Age of the earth?

Adam 5000

Newbie
Sep 6, 2008
9
1
Jacksonville NC USA
✟134.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Look up Dr. Kent Hovind. His seminars and debates will give you some key points to remember and research. Once you get a few of these down you may become more interested in scientific topics that are heavily debated when it comes to creation v.s. evolution and the age of the Earth.

Whether you think the earth is around 6,000 years old or 20 billion years old, both viewpoints are religion. Just remember that you need to research this stuff for yourself because if not then you are going to be going off some shotty hear say instead of what you come to believe as fact. Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

marktheblake

Member
Aug 20, 2008
1,039
26
The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Visit site
✟16,359.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
But you guys want to limit God to time in that it took 24 hours, or 1000 years to bring something into being.

No I dont limit God to anything and never said that. I simply understand that God chose to create in 6 days, and chose to let us know he did.

A God who needed 24 hours, or 1000 years to bring into being the very things of which make this world and establish the boundries of everything?!?
I agree, God didnt need any allotment of time at all. He could have created it within any time frame or even in less than an instant (if there is such a measurement)

And then your gonna have the gaw to say that God needed 24 hours or 6000 years to create all that is?
Never said that, never will, and never said anything that could possibly lead anyone to that conclusion.

Please read the rules for the Fundy area. You are not a Fundamentalist, therefore, you should not be arguing in the general area.
Who is arguing? I just told you why I cared. Also sorry, but on this matter you are not in a position to tell me where I cannot 'argue' after making such unfounded assumptions about what I believe.

Since everybody is finding fault with my reasoning, I shall not venture an opinion in this thread again.
I didn't find fault with your reasoning
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lisa0315

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!
Jul 17, 2005
21,367
1,650
56
At The Feet of Jesus
✟37,577.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is something that I am currently studying. I am an OEC right now, but one thing that concerns me is that there is a great deal of evidence that does not show man suddenly becoming superior over the rest of the animals. I would expect there to have been a moment in time when man simply became a "living soul" as said in Genesis.

Lisa
 
Upvote 0

Psalms34

◄♫♪♫ תהלים ♫♪♫►
Nov 20, 2004
5,745
391
Southern Calif
✟22,982.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Constitution
I’m 100% YEC. Bible says six days, I believe it was six days. And I certainly go with six literal days being generally a 24 hour period per day.

Time is generally a constant, but God does have the power to manipulate the speed of time by His will. He has also created circumstances where time and space may fluctuate such as in regards to black holes and other such anomalies. However, those are not the norm by great measure, and is actually more likely the result of the fallen nature where such things came into existence after the fabric of time and space was ripped at the time of the fall and continues to experience degradation exponentially. From what I understand, gravity plays into the flow of time as well, so if one were in high earth orbit, time would pass slightly faster than someone on the ground where the influence of gravity is far stronger.

Though, specifically regarding black holes, they may have been created rather than being a result, they are probably the greatest things we know of that best represent the lake of fire or at least the gateway for that final place for the fallen angels (and man) when that last judgment happens.
Light is not a constant. The speed of light can and has been manipulated. One example of this is with the recent history(ish) channel special on time travel. In the program, one person demonstrated that light can be slowed down as he showed with his science project.

So what does this mean? Though time can fluctuate, it is only under certain circumstances. Such circumstances are not in the Genesis record but simply say “day”. So there is no reason to speculate beyond the literal meaning of a day which is a 24 hour period when Genesis was eventually written. See, it wasn’t written at the time of creation, but written much later when a 24 hour day had long been established. Usually, if things are to be taken in allegory, the bible makes certain to mention such as to be taken that way (always use context). But in the case of the genesis account, there is no such mention to not take it literally as it is written.

The other point, light is not a constant. So light that presumably takes millions of years to travel from far off points to us now at this time, well was not bound to the current state as the creation event was happening. There is no evidence that light is restricted to a certain speed in all cases, so it is most likely that during the creation event light travel was near instantaneous and then slowed down at some point.

