I'm curious...

[grimbly]

This concept contradicts Genesis and the earth is only about 10,000 years old.

Well Jim, you're partially right. This concept does contradict your interpretation of Genesis. I don't know why people keep forgetting that underlined part.

However the other part of your statement is just plain wrong. The earth is (to the best of our ability to measure it) ~4.55 billion years old. There is no more doubt about that conclusion than there is that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. But hey, don't take my word for it because I'm just an ignorant layman having never even taken a geology course in my life. So let's see what some knowledgeable people say about the subject.

Hmm... How about these guys

Baylor > Home > Frequently Asked Questions about Geology and Science > How old is the Earth

How old is the Earth?

The current best estimate for the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is 4.51 to 4.55 billion years, with a confidence of 1% or better (Dalrymple, 2001).
The solar nebula cooled to the point at which solid matter could condense by ~4.566 billion years, after which the Earth grew through accretion of these solid particles, the Earth's core developed, and the Moon formed by ~4.51 billion years (Dalrymple, 2001; Allegre and others, 1995; Halliday and Lee, 1999; Tera and Carlson, 1999; Tera, 1981; Patterson, 1956).
The age of the Earth has been known reasonably well since the 1950s, when geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson of CalTech determined it to be 4.550 billion years +/- 70 million years. This age was based on isotopic dating of 5 meteorites and a representative sample of modern Earth lead from a Pacific deep-sea sediment, all of which plot along a linear isochron on a graph of 207Pb/204Pb versus 206Pb/204Pb (Patterson, 1956). Patterson built upon earlier work by Arthur Holmes, E.K. Gerling and F.G. Houtermans (see Dalrymple, 2001; Lewis, 2000). More recent work has generated ages within Patterson's margin of error.
References and suggested reading

Allegre, C.J., Manhes, G., and Gopel, C., 1995, The age of the Earth: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 59, p. 1445-1456.

Dalrymple, G.B., 1991, The age of the Earth: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 p., ISBN 0-8047-2331-1.

Dalrymple, G.B., 2001, The age of the Earth in the twentieth century -- a problem (mostly) solved, in Lewis, C.L.E., and Knell, S.J., [editors], The age of the Earth -- from 4004 BC to AD 2002: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 190, p. 205-221, ISBN 1-86239-093-2.

Dalrymple, G.B., 2004, Ancient Earth, ancient skies -- the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, ISBN 0-8047-4933-7.

Faure, G., 1986, Principles of isotope geology [2nd edition]: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 589 p., ISBN 0-471-86412-9.

Halliday, A.N., and Lee, D.C., 1999, Tungsten isotopes and the early development of the Earth and Moon: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 4157-4179.

Lewis, C., 2000, The dating game -- One man's search for the age of the Earth: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 253 p., ISBN 0-521-79051-4.

Lewis, C.L.E., and Knell, S.J., [editors], 2001, The age of the Earth -- from 4004 BC to AD 2002: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 190, 288 p., ISBN 1-86239-093-2.

Patterson, C.C., 1956, Age of meteorites and the Earth: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 10, p. 230-237, http://thermo.gg.utk.edu/courses/Ge475/Patterson.html

Richardson, S.M., and McSween, H.Y., Jr., 1989, Geochemistry -- pathways and processes: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 488 p., ISBN 0-13-351073-5.

Tera, F., 1981, Aspects of isochronism in Pb isotope systematics -- application to planetary evolution: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 45, p. 1439-1448.

Tera, F., and Carlson, R.W., 1999, Assessment of the Pb-Pb and U-Pb chronometry of the early Solar System: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 1877-1889. The information on this page was written and approved by the faculty of the Geology Department at Baylor University.

http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26723

Please note that this is a statement from a very highly rated Baptist University located in Texas. So why would a Christian school teach old earth geology? Actually the answer is very simple.

As a Christian University (like any other school), they have the moral and ethical responsibility to teach their students factual information about our world and prepare them for careers in their chosen profession. It is precisely because of their Christian ideals that they have NO choice but to present to their geology students information that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. The evidence for an ancient earth and an even more ancient universe is too compelling to ignore unless you believe in a trickster God which is even worse theology than it is science.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Well Jim, you're partially right. This concept does contradict your interpretation of Genesis. I don't know why people keep forgetting that underlined part.

