Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The text of Genesis chapter 1 doesn't say what time may or may not have passed between each of the days in the vision.
It's a week of 6 numbered days that all have an evening and a morning.
This is good to keep in mind, that we not represent differently than what is there. That we not use our own theories, either 4.5 bn years or 156 hours, theories, instead of the sublime text.
The text is pretty clear by itself.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without the presupposition that humans evolved from single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is billions of years old. In other words, the assumption that the universe is billions of years old is required in order for Darwinist and/or neo-Darwinist evolution to be true.

With that being said, with regard to the origin of the universe and life on earth, there is no reason to measure the half life of any given source without the presupposition that the universe and the earth are both billions of years old.

Also, nothing in the text indicates that any time passed between days, or that the word "day" means anything other than what the word means today. Adding in time gaps between days, and changing the definition of the word "day" just to appease the presuppositions of secular science are part of what I refer to as "Bible plus".

My specific ideas on seeing how Genesis chapter 1 aligns to what we can see and observe are simply my own understandings, and really are truly of no importance whatsoever. Even if correct(!).

Like I think our sun is the 'light' on day 1, and also that the days were entirely overcast clouded until the "fourth" day. This happens to fit some modern computer simulation of Earth's early climate for a long time period, with major cloudiness likely much longer than 1 billion years. But, even if correct, it's ultimately not really the point of the text, see.

It's definitely not there in the text that the days in the vision are without time gaps between them. Sure, I can understand presuming that. Absolutely. People quite naturally make all sorts of presumptions about just anything you can name. But it's beside the point, ultimately.

Not even important, in a way. The real thing is like I managed to finally put into words in post #20.

Put another way, I don't want to get too preoccupied by studying something I built that is nice looking when instead I could gain the most precious jewels.

So, I merely discuss engineered stuff merely when people are preoccupied with engineered stuff, and only hoping to do "love your neighbor". But I hope I always remember to say -- hey guy, that thing you think is cool, sure, BUT....there is Something better!

We'd better depart from representing Genesis chapter 1 with additional added stuff we emphasize like zero time gaps though, as YEC does in effect. It's not the word. The Word is above us, not beneath us.

While I take the "days" as entirely real, actual, true individual days that actually happened, as if recorded by a camera right there in a moment in time, right on the surface of the Earth.

100% real.

Still, even this is not the point of the text!

It's not what the text says. If I'm emphasizing how I myself think the days were actual ones seen in a vision, that's....ultimately beside the point, and even a distraction, in the end. Finally.

To hear what it actually says, we have to do that thing in post #20.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Living Soul
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's a week of 6 numbered days that all have an evening and a morning. The text is pretty clear by itself.

If we listen.

See post #20, all the way to the end, for what I'm trying to say.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Our added theories, such as the theory of no time between days, is merely an idea, so much less sublime than the text.
No time between days is not an added theory.
There is no time between days that consist of an evening and a morning.
Assuming there is time in between is adding theory.
To use a analogy, a person might herself apply makeup to herself, if she wishes, but we don't want to rush up to the most beautiful living woman in the world and try to put makeup onto her.

No, we realize she is as she is, in herself, already, without us adding.

The real gifts from scripture come when we can truly listen.

As if you just woke up, in the very first dawn of the world!

Listening, like you would in the first dawn, rapturous.

Like you would listen if you could travel through time to nearly 2,000 years ago and actually hear Christ Jesus speak. You'd not want any doctrines then!! You'd want your mind to be utterly silent, doctrine free, and listen, listen with every fiber of your being.
Whatever works for you, i'm fine with it.
But if you want to add time in between the days of Genesis 1, you're gonna have to substantiate that decision for me, or agree to disagree, which is also fine by me.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, no they do not.
Both sides have the same evidence to work with.
You will not find a single, independent method of dating the Earth or universe that corroborates the YEC age of everything.
You mean you're not aware of it.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No time between days is not an added theory.
There is no time between days that consist of an evening and a morning.
Assuming there is time in between is adding theory.

Please forgive, but the first sentence I must respectfully disagree with. I can read the text, and I don't see anything saying or even suggesting to me that the days passed without any time between them. But no matter. Please just forgive. I don't have to have total knowledge of all things, even mysteries and such, right?