Ok one more point on the basis of scientific thought. Often another stumbling block mentioned is carbon dating. But I tell you that the same carbon dating that registers things as being millions or billions of years old also dates the 1980’s Mt. St Helens eruption as being thousands of years old. So, 30 years ago now being thousands, I can see how rocks six thousand years old may say millions of years.

Finally, on the theological basis since the above is established. Sin and the resulting death did not happen until Adam. Man did not die before Adam’s sin and also animals did not die. There was simply no death at all. All creation groans for the day when death will be ended (Rom 8:22). Creation was perfect up until the point of sin. The only thing that was not good was that Adam was alone until Eve was brought into the picture. If you read the Genesis account, each step of creation says “and it was good” up until that point where it is written “is not good” regarding Adams insufficiency. But I think that non literal interpretation of the Genesis account actually undermine important articles of fundamental faith.

I mean, if sin and death in creation already existed before Adam, than what is the big problem with Adams fall? It would not change a thing in creation. Adam would have just been imitating what he was seeing around him. The whole deal with Satan tempting Eve would be just a old wives tale. Sin and death would have not entered through Adam and would make no since to be abolished by Christ. I mean if it didn’t really enter through Adam, why do we take it that it is or will be removed by Christ?, it’s just not consistent. But contrary to that, the bible is consistent, just man isn’t. Bible says sin and death came in by one, being Adam, and that it will be conquered by one, being Christ. Also that the earth was created in six days (animals didn‘t live and die for millions of years). And of course if we study our bibles and follow the lineage from Adam to Christ, it comes to about 4000 years (+ 2 from then to now). Not saying one cant be a Christian or Jew if they don’t believe YEC, but other positions do have underlining problems based on personal theory rather than being based on record. It causes confusion to the listener. Though of course, some are just being consistent of not being consistent. BTW, for those, I’ll point out that my post is literal and not allegorical… if that helps ;)

Continuing on: As I read through the entire thread (mostly), I am not “limiting” God to a 24 hour period, God is limiting God to a 24 hour period, I’m just a believer. He said it was so (lit. Day), I believe it and not write in my own theories but continue my search for supporting evidence which is abundant as I have found regarding this subject. Some don’t believe that it matters, but everything matters when you take the entire bible in the flow of context. There is certainly cause and effect throughout the bible, and once one starts to tinker with that, it begins to unravel other points made in the bible. Some don’t have a problem with that, they take parts on ‘faith’ while disagreeing with other parts. I cant follow that, it’s not consistent with the true author of the bible whom is consistent and never changes as He has proven time and time again. I’m not a blind follower, but I believe what He says on the basis that He has proven consistent. Every time someone says I believe this and that but not that thing there, well consistently evidence emerges to show that that thing not believed was by fact something to be taken literal. But sadly, in many cases, consistently, the prophets were already put to death simply for the peoples dislike for what they said and not whether they were right or wrong.

It doesn’t matter what you believe or say, your going to be mocked. They mock you because they mocked Jesus first. So don’t worry about it, just believe what is written.

Peace out.
 
Upvote 0

Catanga

Newbie
Sep 14, 2008
36
1
✟15,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The scienticstic evidence that the earth is younger as 10 000 years:

The time of life of comets with the short revolution period is less than 10 000 years

Micrometeorite dust - in a quantity in the oceans of approximately 9 000 years, very facts of its existence is less than 10 000 years

Uraniumlead method of dating of approximately 11 000 years

Nonequilibrium of radiocarbon (in the atmosphere) about 10 500 years

Damping earth's magnetic field is less than 20 000 years
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
447
69
Post Falls, Idaho
✟32,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
So what does this mean? Though time can fluctuate, it is only under certain circumstances. Such circumstances are not in the Genesis record but simply say “day”. So there is no reason to speculate beyond the literal meaning of a day which is a 24 hour period when Genesis was eventually written. See, it wasn’t written at the time of creation, but written much later when a 24 hour day had long been established. Usually, if things are to be taken in allegory, the bible makes certain to mention such as to be taken that way (always use context). But in the case of the genesis account, there is no such mention to not take it literally as it is written.
The 24hr. day is defined by the Earth's relationship to the Sun. But according to Genesis 1:14-19, for the first 3 days of creation, there was no Sun. God didn't make the Sun until the 4th day.