However the other part of your statement is just plain wrong. The earth is (to the best of our ability to measure it) ~4.55 billion years old. There is no more doubt about that conclusion than there is that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. But hey, don't take my word for it because I'm just an ignorant layman having never even taken a geology course in my life. So let's see what some knowledgeable people say about the subject.

Hmm... How about these guys

Baylor > Home > Frequently Asked Questions about Geology and Science > How old is the Earth

How old is the Earth?

The current best estimate for the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is 4.51 to 4.55 billion years, with a confidence of 1% or better (Dalrymple, 2001).
The solar nebula cooled to the point at which solid matter could condense by ~4.566 billion years, after which the Earth grew through accretion of these solid particles, the Earth's core developed, and the Moon formed by ~4.51 billion years (Dalrymple, 2001; Allegre and others, 1995; Halliday and Lee, 1999; Tera and Carlson, 1999; Tera, 1981; Patterson, 1956).
The age of the Earth has been known reasonably well since the 1950s, when geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson of CalTech determined it to be 4.550 billion years +/- 70 million years. This age was based on isotopic dating of 5 meteorites and a representative sample of modern Earth lead from a Pacific deep-sea sediment, all of which plot along a linear isochron on a graph of 207Pb/204Pb versus 206Pb/204Pb (Patterson, 1956). Patterson built upon earlier work by Arthur Holmes, E.K. Gerling and F.G. Houtermans (see Dalrymple, 2001; Lewis, 2000). More recent work has generated ages within Patterson's margin of error.
References and suggested reading

Allegre, C.J., Manhes, G., and Gopel, C., 1995, The age of the Earth: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 59, p. 1445-1456.

Dalrymple, G.B., 1991, The age of the Earth: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 p., ISBN 0-8047-2331-1.

Dalrymple, G.B., 2001, The age of the Earth in the twentieth century -- a problem (mostly) solved, in Lewis, C.L.E., and Knell, S.J., [editors], The age of the Earth -- from 4004 BC to AD 2002: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 190, p. 205-221, ISBN 1-86239-093-2.

Dalrymple, G.B., 2004, Ancient Earth, ancient skies -- the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, ISBN 0-8047-4933-7.

Faure, G., 1986, Principles of isotope geology [2nd edition]: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 589 p., ISBN 0-471-86412-9.

Halliday, A.N., and Lee, D.C., 1999, Tungsten isotopes and the early development of the Earth and Moon: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 4157-4179.

Lewis, C., 2000, The dating game -- One man's search for the age of the Earth: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 253 p., ISBN 0-521-79051-4.

Lewis, C.L.E., and Knell, S.J., [editors], 2001, The age of the Earth -- from 4004 BC to AD 2002: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 190, 288 p., ISBN 1-86239-093-2.

Patterson, C.C., 1956, Age of meteorites and the Earth: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 10, p. 230-237, http://thermo.gg.utk.edu/courses/Ge475/Patterson.html

Richardson, S.M., and McSween, H.Y., Jr., 1989, Geochemistry -- pathways and processes: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 488 p., ISBN 0-13-351073-5.

Tera, F., 1981, Aspects of isochronism in Pb isotope systematics -- application to planetary evolution: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 45, p. 1439-1448.

Tera, F., and Carlson, R.W., 1999, Assessment of the Pb-Pb and U-Pb chronometry of the early Solar System: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 1877-1889. The information on this page was written and approved by the faculty of the Geology Department at Baylor University.

http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26723

Please note that this is a statement from a very highly rated Baptist University located in Texas. So why would a Christian school teach old earth geology? Actually the answer is very simple.

As a Christian University (like any other school), they have the moral and ethical responsibility to teach their students factual information about our world and prepare them for careers in their chosen profession. It is precisely because of their Christian ideals that they have NO choice but to present to their geology students information that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. The evidence for an ancient earth and an even more ancient universe is too compelling to ignore unless you believe in a trickster God which is even worse theology than it is science.

So much for human reasoning. That's between you and God. I disagree. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So much for human reasoning. That's between you and God. I disagree. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

So how do you account for so much scientific evidence going against what you believe?

 

[JimfromOhio]

So how do you account for so much scientific evidence going against what you believe?