But though it's not important as I see it, if it helps I can tell you that I think they are real days, actual, with morning (after sunrise), and an evening (to sunset and just after). Literal. Day one was a specific day that actually happened in my guess. If that even helps at all. It's....too fine a detail to focus on very long. A distraction, finally, only a mere distraction to argue with people about, and the arguing itself is wrong. I don't need to confront anyone that thinks the days are metaphorical, and argue. It would be wrong for me to do so.

I'm not sure whether I know what you mean in the 2nd sentence above -- it seems like it says because the day has a morning and an evening, that the next "second" day in the text could not have more than one night or day passing before it comes. But perhaps you meant something else. Sorry, I don't think such a conclusion is good to make into a doctrine. It's not the intent of the text to dwell in a small detail. Such things are....small detail.


But on your 3rd sentence we agree 100%. Really.

It's truly a theory to think that time passed between the days!

Absolutely.

Perhaps that's a better thing for us to agree on -- that's merely an idea, just a theory.

I know for sure that the profound way I have been affected by Genesis chapter one does not rely even the slightest amount on whether 156 or 16,000 hours passed, or whatever time. That I can tell you as a sure thing.

The time period is not the meaning of the text, and I think likely you agree on that. I don't feel it would be good at all in any way for me to argue on all of this time period stuff though. We are only saved solely by our faith in God and Christ risen, our Redeemer, and doing as He said in Matthew 7:24-27. That's our firm foundation.
 
Upvote 0

Living Soul

Active Member
Aug 28, 2017
160
127
48
New England
✟21,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When i first found out the Truth i was very sceptical towards YECs.
As i was apparently taught somehow, i thought they were idiots.
But then i looked into it further, and now i find myself to be a bit of a YEC too...
The thing is, mainstream popular science is naturalism.
But i'm a supernaturalist, so i have little reason to subscribe to naturalistic convictions.

I have a playlist on youtube, which also contains a lot of creation science and evolution debunkings:
apologetics - YouTube
I think you can see it's much more than people just taking the Bible literally.
There's actually a lot of evidence for creation and a young earth, for the flood and more of those things that we're taught are fairytales.

Personal disclaimer:
I don't know how old the creation and / or mankind is.
But it seems to me the Bible is more trustworthy than popular pseudo science.

I agree. I don't take the entire Bible literally either. Large parts of the Psalms for example are most likely written metaphorically since they're songs. Parts of Revelation are very cryptic and probably not literal since we have yet to see all of those events unfold.

I have no misgivings towards those who believe differently than me on the origin of the universe because I know that most Christians do really understand where YEC comes from, as I understand where a lot of the other belief systems come from when not taking Genesis 1-11 literally as it's written (or not written).

Having visited both of Ken Ham's establishments in Kentucky, The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, there were a few things I walked away scratching my head about. For example, I still don't understand the origin or the explanation for the "floating forests" display toward the end of the Creation Museum tour, but I'm ok with that. Maybe some day I'll have time to research that and see what it's all about.

We all love Jesus and hopefully helping others to come to Him, and that's what matters in the end.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Living Soul

Active Member
Aug 28, 2017
160
127
48
New England
✟21,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My specific ideas on seeing how Genesis chapter 1 aligns to what we can see and observe are simply my own understandings, and really are truly of no importance whatsoever.

It's definitely not there in the text that the days in the vision are without time gaps between them. Sure, I can understand presuming that. Absolutely. People quite naturally make all sorts of presumptions about just anything you can name. But it's beside the point, ultimately.

Not even important, in a way. The real thing is like I managed to finally put into words in post #20.

Put another way, I don't want to get too preoccupied by studying something I built that is nice looking when instead I could gain the most precious jewels.

So, I merely discuss engineered stuff merely when people are preoccupied with engineered stuff, and only hoping to do "love your neighbor". But I hope I always remember to say -- hey guy, that thing you think is cool, sure, BUT....there is Something better!

We'd better depart from representing Genesis chapter 1 with additional added stuff we emphasize like zero time gaps though, as YEC does in effect. It's not the word. The Word is above us, not beneath us.

While I take the "days" as entirely real, actual, true individual days that actually happened, as if recorded by a camera right there in a moment in time, right on the surface of the Earth.

100% real.

Still, even this is not the point of the text!

