Was seven days enough?

Was seven days enough?


Six days, actually! We read the following in Genesis:

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.”

Either the universe created itself or it didn’t.

The Bible teaches us that God created everything and that He did this by his Word. The debate over creation has been going on for most of the past two centuries and will, no doubt, continue until Christ returns. The more fundamental question to be asked is,‘Could He?’ If, God is truly omnipotent then the simple answer has to be ‘Yes.’ If we accept that God is omnipotent then God could create the heavens and the earth in six seconds, six days or over six millenia. If one can accept this argument then seeking the truth is made easier.

Three hypothesis have been put forward; instant creation at God’s command, evolutionary creation (again God fully in control of the creative process over an extended period of time; longer than a literal six days), and a random, evolutionary process with nothing in control and completely void of any design whatsoever.

How one views the Creation Argument will depend upon ones paradigm. If your viewpoint is that of a scientist who has been taught nothing but the evolutionary process, and this as fact, it is unlikely that you will consider the creation viewpoint as having any credibility. The obverse is true; an individual brought up with a literal understanding of the Genesis account will have a tough time looking at all the complexity and design visible in nature and believing in the total randomness of the the evolutionary process. Yet, both will be equally guilty for having failed to investigate the very foundational [scientific] principals on which their belief systems are based. God, through the prophet Jeremiah, accused the people of his day: they have “…eyes that see but don’t really look, and ears that hear but don’t really listen.” Or, to put it another way, “My mind is already made up, so don’t confuse me with the facts.”

The purpose of Bus Stop Bible Studies is to encourage you to read God’s Word and consider the existence of God and your relationship with Him, and we encourage you to seek the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth [Note: The whole truth by definition is an absolute and can never be considered subjective]. Jesus reminds us of the First Commandment:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.”

God wants your relationship with Him to be based upon knowledge, not just faith.

Society has been so steeped in the atheistic argument of evolution for so long, many consider it to be fact – not even a theory, or what it really is, an hypothesis [The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions]. Even though evolutionary scientists fail to practice “good science“, their arguments are “accepted as gospel.” Hundreds of scientists, all PhD’s, in all areas of science refute evolution and endorse the Creation Account. Why would so many of the worlds top scientists put their careers and reputations on the line if they even had a shadow of a doubt concerning the truth of Creation Science? The theory of evolution was based upon the unprovable theories of one or two people (who weren’t even trained scientists) which became the foundation of today’s arguments and this “theory” was picked up by like-minded, atheistic individuals and the great deception snowballed from there. The very foundation of the evolutionary theory is bad science. Before you pick up a stone… check the facts for yourselves.

So what about the in-between-ers, those who put forward the Long Creation account (God-inspired evolutionary creation, sometimes referred to as Intelligent Design). Quite simply, this argument cannot be defended; either the Bible is the very Word of God or it is a complete fabrication. Either it is the Whole Truth or it is a lie. One can’t have it both ways! The whole of the Gospel Message pivots on the first three chapters of Genesis. If the Genesis account, the [literal] fall of mankind through a [literal] single individual, that is [the literal] Adam, that death came as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience, and the genealogical account in Chronicles, and the words of Moses, King David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, the apostle Paul and James are not true, then the Good News that we preach, Christ crucified, has no purpose or validity. The Long Creation account assumes that there was death before Adam which is a clear contradiction of what the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible teaches. Read one converts’ testimony.

Whatever your upbringing or point or reference may be, we leave you with this word from God:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

We encourage you visit the Atheist Visitors’ Welcome Page and answer this question for yourself, “Do peacocks and evolution mix?”

Suggested Reading

The following books deal with the subject of creationism and evolution from a Christian scientific perspective:

In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

In Six Days
What do geneticist James Allan, geophysicist John Baumgardner, and electrical engineer Stephen Taylor have in common? They’re all respected scientists with Ph.D’s who believe in a literal 6-day creation. Drawing on current scientific research and solid scriptural evidence, 50 professional scientists witness to the truth of the Genesis account.


3 comments have been left.