I have nothing against the scientists but I do not trust human (sinners) scientists who interprets their own findings and hoping there will be followers who will agree. Intelligence, reason, and choice. As a Christian, we don't need intelligence to decide because we have the Holy Spirit that convicts us to believe. God gave me the brain but in my body, who am I using my brian for? My flesh or In Spirit? More reasonings and less scriptural leads to moving away from God andd more towards to human's terms.

Why should I follow blindly to scientists' findings more than I have faith in God's word? The Word of God says He created in 6 days, so my faith is to follow what He said. Just as Jesus was resurrected on the third day, so my faith is to follow what the Word of God says. God's time is different than our time, the main point is that God said He created in 6 days so we should believe what HE SAID and not debate about it. While I believe in literal at the same time the Bible did mention that God's time is not the same as our time. All I do at this point is believe what He said whether it is literal or someone's interpration of God's time, God did it in 6 days no matter how you look at it. As God said:"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' " Isaiah 55:8-9.

 

[Dannager]

I have nothing against the scientists but I do not trust human (sinners) scientists who interprets their own findings and hoping there will be followers who will agree.

But you do trust human (sinners) Christians who interpret their own Bible and hope there will be followers who will agree? Why do you trust your ability to interpret the Bible properly and not others' ability to interpret science? What if you're the one being deceived.

Intelligence, reason, and choice. As a Christian, we don't need intelligence to decide because we have the Holy Spirit that convicts us to believe.

God gave you the ability to reason. It is an affront to God not to make use of it.

God gave me the brain but in my body, who am I using my brian for? My flesh or In Spirit? More reasonings and less scriptural leads to moving away from God andd more towards to human's terms.

Why would being reasonable move people away from God?

Why should I follow blindly to scientists' findings more than I have faith in God's word?

For the same reason that, if every doctor you went to told you that you needed an operation, you'd get it.

The Word of God

No, the Bible says that. The Word of God isn't the Bible. The Bible was written by men.

says He created in 6 days, so my faith is to follow what He said. Just as Jesus was resurrected on the third day, so my faith is to follow what the Word of God says.

You should follow what the Word of God says. It's not the Bible, though.

God's time is different than our time, the main point is that God said He created in 6 days so we should believe what HE SAID and not debate about it.

You're right. When the Bible asserts that pi is 3 and that the earth has corners and that the whole planet was covered in water in recent human history, we shouldn't debate it even if it flies completely in the face of reality. There's simply no room to be critical of the Bible, is that what you're saying?

While I believe in literal at the same time the Bible did mention that God's time is not the same as our time.

Stop believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It's wrong.

All I do at this point is believe what He said whether it is literal or someone's interpration of God's time, God did it in 6 days no matter how you look at it. As God said:"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' " Isaiah 55:8-9.

That passage clearly indicates that evolution is correct.

 

[Mallon]

For what it's worth, I'm a vertebrate palaeontology grad student, with a fair bit of work on dinosaurs under my belt, and I can see no reason to suppose the creatures mentioned in Job were dinosaurs. Let's investigate the passages in sgrimsley's post #13 a little further...
Job 40:15-24 mentions an animal that "eats grass like an ox." If we were to take even this one passage as literally as possible, we could immediately rule out a dinosaur. Grass is a very poor source of nutrients, and the only animals alive today that can ingest grass are herbivorous mammals, who have special hypsodont teeth and lateral chewing mechanism for grinding up fibrous grasses to extract the minimal nutrients within. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, could not chew -- that is, they did not have a "power stroke" in their mastication cycle. It is therefore highly unlikely that they would have fed on grass because they would not have been able to extract enough nutrients from it. Admittedly, there is some recent circumstantial evidence for grass phytoliths in fossil feces from the Cretaceous, but the ingestion of such grasses by dinosaurs was likely limited, given: (a) their inability to process large swaths of grass, and (b) the paucity of grass preserved in dinosaur-bearing sediments. Certainly, no dinosaur ate grass like oxen do.
Next we have mention of an animal that “moves his tail like a cedar,” which is probably the most popular argument for the dinosaurian relationships of the Behemoth. But even this interpretation isn't without its weaknesses. As some may have already mentioned, "tail" is often used in Hebrew writing as a euphemism for "penis." And because dinosaurs do not have external penes, it is unlikely that Job is referring to a dinosaur. Secondly, the cedar comparison is not made to the tail itself, but rather to the motion of the tail. Everyone knows cedars sway in the breeze, and it is easy to suppose Job thought of the same when he saw the Behemoth's tail swinging about.
Further mention of the Behemoth's "bones like beams of bronze" or "ribs like bars of iron" are clearly exaggeration -- mythologizing, even -- and are no more applicable to the dinosaurs than to any of the other large 'megaherbivores' alive today.
Personally, I think the Behemoth is clearly a hippo. It meets all the criteria listed above, and even remains "hidden among the reeds in the marsh" (Job 40:21). Sauropods could not lay hidden among the reeds of the marsh because: (a) they were much too big, and (b) we know from the way they were built and the sediments in which they are found that sauropods were terrestrial animals, not primarily aquatic like hippos (which, incidentally, eat A LOT of grass).