It's not what the text says. If I'm emphasizing how I myself think the days were actual ones seen in a vision, that's....ultimately beside the point, and even a distraction, in the end. Finally.

To hear what it actually says, we have to do that thing in post #20.

I understand what you're saying, and apologize if I'm coming off as boastful or arrogant. I love you as I love myself. God bless you for explaining your view of God's word to me and others here.

Thank you truly!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You mean you're not aware of it.

Then point to an example of independent corroboration of the supposed YEC age of the Earth and universe. Please note I'm looking for something to corroborate the specific age.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Please forgive, but the first sentence I must respectfully disagree with. I can read the text, and I don't see anything saying the days passed without any time between them. But no matter. Please just forgive. I don't see it.
I forgive, don't worry. :)
In a sequence of days (such as 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day, 5th day, 6th day), there is no time between the days.
Now if it were not clearly a sequence in Genesis 1, you could wonder if the text by itself leaves room for time in between, but this is not the case.
Also, it is confirmed several times in Scripture that God did it in 6 days, and resting from his work the 7th day.
I see no room in Scripture to suggest time in between those days, it consistently reads as a sequence in 1 week.
But I think they are real days, actual, with morning (after sunrise), and an evening (to sunset and just after). Literal. If that even helps at all. It's....too fine a detail to focus on very long. A distraction, finally, only a mere distraction to argue with people about, and the arguing itself is wrong. I don't need to confront anyone that thinks the days are metaphorical, and argue. It would be wrong for me to do so.
I agree the discussion can get blown out of proportions easily. I'm sometimes guilty of that, i suppose..
It's not a salvation issue.
I think the question is where we should draw the line.
When you allegorise this, then you open the door to allegorise more.
But on the other hand, the suggested flat earth model as portrayed in the Bible is only credible when you agree this is God's perception, not man's, not ours.
I guess this could be said too about the creation week, although there is much more emphasis on the creation week, which seems like a reason to take it more seriously and literally (so it seems to me anyway).
I'm not sure whether I know what you mean in the 2nd sentence above -- it seems like it says because the day has a morning and an evening, that the next "second" day in the text could not have more than one night or day passing before it comes. But perhaps you meant something else. Sorry, I don't think such a conclusion is good to make into a doctrine.
Yes, that is what i meant.
I read a quite clear emphasis on the days as sequential days, which start in the evening each time.
Even the first day starts in darkness by the way.
But i see your point, i think.
But it doesn't 'resonate' in my mind with the 7th day, when God rests of his work, when there would be periods of not creating in between the creation days.
I.m.o. it doesn't read like that.
But on your 3rd sentence we agree 100%. Really.

It's truly a theory to think that time passed between the days!

Absolutely.

Perhaps that's a better thing for us to agree on -- that's merely an idea, just a theory.
Okay. :)
I know for sure that the profound way I have been affected by Genesis chapter one does not rely even the slightest amount on whether 156 or 16,000 hours passed, or whatever time. That I can tell you as a sure thing.
It has to be limited though, otherwise the plants would be without sun for too long, unless God was the light source up until then.
But the eco system as a whole would not function if there were vast amounts of time between the creation days.
The time period is not the meaning of the text, and I think likely you agree on that. I don't feel it would be good at all in any way for me to argue on all of this time period stuff though. We are only saved solely by our faith in God and Christ risen, our Redeemer, and doing as He said in Matthew 7:24-27. That's our firm foundation.
We agree. :)

But the problem with Old Earth Creationism is that God did apparently not create man in his Image, from the dust of the earth, and did not form Eve from the rib of Adam.
The problem with OEC-ists is that they feel obliged to subscribe to naturalistic ideas because of the authoritarian position science has assumed in the matter.
What confounds me is that OEC-ists usually refuse to look into YEC science, and dismiss it as unscientific.
This must be peer pressure at work, because it's not reasonable.
It seems to me that OEC-ists refuse to choose between naturalism and supernaturalism, and while they're at it they simply don't believe Scripture anymore or are forced to allegorise a lot of it, throwing proper exegesis out the window.
They will have to ignore evidence from other fields of knowledge too, about things like the Nephilim and the Flood, even the Exodus.
Apparently it's not Scripture itself that they can not believe, but rather the fact that science is a human endeavour with usually a naturalistic viewpoint to work from and thus not objective and not necessarily financed, acknowledged and facilitated by people who pursue the truth of the matter.
But this was my biggest hurdle too.
I never expected main stream science to be as opinionated / opinionating as it apparently is.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
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

Dawnhammer

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
545
436
48
Denmark
✟23,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But i'm a supernaturalist, so i have little reason to subscribe to naturalistic convictions.

