It's not biblical because the Bible doesn't say that the earth was created to look old
i see a big difference between the descriptions 'created to look old' and 'created with age'.
since it was all good, i am sure the universe and the world and that new car look and smell. createdwith age just means 'maturity was given to the creation and that the purpose of God dictated he form it was to take.
i see no problem with adam being 20 ears old at the time of creation or even 30 for that matter, or whatever the age he looked. i see no problem with any of God's creation being created with 'maturity' since God knew what He wanted to do.
i do see a problem of adding in secular man's thinking and saying, this is the way God did it.
Again, why do you accept that the earth looks old, then???
because, it makes sense and fits God's plan. an evoltionary odeldoesn't make sense as it has no plan nor purpose, even with God guiding it.
if you find a meteor in the ground that's 10 km across (like the Chicxulub Crater near Mexico), people from all around the world would have felt the preceeding impact, and the few remaining survivors likely would have written about it. Most of the craters of the earth are invariably more than 10,000 years old
there are many problems with this scenario:
1. evolutionists believe that man cold not write till much later in his existence, so there would be no one writing about it.
2. if these happened pre-flood and anyone wrote about it, we wouldn't be aware of it as all pre-flood records were destroyed.
3. it assumes we have found all written records and that all survived the countless tragedies that befall the earth throughout history
4. no proof there were survivors.
5. assumes that there were enough people to know about it.
6. assumes a longer history to the earth than is recorded in scriptures. who is to say that that meteor did not land after the fall and before man filled the earth?
7. assumes that secular dating systms are perfect and always correct.
and so on
Just saying you understand something doesn't mean you understand it. You have to demonstrate your understanding, which you haven't done yet
no, what you are saying is, that i haven't done it the way you want me to.
Again, populations evolve.
another evolutionist smoke and mirror trick. populations are made up of individuals and unless the individual evolves, then populations do not.
That flies in the face of your next sentence, though...
not at all. the truth cuts both ways, it is down the middle so to speak and not a fringe player. extremes are fringe aspects.
Lest you be a hypocrite, I hope you believe these things, too, rather than compromise the Bible for the theories of secular man.
now you are being more literal than i am. there is a big difference insaying 'windows in heaven' and 'God spoke and the land brought forth all animals' .
the former is a metaphor the latter is literal action. creation is not allegorical, but a revelation of how God acted. the reason we know it is not allegorical, is that the results of creation continue as spoken in the first chapter of the Bible.
the Bible says, 'from the dust you were made and to the dust you shall return' open any coffin and you will see that take place.
the bible says, each species reproduces after its kind, we see today that that is true. the hybrid experiments confirm this fact.
we also see that God did not say eah species eolved to where iI want it and then i gave them reproductive organs so that the continuing of the species changes.
no,the reproductive organs were there fromthe sart and He said, 'they prodcued after their kind'.
the wording of the scriptures is very clear, there was no evolution involved (in any form).