Much the same applies to Job's description of the Leviathan. It's just an overly mythologized crocodile -- certainly not the last case of overt exaggeration imposed by Job on God's creatures (check out his description of the war horse, the ostrich, the eagle, etc.). Seriously, what kind of "sea creature" would use fire to capture its prey??? I'll also point out that sgrimley's point that "many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages" is just bunk. These passages (called "fenestrae") are well studied and likely served a number of purposes, including lightening of the skull and as muscle attachment (muscles attach better to the edges of such openings, as revealed by the attachment of the temporalis muscles to the openings at the top of the skull in reptiles). If you are sincerely interested in reading more about the subject, read:

Witmer, L. M. 1997. The evolution of the antorbital cavity of archosaurs: a study in soft-tissue reconstruction in the fossil record with an analysis of the function of pneumaticity. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(Supplement to 1):1–73.

Indeed, there are NO anatomical novelties exhibited by dinosaurs that could house "gas tanks." This is just poor, unresearched scholarship that makes Christians look foolish.

 

[JimfromOhio]

But you do trust human (sinners) Christians who interpret their own Bible and hope there will be followers who will agree? Why do you trust your ability to interpret the Bible properly and not others' ability to interpret science? What if you're the one being deceived.

I know I am not being deceived after looking into this for 30 plus years.

God gave you the ability to reason. It is an affront to God not to make use of it.

Ability to reason according to? Science?

Why would being reasonable move people away from God?

Creates doubts and possible causing apostasy. Apostasy always begins with the heart where a person is turning back which is deliberate and decisive.

For the same reason that, if every doctor you went to told you that you needed an operation, you'd get it.

Heck, I was diagnosed with deafness and multiple sclerosis. Science and medical technologies are wonderful. There are MANY positives in sciences while there are some negatives in sciences. I consider this issue as one of the negatives.

No, the Bible says that. The Word of God isn't the Bible. The Bible was written by men

.
The Holy Spirit guided writers of the books in the Bible so that the Holy Spirit can teach the readers. The Holy Spirit is the source that Christ promised me and I am to submit myself to the Holy Spirit as I submit myself to Jesus and His Father.

You should follow what the Word of God says. It's not the Bible, though.

Christ's answer would be salvation but man's interpretation of Christ's answer "salvation + earthly works" I see around the forum. Okay dokey. You proven my case on this one.

You're right. When the Bible asserts that pi is 3 and that the earth has corners and that the whole planet was covered in water in recent human history, we shouldn't debate it even if it flies completely in the face of reality. There's simply no room to be critical of the Bible, is that what you're saying?

Theories often are not very reliable because the based on reasonable conclusions of what they have available but never complete, nor accurate and possibly faulty.

Stop believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It's wrong.

I can have GREAT knowledge but if I don't have spiritual wisdom, my knowledge is worthless. Someone has said "The wisest person in the world is the person who knows the most about God and place the Bible as the most important book in the world." So, I should be this wise Christian, who is committed into action of reading, putting faith in the Word, and surrender to the Holy Spirit so that I can learn from the heart. When Jesus said that the Comforter is coming, He was saying: "The Comforter will not come to stand on His own, to speak on His own authority. Am I studying the Bible for myself and observing God's Word?

That passage clearly indicates that evolution is correct.

Based on someone's interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

I have studied this issue for many years and I am not .

Not what?

The comparison of time with God. A thousand years is like yesterday. It is like one day. One day is as a thousand years. God's perspective on time is not the same as ours. The Bible does not say one day is a thousand years to the Lord or a thousand years is one day. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

That cuts both ways doesn't it? That is what old-earth creationism's Day-Age thesis is based on. I am not OEC, but what it says to me is that the time period of creation cannot be determined by a simple will to believe the six days of Genesis must be solar days. After all, the sun wasn't even created until day four.