According to R.C. Sproul's notes in my Reformation Study Bible, the Hebrew word used for "day" in the Creation story is yom, which may refer to a literal day, or to extended periods of time, even epochs. So taking it literally as it is written in Hebrew, it could be either way.

I'm not sure whose theory is correct, nor do I greatly care, since the important thing is that God made everything. How or when He did it is something we'll learn for sure later in our resurrected, glorified bodies. But if I had to place a bet on it, I'd say OEC, the Framework Hypothesis variant.
 
Upvote 0

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK then, my own bias: I have been bouncing back and forth between YEC and OEC for 30 years now. Those that have read some of my other posts know I am not much prone to this, generally I have fairly firm convictions which do not change readily. But on this, to quote RC Sproul "I am a butterfly with sore legs when it comes to staying in one position."

Anyway, 2 points:

1- It is not important to salvation that we believe the Bible is inerrant, or even that most of it is sort of true. Lots of people are saved with a very weak view of Scripture. That does not, in any way, change the fact that Biblical Inerrancy is a very important topic. Dismissing origins just because it dosen't interest you is fine. Telling others who find the subject important to do likewise is stupid. We are not all eyes, and for the ear some matters are of greated concern than for the eye. If the subject does not interest you, may the peace of God reign between us, for we have much in common. But please do not tell the ear to ignore the noise just because God made you an eye, nor consider yourself better than your brother.

2- Avoid Kent Hovin. He is a good debater, and uses material from others to good advantage, but... He brings in some things that are just incorrect, and other things that are silly. If you want Young Earth Creationism, the grandaddy of them all is the Creation Research Society. They are a solid group.

JR
 
Upvote 0

Psalms34

◄♫♪♫ תהלים ♫♪♫►
Nov 20, 2004
5,745
391
Southern Calif
✟22,982.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Constitution
The 24hr. day is defined by the Earth's relationship to the Sun. But according to Genesis 1:14-19, for the first 3 days of creation, there was no Sun. God didn't make the Sun until the 4th day.


As I explained, the perception of a day was written after the event. When Genesis was written, it was well known how long a day was. A day is a day, just as it is today more or less. Even if you were on Mars, and you were reading the bible, a day would still be roughly a 24 hour period because that is the perception in which it was written. Whether or not the sun exists, still the Genesis account was written after the event and explained in a common way that all humans can identify with and understand, as it happened. If the first day were two days or a million days, it would say so.

The bible was written for us to understand. It’s not some spiritualized coded document that we need to read in some old obscure language and after decades of specialized training to understand by a handful of people in the world amazingly with all the power over the Church. Even the NT was written in a common language of Greek invented by Alexander the Great so that it (language) may be accessible by the masses, not the few. And then carried the world over upon the roads that the Romans made of which God appoints the kings to create such things as languages and roads.

This whole thing about the bible not being plainly written for us to understand is Catholic tradition which many protestant churches have simply not fully broken away from. Due to this, things like this crop up, were people just don’t believe the plain word of the bible but read all sorts of things into it. Things like this cause confusion giving credence to hair brained ideas like evolution or multiverses. Because sadly, when you reeeeeealy think about it some day, maybe, it does cause problems with such things as sin, death and salvation etc. But for those that are saved anyway, maybe lucky for them ignorance truly is bliss at times. But we are not really called to ignorance, are we?..
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,992
267
46
Minnesota
Visit site
✟13,302.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Light was created on day 1. We know there were evenings and mornings on days 1, 2 and 3. Yom can mean various things, BUT, when used in a numbered fashion (first, second, etc) and with evening and morning it always means a literal 24 hour day. Also, don't forget that Exodus states that our work week is based on the creation week. That would not make sense unless it really was 6 literal days plus the one day of rest.

