this earth: a life going for God that changes lives, or a life going for yourself and being ever worried.

I understand this may be out of context but it I felt I needed to input this.

Matthew wrote:"...for we were born only yesterday and know nothing,
and our days on earth are but a shadow." Job 8:9

Though it is good to be concerned about the truth, I have learned that as a Christian being involved in debates like this only end up in dead results. People usually come away no more convinced of other parties theories than their own. To me, what matters is now and what you do with your life now. Worrying about the past only brings doubt and fear for the future, and what it holds. And usually the fear of the future springs from the thought of death, because, in reality, our days on earth are but a shadow.

As a Christian I have faith, and faith is no blind assumption, faith is being sure of the hope I hold for the things unseen. While the earth debates about the beginning of itself, many lives are going unchanged and many hearts unattended, brokenhearted. Though the world, theories, man's decisions and thoughts, and the very earth itself changes, Jesus Christ does not. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He offers a life that lives with purpose. Not to bicker about how things came about, but to concentrate on changing lives through Christ's love. That is what Jesus is about, and that is why the present is so important, because no one knows how long they've got before it's all over. In the end, constantly being worried and concerned with something that not everyone is fully convinced of (meaning the how man came about) comes to nothing when you die. What matters is the people you affect what you leave on this earth: a life going for God that changes lives, or a life going for yourself and being ever worried.

I understand this may be out of context but it I felt I needed to input this.

The reason we think critically and have such discourse is to elevate ourselves above such fallacious nonsense. We're not "worrying" or "bickering" about the past. If you want to willfully ignore the subject of this thread's discussion in order to allow yourself some vulgar delusion, fine, but don't think we will.

inkwell wrote: We're not "worrying" or "bickering" about the past. .

From what I've read, it definitely sounds like it. My viewpoint is one not of a 'vulgar delusion' but a moral and spiritual analysis or thought process. Everyone is free to their opinion, and what I have written is my viewpoint and my opinion. To attack it is purely not civil.

You put your opinion out there. Attacking it should be expected. Where do people get off thinking that every ludicrous opinion they have deserves to be respected, and left without criticism?

that every ludicrous opinion they have deserves to be respected, and left without criticism?

Because personally attacking a person due to a lack of respect for their opinions exposes an ugly hypocrisy in the perpetrator, and makes for a very ugly and pointless debate.
To debate with skill is to maintain respectful composure while stating your point, and not stooping so low as to insult someone for stating theirs.
If not, it's just childish bickering.

Criticizing is one thing, but I was raised to believe that respect for one's right to a 'ludicrous opinion' was non-negotiable. Having observed you many a time, inkwell, you seem like you would appreciate that the most.

Thank you Jojo : )

Sorry for getting off of topic. You can debate now.
I just was compelled to clear that up.

Just a note:

atheism and evolutionism

do not go hand in hand. I'd like to point that out specifically. They often accompany each other, but as seen you can believe in whatever deity you so chose and evolution and natural selection.

To be honest, creationism has been challenged by hard evidence since the 1700s by people who had no intention to do so. The deterioration of the concept of creationism started in the early 1700s at the hands of the ever so mentioned Carolus Linnaeus who introduced binomial nomenclature, a classification system that shows which creatures are similar in certain respects (and later discovered, from an evolutionary standpoint.) So by referring to "homo sapiens" you are indirectly recognizing the process by which creatures branch off from each other, that being speciation and divergence of life. It's important to note Linnaeus did this for "the glory of God" so despite many thoughts, this kind of thinking is not new nor does it contradict beliefs.

Creationism, catastrophism and soft inheritance (Lamarckism) are each flawed in their thinking and their lack of hard evidence. Specifically creationism, and anyone who claims to have proof otherwise are often poorly informed of the Darwinist theory and the hard facts that support it. We couldn't possibly have been tossed onto this planet after Eve and Adam were thrown out of Eden, 6000 years ago as the bible indicates as the world has been scientifically accepted to be 4.55 billion years old.

One can't just dismiss scientific theories as ideas being tossed around. They are, by definition, a speculation based on research and study. There's evidence, all over the place. (The most famous, and original example being Darwin's finches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches )

Another thing, addressing those bickering about whether to debate or not: If you have issues about whether to debate or not, then post a debate thread about it, or a general article stating your opinion. Otherwise, spamming up this thread isn't cool for anyone else.

XxMattxX wrote:

that every ludicrous opinion they have deserves to be respected, and left without criticism?

Because personally attacking a person due to a lack of respect for their opinions exposes an ugly hypocrisy in the perpetrator, and makes for a very ugly and pointless debate.
To debate with skill is to maintain respectful composure while stating your point, and not stooping so low as to insult someone for stating theirs.
If not, it's just childish bickering.

Criticizing is one thing, but I was raised to believe that respect for one's right to a 'ludicrous opinion' was non-negotiable. Having observed you many a time, inkwell, you seem like you would appreciate that the most.

Bollocks. First I never insulted the guy. Secondly, of course he has a right to silly opinions. I'm not going to punish him for his opinions. Don't twist the situation.

Ugh. You're all over reacting. Cool down, guys, and get back to subject. How did humanity get started?

I assuming that this is humanity, and not just humans. I do think evolution is the most valid theory so far as to how humans came to exist in our physical state, but I believe that it is God that has given us our humanity. And, since the question is "humanity's beginning" as opposed to "how humans began" I am assuming that this discussion revolves around the more spiritual side of humans, rather than the physical origin of humans, or the origin of consciousness as it's sometimes called.

What does everyone else think?

Snoink wrote:Ugh. You're all over reacting. Cool down, guys, and get back to subject. How did humanity get started?

I assuming that this is humanity, and not just humans. I do think evolution is the most valid theory so far as to how humans came to exist in our physical state, but I believe that it is God that has given us our humanity. And, since the question is "humanity's beginning" as opposed to "how humans began" I am assuming that this discussion revolves around the more spiritual side of humans, rather than the physical origin of humans, or the origin of consciousness as it's sometimes called.

What does everyone else think?

The title is sensational. First post is this:

How did Homo sapiens come to be?

Easily answered, as you've done: evolution.

Perhaps a new thread is more suitable for your other suggestions.

inkwell wrote:
Bollocks. First I never insulted the guy. Secondly, of course he has a right to silly opinions. I'm not going to punish him for his opinions. Don't twist the situation.

Your words suggested different.

Please, guys, if it's not related to the debate, PM each other.