I like this response from "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" on the topic of "Creation"

Interesting that you like someone's opinion. Do you have any reason to believe his opinion is based in reality?

Another site to read
There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young.

Do you believe this because a biased web-site tells you so? Have you ever checked out the extent of this "growing number of scientists"? This is a long-standing and unsubstantiated claim of YECists.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys - all you have to do (and it's a really fun exercise) is to calculate from the ages given in the OT backward from the year of Jesus' birth. It's not that difficult and illustrates why Peter said with the Lord a thousand years is as a day and vv. What happens is that we are entering/about to enter the Sabbath millenium.

All that shows is that you trust the assumptions of Bishop Ussher. He had none of the information later discovered by geologists at hand. So his assumptions were incorrect.

And I take the Bible seriously - I've staked my life on its veracity and God's desire to save us!

So do I. So do I. Why would you assume I don't?

Taking the bible seriously does not require taking it literally when the literal reading is unrealistic. Or do you actually believe the earth is supported by pillars?

 

[gluadys]

As a Christian, we don't need intelligence to decide because we have the Holy Spirit that convicts us to believe.

Sounds like you believe the Holy Spirit convicts us to believe the work of God lies. Which, of course, also means the Word of God lies, since the Word of God is the author of creation.

Why should I follow blindly to scientists' findings more than I have faith in God's word?

No, you should study scientist's findings. And you should have faith that in creating nature, the Word of God did not lie, nor create an illusory world.

God's time is different than our time, the main point is that God said He created in 6 days so we should believe what HE SAID and not debate about it.

So in God's time, what is 6 days? Any reason it could not be 13-14 billion years by human calculation?

 

[shernren]

Re: Behemoth and Leviathan, I have a thread here with a slightly different (and rather fringe, I'll admit) view of Behemoth and Leviathan: http://www.christianforums.com/t3795181

To JimfromOhio, I'd like to reason with you, starting from the beginning: do you agree with me that there is more than one possible interpretation of the Bible? And if you do, how do you choose between those possible interpretations?

 

[saraharms1]

Scripture is not at all clear on when the earth was created.


No, humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist as humans have only been around for about 2 million years while dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Genisis may not say when but it is definitly clear how... God created everything. The light, the dirt, the air, the ocean. Everything including man and animals. Man had to have interacted with the dinosaurs.

 

[Mallon]

God created everything. The light, the dirt, the air, the ocean. Everything including man and animals.

Agreed.

Man had to have interacted with the dinosaurs.

... And yet, God's creation, which declare His glory (Psalm 19:1) and attest to His qualities (Romans 1:20), resoundingly proclaim otherwise. So we are forced to make a choice:

(1) Change our interpretation of the Bible so that it lines up with God's creation.
OR
(2) Change God's creation so that it lines up with our interpretation of the Bible.

Option 1 seems to be the only honest and viable one, methinks.

 

[laptoppop]

How about option 3: examine our understanding of BOTH the Bible and of God's creation to understand how they work together? Options 1 and 2 postulate that we have a perfect understanding of God's creation -- something I would dispute strongly.

 

[Mallon]

How about option 3: examine our understanding of BOTH the Bible and of God's creation to understand how they work together? Options 1 and 2 postulate that we have a perfect understanding of God's creation -- something I would dispute strongly.

I knew you would.
The fact remains, though, that God's creation harmoniously attests to its ancient age and evolved biodiversity. All fields of science -- whether geology, genetics, palaeontology, biogeography, embryology, etc. -- are in lock-step with one another when it comes to deep time and evolution. That is, these theories are supported via multiple attestation (a concept that many Christian Bible scholars feel validates Jesus' death and resurrection). That said, it seems to me that we've got a pretty good handle on our understanding of God's creation (at least as it pertains to the existence of deep time and evolution). No coincidence there.

 

[Dannager]

I know I am not being deceived after looking into this for 30 plus years.

No, you feel that you are not being deceived. The word "think" might also be appropriate here. "Know" is not appropriate. You don't know you're not being deceived, because you have no evidence that you are not. You have an assumption based on a feeling, and no more than that. And, given that the evidence itself is against you, your position becomes even more indefensible.