The 24hr. day is defined by the Earth's relationship to the Sun. But according to Genesis 1:14-19, for the first 3 days of creation, there was no Sun. God didn't make the Sun until the 4th day.

According to R.C. Sproul's notes in my Reformation Study Bible, the Hebrew word used for "day" in the Creation story is yom, which may refer to a literal day, or to extended periods of time, even epochs. So taking it literally as it is written in Hebrew, it could be either way.

I'm not sure whose theory is correct, nor do I greatly care, since the important thing is that God made everything. How or when He did it is something we'll learn for sure later in our resurrected, glorified bodies. But if I had to place a bet on it, I'd say OEC, the Framework Hypothesis variant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,661
17,590
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,087.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I explained, the perception of a day was written after the event. When Genesis was written, it was well known how long a day was. A day is a day, just as it is today more or less. Even if you were on Mars, and you were reading the bible, a day would still be roughly a 24 hour period because that is the perception in which it was written. Whether or not the sun exists, still the Genesis account was written after the event and explained in a common way that all humans can identify with and understand, as it happened. If the first day were two days or a million days, it would say so.

The bible was written for us to understand. It’s not some spiritualized coded document that we need to read in some old obscure language and after decades of specialized training to understand by a handful of people in the world amazingly with all the power over the Church. Even the NT was written in a common language of Greek invented by Alexander the Great so that it (language) may be accessible by the masses, not the few. And then carried the world over upon the roads that the Romans made of which God appoints the kings to create such things as languages and roads.

This whole thing about the bible not being plainly written for us to understand is Catholic tradition which many protestant churches have simply not fully broken away from. Due to this, things like this crop up, were people just don’t believe the plain word of the bible but read all sorts of things into it. Things like this cause confusion giving credence to hair brained ideas like evolution or multiverses. Because sadly, when you reeeeeealy think about it some day, maybe, it does cause problems with such things as sin, death and salvation etc. But for those that are saved anyway, maybe lucky for them ignorance truly is bliss at times. But we are not really called to ignorance, are we?..

So in the first "day" was there "evening, and there was morning " as stated in Genesis 1:5 before the sun ?
 
Upvote 0

Psalms34

◄♫♪♫ תהלים ♫♪♫►
Nov 20, 2004
5,745
391
Southern Calif
✟22,982.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Constitution
So in the first "day" was there "evening, and there was morning " as stated in Genesis 1:5 before the sun ?
Hmm? yes morning and evening was the first day. Not sure what you are asking, maybe you meant to direct your question (?) to the guy I was replying to?


Morning and evening has always been to me a reference to a sky without a sun. What do you get? Twilight. A day of twilight. For three days it was twilight, limited non-direct light about the length of the crucifixion to the resurrection in comparison. If the sun did not rise tomorrow, would there be a tomorrow? And if there were a tomorrow, how long would it last w/o the sun? But then what if the following day the sun did rise? does that count as the previous day? Does time and date shift at all because there is a loss of visual sign of the sun? If you sit in a box and close yourself off to the world, do you become suspended in time for millions of years? Or is there an established measure by which you judge time? If you looked at your watch in the box, do you return to motion and time?

To say “a day” it is a known point of reference to measurement of time. If I say I spent yesterday working at my computer, do you think I am referring to a 24 hour period? Well, if you say anything else, it would be an incorrect answer, for I didn’t specify any other mention than “a day” so I very well could have been at my computer for the entire 24 hour period (and have). And even if I were not at the computer for the entire 24 hours, would that effect the day in any way? Would it thus become 12 hours rather than 24?