  • Dmitry left comment on June 18, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Your first argument was the definition of the word `random`. One part of the definition you provided was “without method” WHAT ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION? is natural selection not a method (we have mountains of evidence for this method and we can see its effects in progress on a large amount of species).
    Your second argument is that all complex things require a creator. This is an assumption and gives atheists like Richard Dawkins the right to say: Isn’t god more complex then all of his creations? would he then need a creator as well?
    You also state that humans are a “perfect design”. Are you kidding me? Between the thousands of illnesses from which our bodies can’t protect us, to birth defects, to the fact that our senses aren’t even close to being the best on the planet. WHERE IS THE PERFECTION?
    I’ll agree that life might have been originated by a creator, but to say that evolution did not take place is an outright lie. I have studied biology my entire life and can tell you that the amount of evidence in favor of evolution is enormous. DNA, fossil record, carbon dating and matching characteristics among similar species just to name a few.
    Your next argument was defending the list of scientists that side with the creation theory. there are two things I must say about that. First from the list I saw fields of study like Geography, Architectural Engineering, Physics, Psycholinguist, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineering, Linguistics, Computer Science, Forensic physicist, Educator, Nuclear Engineering and my favorite Assistant Professor of Science Education. What do people with these titles have to do with biology? Second, the list of scientists that agree with the fact that evolution had taken place is by far bigger. Even the Vatican claims that Darwin’s theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. and the Vatican is a skeptical bunch of believers. These scientists try to use science to prove God. If there was proof of God we would not need FAITH, would we?

    BSBS Comment: There is far more to be told than can be discussed here. May we direct you to Creation.com where you will find reasoned, scientific arguments for all the points you raise. Please note that natural selection and evolution are mutually incompatible (they go in opposite directions), further, natural selection is observable and provable – evolution is not!

  • Dmitry left comment on June 16, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    I can’t get this through my head you site says “the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth”, but you also wrote “random, evolutionary process” and “total randomness of the the evolutionary process”. If you ask any evolutionary biologist, or do your own research, you’ll see that there is nothing random about evolution. If you claim to care about the ‘absolute truth’, stop spreading misconceptions.

    BSBS Comment: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “random” thus: ‘Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.’

    We agree 100% that what is visible to the eye in nature is anything but random; in fact we would proclaim the exquisite complexity of design in nature. We would make the case that the design and complexity of any life-form in nature is so unfathomably complex that there had to be a divine Creator. If you look in the mirror and consider the complexity of your own body, that there are literally hundreds of different professional fields of speciality to examine and [partially] understand the complexity and workings of the organs and parts that your body comprises, and still to assume that such a masterful and perfect design came about without intentional creative thought is beyond the realms of rationality. Surely, it takes much more faith to believe in an unobservable, [higher order] evolutionary process than to believe in an omnipotent divine Creator.

    You can read a great deal of contrary scientific opinion from many pre-eminent PHD’s on the subject at http://www.creation.com where you will find the following quote: “There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists—the evolutionists—rely on a minority* of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data. Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: “If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?” The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!”

    *Using a minority of relevant data; that is to say if ‘evidence’ is produced that does not meet their paradigm [priori adherence] it is rejected as being a false reading or anomaly rather than considering that information could bring them to an alternate conclusion. This argument is further reinforced by the renowned atheist, Richard Lewontin, who opined, ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

    Surely, it is not we who are spreading misconceptions!

  • bob smith left comment on May 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Hi folks
    I saw your presentation on 100 Huntley street. I have always been interested in different ways of trying to reach people for God. This bus stop and transit ad caught my attention. While I can probably agree with your view of salvation and the cross, but as a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith, things might come up that may be different from mainstream Christianity. I haven’t checked out all your positions of doctrine, but this article of the 7th day for me is relevant. Perhaps you could let me know the costs of these ads?
    Thanks , blessings
    Bob

    BSBS Comment: Full information on sponsoring Bus Stop Bible Studies can be found on the main website.

View RSS feed for comments on this post.


Leave your comments

* Fields marked with an asterisk are required.
Note: Comments will be moderated first before posting.