Ability to reason according to? Science?

What does science have to do with this? The concept of reason lies within the larger realm of philosophy, not science. You have been given the ability to reason, and thus you need to make use of it. Science is an application of reason.

Creates doubts and possible causing apostasy. Apostasy always begins with the heart where a person is turning back which is deliberate and decisive.

I cannot conceive of a reason that knowing the truth about the age of the earth and evolution would create doubt in someone's mind unless they were brought up being taught that the Bible is intended literally, including the Genesis account. The truth is not the problem. Ridiculous literalist biblical interpretations are the problem.

Heck, I was diagnosed with deafness and multiple sclerosis. Science and medical technologies are wonderful. There are MANY positives in sciences while there are some negatives in sciences. I consider this issue as one of the negatives.

Why? Because it disagrees with your closely-held religious beliefs? You trust doctors for the same reason that you should trust scientists. You don't have cause to question them (nor the ability to do so with any sort of clarity), but you do it anyway because you don't like what they have to say. It's not about the evidence. It's not about "common sense". It's not about irreducible complexity. It was never about any of these things. It's about creationists not liking what they hear, and trying desperately to find something to cling to in the face of this discomfort.

The Holy Spirit guided writers of the books in the Bible so that the Holy Spirit can teach the readers. The Holy Spirit is the source that Christ promised me and I am to submit myself to the Holy Spirit as I submit myself to Jesus and His Father.

Sure, but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether the Bible is actually God speaking or not. It clearly isn't.

Christ's answer would be salvation but man's interpretation of Christ's answer "salvation + earthly works" I see around the forum. Okay dokey. You proven my case on this one.

Man, what? I'm sure you can word this in a way that makes more sense.

Theories often are not very reliable because the based on reasonable conclusions of what they have available but never complete, nor accurate and possibly faulty.

You're right. Theories are never certain, and are prone to revision in light of new evidence. They always become more accurate over time, though, and the chance of a theory being tossed out after such a long period of searching for evidence to the contrary is very, very slim. It is just about as likely that we throw out our theory of gravitation (again).

But it's not about the theory, and it's not about the evidence. Please don't pretend that it is. Creationists say this to make it sound like the proof could have some bearing on their position. It can't. This is about creationists not liking what they hear.

I can have GREAT knowledge but if I don't have spiritual wisdom, my knowledge is worthless.

This has nothing to do with your interpretation of the Bible. Please stay on topic.

Someone has said "The wisest person in the world is the person who knows the most about God and place the Bible as the most important book in the world."

Someone has?

So, I should be this wise Christian, who is committed into action of reading, putting faith in the Word, and surrender to the Holy Spirit so that I can learn from the heart.

This doesn't mean interpreting the Bible literally. I put faith in the God and have given myself to the Holy Spirit, but nowhere along the way was I roped into believing that a literal interpretation of things like the Genesis account was anywhere near correct.

When Jesus said that the Comforter is coming, He was saying: "The Comforter will not come to stand on His own, to speak on His own authority. Am I studying the Bible for myself and observing God's Word?

Are you?

Based on someone's interpretation.

That's my point. You cited a passage that can be used equally well by both sides of the argument, and thus is worthless for the purpose of discussion. Thank you for acknowledging that your use of the passage was based on your own interpretation, and that others exist. Now please examine why a very, very high number of spiritual, educated individuals does not interpret the Bible in the same way that you do.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I remember this quote and I think this applies:

Get Your Own Dirt One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest."

To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

People can talk about good science is but God is the altimate scientist because He is the Creator regardless how petty we get in this area. This is low on my doctrine beliefs. Good night and good week. Enjoy proving your case in the years to come.

 

[Dannager]

People can talk about good science is but God is the altimate scientist because He is the Creator regardless how petty we get in this area. This is low on my doctrine beliefs. Good night and good week. Enjoy proving your case in the years to come.

No one is talking about creating the universe here, or usurping God's authority.

 

[gluadys]

Genisis may not say when but it is definitly clear how... God created everything. The light, the dirt, the air, the ocean. Everything including man and animals.

For sure. Not in dispute among Christians, no matter what they believe about creation and evolution.

Man had to have interacted with the dinosaurs.

This doesn't follow from the statement above. What is your reason for thinking it does?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What Gluadys said... God created humans and dinosaurs, but how do you figure this means they were contemporary?