It’s about literal verses allegory. When the bible says something, does it mean what it says? If you start to discount such things by what we think is right in our own eyes, where does that end? Does it stop before there is a complete cascade failure of the system?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As I explained, the perception of a day was written after the event. When Genesis was written, it was well known how long a day was. A day is a day, just as it is today more or less. Even if you were on Mars, and you were reading the bible, a day would still be roughly a 24 hour period because that is the perception in which it was written. Whether or not the sun exists, still the Genesis account was written after the event and explained in a common way that all humans can identify with and understand, as it happened. If the first day were two days or a million days, it would say so.

The bible was written for us to understand. It’s not some spiritualized coded document that we need to read in some old obscure language and after decades of specialized training to understand by a handful of people in the world amazingly with all the power over the Church. Even the NT was written in a common language of Greek invented by Alexander the Great so that it (language) may be accessible by the masses, not the few. And then carried the world over upon the roads that the Romans made of which God appoints the kings to create such things as languages and roads.

This whole thing about the bible not being plainly written for us to understand is Catholic tradition which many protestant churches have simply not fully broken away from. Due to this, things like this crop up, were people just don’t believe the plain word of the bible but read all sorts of things into it. Things like this cause confusion giving credence to hair brained ideas like evolution or multiverses. Because sadly, when you reeeeeealy think about it some day, maybe, it does cause problems with such things as sin, death and salvation etc. But for those that are saved anyway, maybe lucky for them ignorance truly is bliss at times. But we are not really called to ignorance, are we?..
I totally agree with this - they didn't have advanced technology when the bible was written - in fact, they had no technology.

I agree scripture was written for our understanding and it won't be hidden in privately spiritualized "code lingo" or advanced technological theory that nobody would have understood for most of history until technology exploded in recent decades.
Altho I do freely admit that it isn't all simple as if everyone can read it once and just 'get it all'... it's spiritual "meat" and "milk" everywhere for different maturity levels in the faith as God leads us into truth.

I'm not positive on how long, but I definitely agree w/ your statements about scripture here.
 
Upvote 0

Psalms34

◄♫♪♫ תהלים ♫♪♫►
Nov 20, 2004
5,745
391
Southern Calif
✟22,982.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Constitution
Genesis is much older than 2000 years.
Modern "science" is constantly changing. It's become far more like a religion and consisting of actual blind faith. Lacks facts all the way through. Speculation does not equal fact. I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist... or evolutionist for that matter. Blind faith is yucky. I cant accept the "just trust me" argument, which is what evolution is built upon. God says six days and gives lineage from Adam to Christ which puts us at roughly 6 thousand years from the creation point. Bible is filled with many actual facts to prove it was dictated by God, so I take it on faith (not blind faith) that what God said was accurate. Two sides of science, the religious dogmatic fervor that drives the evolutionist theory, and the actual science that is untampered by man but reported without slant. Many scientists that do not hold to the religious dogmatic view of science are often ostracized and loose funding by universities for science projects etc. Science, or more accurately theory of evolution is simply a dogmatic narrow fervent religion.

Edit: just to mention, I was responding to a post by an atheist who was replying to one of my posts. It was removed it looks. I wasn't just going off ;) it was a reply :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Atlantians

Student of Theology and History.
Mar 28, 2006
5,233
309
34
California
✟14,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am a Young Earth Creationist myself.

Lets take Gen.1:1-5 and look at this closely and objectively.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." -Gen. 1:1-5 (KJV)

Beginning in verse 1, we see that in the beginning was God. Now this is interesting in that no timeline whatsoever is given here. All we know for sure is that in the beginning of recorded time, God was already there.

In verse 2 we see that the earth was made and there was noting here, absolutely nothing but water and darkeness and chaos. And the Holy Spirit "moved" upon the face of the waters and brought clam to chaos.

Then God creates light. And that light is what separates from darkness.

Then in verse 4 we see that God separates the light day, and the darkness.

And finally in verse 5 we see that the light was called day, and the darkness night. And at the end of this, this was the very first day.

Now, some have pointed out one verse that Biblical Literalists use to justify the "young earth" creationism theory.

