Q&A - Evolution, the Bible, and Creation

Self explanatory, really...

Why compare Creation to Evolution since one is a special singular event while the other an ongoing process? Wouldn't creation and the big bang be more of a suitable comparison?

There is a difference between Creation and Creation...

That's not a nonsensical comment, either.

What I mean is that God created the heavens and the earth,  then He started making life on earth and that all happened in 6 days. There is original creation, and there is a type of evolution in creationism. They're both explanations of how life came to be on earth.

What is your view on the matter? 

It's more accurate to word it "Evolution, the Bible, and Creation"

I mean the title is only for the main subjects here, it's not a conversation starter...

I'm a young-earth creationist, but don't worry about that as a subject in any debate.

The only one of the three terms in the title that gives us a methodically based means of understanding life on earth, as we see it today, is Evolution.

I don't regard either the Bible or Creation as an idea as offering any means to acquire greater knowledge about life or the workings of the Universe.

Will that do for now?

In this debate it is basically just evolutionism vs creationism.

I added the Bible because it's a mostly seperate thing from Creationism, Evolution has all its books contained.

You'll need to define what you mean by 'evolutionism' because it's not a term I either use or understand.

You don't mean just evolution I suppose?

Other Words from evolution

Creation > Creationism

Evolution > Evolutionism

O/k but what do you understand by the term evolutionism?

What Merriam Webster says, which is the largely accepted definition of it...

I mean, I think there's only one definition.

People could be using the same word but saying different things by it. I accept evolution, which is small changes over time, not large ones going back to a common ancestor. 

Evolutionists accept that definition as well, right?

As I said we can say the same things using the same words and still not be saying the same thing. I believe in small changes, I don't believe they in time add up to large ones going back to a common ancestor.

Jay, since this subject was your idea, would you like to kick off the discussion or are we going to sit here arguing over terms?

It's a question and answers post, so somebody ask a question about one of the topics we discuss in this group...

   You seem to be saying that an explication with all kinds of “methodically based explanations” is superior for that reason alone. You also seem to insinuate that since Genesis 1 doesn’t explain to you how the universe “works” (not really sure what that means) it couldn’t be true.

   Why is that, or am I misunderstood you. And if I am misunderstanding you, how?