When you need to visit Australia do you pray for translocation or take a jet ?

When your food is cold do you microwave it or pray for food to heat up ?

When you need to talk to your out of town family do you pray for telepathic connection or use your IPhone ?

When you are commenting your distrust and doubt about natural sciences are you praying for your words to appear here or are you using technology based on science to actually get anything done ?

Not hard to guess. Hypocrisy is always easier than logic.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand what you're saying, and apologize if I'm coming off as boastful or arrogant. I love you as I love myself. God bless you for explaining your view of God's word to me and others here.

Thank you truly!

Since some are interested (quite reasonably!) in the details not in the scripture (and many are, very many people), I did add one more piece of detail (or some would say 'big detail' perhaps, to my posts above you already saw.

Here's one way that totally fits the text --

Because the day/night cycle begins on the first day, the light must be from our sun, our sun started. Earth rotating. Together, these cause the day/night cycle shown in the text.

Also, the days were entirely overcast/mostly cloudy until the "fourth" day, the first day with a clear sky.

This happens to fit some modern computer simulation of Earth's early climate for a long time period, with major cloudiness likely much longer than 1 billion years. But, even if correct, such is....only for curiosity finally.

Such isn't the jewel of the profoundly wonderful scripture text.

Reading it is really is for me like in the 2nd half of post #20 -- profound, sublime -- moving my mind into a better place.

It's a treasure for us, Genesis chapter 1.

Everyone should allow themselves the wonderful gift of listening to the words. Like you might a song you deeply love.

Genesis 1 ESV
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then point to an example of independent corroboration of the supposed YEC age of the Earth and universe.
Why do my sources have to be "independent" and your sources are allowed to be naturalists?
Please note I'm looking for something to corroborate the specific age.
Do your sources offer the same? no they don't.
Then why do you demand my sources do?

But anyway, you ask for scientific evidence, and then i can refer to a couple of things.
Stratigraphy for example, genetics ("genetic clock" and things like that), demographics, helium diffusion, astronomy, the fact that human recorded history only goes back a couple of thousand years
and i probably forget various things...

I'm not an encyclopedia of creation science and young earth / young humanity apologetics, nor a teacher of these things, unfortunately.
I do have a Youtube playlist in stead.
apologetics - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When you need to visit Australia do you pray for translocation or take a jet ?
Is this an attempt to come across as a smart person?
When your food is cold do you microwave it or pray for food to heat up ?
Ah, yes, it's the apples and oranges fallacy again...

You apparently don't understand the difference between natural science and naturalistic modelling regarding the origins of things.

When you need to talk to your out of town family do you pray for telepathic connection or use your IPhone ?

When you are commenting your distrust and doubt about natural sciences are you praying for your words to appear here or are you using technology based on science to actually get anything done ?

Not hard to guess. Hypocrisy is always easier than logic.
Ignorance is even easier.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But the problem with Old Earth Creationism is that God did apparently not create man in his Image, from the dust of the earth, and did not form Eve from the rib of Adam.

Just so you know, I don't presume that Adam was not literally made in moments (or however long, minutes, doesn't matter the time length of course) from literally the dirt of the ground, right there.

God could, indeed! Very possible. I don't even need to know precisely, but rather I must listen and then I get the key meaning to me later in chapter 3, in this verse, and it's the true point to me of the meaning of "dust" --

"....for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

There's profound meaning.

Also, it's profoundly meaningful when I read with real hearing that Eve comes from Adam's very rib!

Not earth, or dust, or mud, or some combination of stuff.

She is from his rib!

She is integral to Adam, in their relationship, like for him even more deeply than his own skin, as a rib, protecting his heart and breath.

That's not an accident.

It isn't like....bone marrow from his thigh, for instance, or whatever other alternative thing could have been used.

Deeper. She's from close to the heart.

That's marriage. Under the skin. It's a profound connection.

This is the way the text seems to me. It's not about surface history, but about utterly profound things, of first and central importance in life, here and now, on Earth, as we live it. So, it's far more important than some unalike other text not the Word, which might have read so differently, unlike the treasure we have, and only said a much less informing detail like only the mere-history 'then Eve showed up to be his wife' or whatever. Instead of that, we have profound things. Praise the Lord!
 
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

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
60
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use.

Not really. Many YEC who attempt to age-date things do it very badly. Take Steve Austin's attempt to show how unreliable radiometric dating was by submitting samples outside of the detection limits of the lab analysis he requested and improperly treating the samples prior to submission.

It is one thing to put something in a machine, it is quite another to put garbage into a system and think the garbage one gets out has meaning.

However, Christian scientists put God's word first and foremost in determining that age, where secular scientists will put material desires first and foremost.

So misusing scientific equipment and interpreting noise as actual data is how Christians put God's word first?

It could be that many YEC are actually just ignorant of basic lab processes, or they could be that some are being dishonest. I suspect that it is mostly just a matter of ignorance. That doesn't make the data "correct", just wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
60
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But i'm a supernaturalist, so i have little reason to subscribe to naturalistic convictions.

Except when you do, right? I mean if you drive somewhere or use the lights in your home (or turn on your computer) you are relying on old earth Geology which provides the materials and the energy sources. If you need to use nuclear medicine you are relying on the same kind of understanding of radioactive decay that underlies the measurement of the earth at 4.5 billion years old.

But other than that...

There's actually a lot of evidence for creation and a young earth, for the flood and more of those things that we're taught are fairytales.

There is no evidence of the Noachian flood. Most of what YEC's point to as "evidence" isn't anything like they think it is. Stratigraphy and sedimentology actually are REAL SCIENCES and one can't really just look at a rock and fantasize that it says something. It actually says something. And so far none of them say "global flood!"

But it seems to me the Bible is more trustworthy than popular pseudo science.

"Pseudo science"? I hope you don't mean the geology and chemistry and physics you rely on daily...because standard geology, chemistry and physics tell us the earth is quite old. If, however, you are talking about folks like Steve Austin (YEC) who grossly abused standard lab practices to arrive at bad data point which he used to point out flaws in the science, well, that indeed IS pseudo science.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Without the presupposition that humans evolved from single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is billions of years old. In other words, the assumption that the universe is billions of years old is required in order for Darwinist and/or neo-Darwinist evolution to be true.
The age of the Earth is based on evidence which began to be gathered and understood long before Darwin. The science on which an ancient Earth is based was done by Christians, many of them clergymen, who at first resisted what it showed them but were finally compelled by weight of evidence to reject a young Earth. It was the gradual acceptance of an ancient Earth which allowed Darwin and others to contemplate evolution, not the other way around. The notion that old Earth cosmology is maintained merely as a prop for "Darwinism" is untrue.
 
Upvote 0

Living Soul

Active Member
Aug 28, 2017
160
127
48
New England
✟21,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you need to visit Australia do you pray for translocation or take a jet ?

When your food is cold do you microwave it or pray for food to heat up ?

When you need to talk to your out of town family do you pray for telepathic connection or use your IPhone ?

When you are commenting your distrust and doubt about natural sciences are you praying for your words to appear here or are you using technology based on science to actually get anything done ?

Not hard to guess. Hypocrisy is always easier than logic.

I don't think anyone here is doubting science in general, as I certainly am not.

Do you use science as a tool to explore and understand God's creation, or do you use science as a tool to explore a dead world that suddenly spawned life from nothing and requires billions of years of unknowable history to support that?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hieronymus
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

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,458.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The age of the Earth is based on evidence which began to be gathered and understood long before Darwin. The science on which an ancient Earth is based was done by Christians, many of them clergymen, who at first resisted what it showed them but were finally compelled by weight of evidence to reject a young Earth. It was the gradual acceptance of an ancient Earth which allowed Darwin and others to contemplate evolution, not the other way around. The notion that old Earth cosmology is maintained merely as a prop for "Darwinism" is untrue.
Exactly. We should be in awe of the discipline and honesty of those did not allow their traditional understanding of scripture to reject what the world wide evidence was telling them.
 
Upvote 0