If this "theory" is true, then what we end up with is an earth that is only at the very oldest some 13,300 years old. (give or take a few years)

Now here me out first.

Each day of the creation equals 1000 years. Six days to make the creation = 6000 years. One day to rest = 7000 years. Now my Bible dates the writing of the Pentauch/Torah, the Law books to about 3500 BC. Add this to the creation years, this equals 10,500 years. 430 years between the Old and New Testament period, or about a half a day. Since the brith of Christ, we have some 2000 years, or two days, so what we are left with is some 13,333 years.

Now this is if take the Bible "Literally" at 1 day = 1000 years.

However, what we are left with is taking an allegory and appling it literally.

Now there is precidence for this in what James says in James 4:14:

"For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."

The best anology of this verse is to imagine lighting a match. Your birth is like when you first strike the match. It burns quickly as it lights up, but soon, it settles down to a steady burn and then evetually burns out. That is like what our lifetime looks like to GOd.

But, then again, we are trying to put allagories on God.

We use terms like "omnipotence" referring to God as "all powerful."

Who is to say that God could not have merely spoke the world into existance. And at the very milli-second He was finished speaking, it came into existance. This is certainly possible if we believe that God is "omnipotent."

Now just consider for a moment what I'm saying here.

Who is to say that the creation did not take place in 7 milli-seconds, or 7 seconds, 7 minutes, 7 hours, 7 days, 7 years, or even 7000 years?

All we know for sure is that when the earth was created, and all that followed, happened on the very first recorded day in history. However long that day was, we know what happened on that first "day."

I don't know how long that first day was, it is certainly possible that the very first day only lasted a second. It could have lasted only 24 hours. It could have lasted 1000 years, I don't know. Nobody does, but what we can know for sure is what happened on the very first day in recorded history.

As a side note, I want to interject this one thought.
That is all eisegesis.

Horrid eisegesis.

You misquoted the "1 day is a thousand years" verse entirely out of context.

All the rest was gobblety-goop.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

spinningtutu

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2005
2,521
177
✟3,648.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
People at CF are usually surprised to find out what my position on this is... not that my position is all that surprising (just that it is me who holds it):

*I'm with Ken Ham and all of the other Answers-in-Genesis folks on this one. Since the Genesis account uses the language of "evening...morning" it is clear to me that it is talking about real days, 24 hr ones, like the ones we experience. I know some Christians debate the meaning of the Hebrew yom regarding the actual length of time. And I know there's a debate over bara as well. Fine. So there's a little bit of difference over the exact details.

The only aspect I find that really needs explanation is the one regarding the age of the Earth. Here's how I look at it: Genesis tells us about the creation of the Earth, not the entire cosmos. So I believe God used materials for the earth that could have already been old. In other words, the materials for the earth may have been around for millions of years, but the earth itself is "young" in the sense that it was composed only a few thousand of years ago. So, it doesn't mean anything exciting to me if a piece of granite is carbon dated at being very old... so what?

In any case, within the "Creationism" department, there are a few places where Christians won't always agree. Fine. What I don't into is trying to mesh Creationism with Evolution. To me, believing in _any_ form of Evolution (even "Theistic") ruins it for me. So I choose Creationism over Evolutionism. That's my take.
 
Upvote 0

marktheblake

Member
Aug 20, 2008
1,039
26
The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Visit site
✟16,359.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
So I choose Creationism over Evolutionism. That's my take.

Good on ya for taking that stamd. It never ceases to astound me that so many others seem more preoccupied with criticising other peoples opposing view than their standing on their own.

If you have not discovered www.godandscience.org yet check it out, i think you will like it. He has a good explanation of old earth young creation if thats a name for it :)
 
Upvote 0

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Paxi, u present an interesting idea. I wish I had the time to give it the thought and reading it deserved. I like it.

DeaconDean, my friend whom I much agree with, what u posted is indeed mostly bad eisegesis punctuated by gobledy-

JR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums