I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Jeremiah 8
7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD.

Job:35
11 who teaches us more than he teaches the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?’
*** Thats an interesting one... So God is Teaching the beasts. So in that case, we have specific reference to Evolution?

Eclesiastes3:18
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Genesis 1:30
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Isaiah 11:6
6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORDas the waters cover the sea.

This is also interesting, but sort of of a different subject..
In Genesis, All the Beasts eat green plant for Food - At the End times, The lion will eat straw.
What God does at the Beginning, Got Changed During, and Will go back to the Beginning state.
That's the pattern I'm thinking of for a lot of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Jeremiah 8
7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD.

Job:35
11 who teaches us more than he teaches the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?’
*** Thats an interesting one... So God is Teaching the beasts. So in that case, we have specific reference to Evolution?

Eclesiastes3:18
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Maybe more like my program insertion idea :p
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

Personally I see a very big change in the way God reveals Himself to man as opposed to the biblical time and I believe that in this time God does not want man to be able to prove His existence. If that is the case then man won’t be able to find proof that He exists. If we had proof we wouldn’t need faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen P
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Personally I see a very big change in the way God reveals Himself to man as opposed to the biblical time and I believe that in this time God does not want man to be able to prove His existence. If that is the case then man won’t be able to find proof that He exists. If we had proof we wouldn’t need faith.
God uses every way possible to prove that He exists in order to reach every person from every walk of life. Proof that He exists provides recognition of God but that proof doesn't tell anyone how to get saved. Therefore it's written "he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

There are a number of believers who use a science and related platform in which to prove God's existence to anyone who needs proof.
Here's a very long list
List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God uses every way possible to prove that He exists in order to reach every person from every walk of life. Proof that He exists provides recognition of God but that proof doesn't tell anyone how to get saved. Therefore it's written "he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

There are a number of believers who use a science and related platform in which to prove God's existence to anyone who needs proof.
Here's a very long list
List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

God provides evidence not proof. Christians have a tendency to view that evidence as proof. These scientists are also providing evidence not proof. There’s a big difference between evidence and proof my friend.
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God provides evidence not proof. Christians have a tendency to view that evidence as proof. These scientists are also providing evidence not proof. There’s a big difference between evidence and proof my friend.
Why is it that concerning my use of the word proof you make a difference, whereas you used proof throughout your post. The word evidence is not there.

So correct yourself, not me.
BNR32FAN said:
Personally I see a very big change in the way God reveals Himself to man as opposed to the biblical time and I believe that in this time God does not want man to be able to prove His existence. If that is the case then man won’t be able to find proof that He exists. If we had proof we wouldn’t need faith.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why is it that concerning my use of the word proof you make a difference, whereas you used proof throughout your post. The word evidence is not there.

Because in every case where I use the word proof I’m referring to conclusive evidence that undoubtedly proves the existence of God not inconclusive evidence that may or may not support His existence. Proof is something that is undeniable, evidence is something that can support a theory but is not conclusive.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Personally I see a very big change in the way God reveals Himself to man as opposed to the biblical time and I believe that in this time God does not want man to be able to prove His existence. If that is the case then man won’t be able to find proof that He exists. If we had proof we wouldn’t need faith.
I am full on trying to find proofs - I have ideas, some that have parts of them backed up by various websites (a good source of losing all proof to people posting anything on any subject - DOH)
And yeah, I feel blocked, but I think its also we have 1000% more humans, each wants/has a different opinion.
In the 70's people postulated a something, and there were ways for people to discuss to the finish the something, nowdays posts on forums stay visible for a day or so? Popular forums like this may go off the page in hours.
There could be 3 people on this thread, each with 1/3 rd of the answer to someones Genesis question, but each part is a comment on different pages, or one person doesn't post because they feel bad about not posting a complete answer..
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because in every case where I use the word proof I’m referring to conclusive evidence that undoubtedly proves the existence of God not inconclusive evidence that may or may not support His existence.
If you meant evidence, then you should have used that word. However, the word 'proof' is still on the table.

So in other words if what is presented is not convincing than it was merely evidence, but the same presentation is convincing and therefore proof. Or someone thinks that the same presentation was neither proof or evidence and therefore inconclusive.. and thus a waste of time.

When the apostle Paul (the last chapter of Acts) spoke to the men, some believed but others did not. Therefore what he said was sufficient proof. Those who didn't think so was not an indication that what he said was lacking evidence or inconclusive.

The apostle Paul for his own reason called it a waste of time when he quoted from Isaiah.. "And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, 'Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them'. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Acts 28:24-28.
 
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

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,111
7,243
Dallas
✟873,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So in other words if what is presented is not convincing than it was merely evidence, but the same presentation is convincing and therefore proof. Or someone thinks that the same presentation was neither proof or evidence and therefore inconclusive.. and thus a waste of time.

No, allow me to explain the difference between proof and evidence. Evidence of a train coming down the track might be seeing the cross guards going down and the flashing lights. That’s typically an indication that a train is coming down the track but it’s not absolutely conclusive because it can happen without an actual train coming. Proof would be actually seeing the train coming down the track. Seeing the train with your own eyes is conclusive evidence that is undoubtedly undeniable. Another example of the difference between evidence and proof would be seeing a pot of water boiling on a stove with steam coming off of it. This might appear to be inconclusive evidence that the water is hot, but on the contrary it’s not. It could be a pot of liquid nitrogen which boils at room temperature and also produces a cloud of vapor. Now if you touched the pot and burned your hand that would be proof that it was hot. Or if you didn’t burn your hand that would be proof that it wasn’t hot because it’s undeniably known to be true or false depending on the way your looking at it. So opinions or beliefs or what someone thinks is irrelevant in distinguishing the difference between evidence and proof. Proof is undeniable fact, evidence is something that can support a particular theory but has not been substantiated.
 
Upvote 0

Livingstones2020

Biblical Creationist
Dec 25, 2019
55
73
37
Lancaster, PA
Visit site
✟19,581.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Single
I hate to say this, but rather someone believes in creation or evolution, it is not a battle of evidence. We have the same rock layers, the same stars, the same DNA. However, we have interruptations on the rock layers, stars, and DNA. It is not a battle of evidence, but it is a battle of Worldviews. I believe that the Bible is God's authoritative Word and I believe that what God says in Genesis is completely accurate and literal. People that believe in evolution believe in man's ideas. It is because we both have 2 starting points.

Here is a video from Answers in Genesis that explains more about it. It is called: Jurassic Prank by the late Dr. Tommy Mitchell.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen P
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
If you meant evidence, then you should have used that word. However, the word 'proof' is still on the table.
And thus the topic gets distracted towards the meaning of words instead of the meaning of the post.

No matter what words are used, The original poster is simply desperately wanting to know that Creationism is real.


According to Dictionary, "Proof" means: "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a
statement."
So evidence and proof are the same thing. End of arguement.
Personally, i've used the word proof all my life much more than evidence, because I grew up in England so I would have worded the post the same way.. It's because all races are talking together that all meanings are now being mixed up, if we were still in the middle ages, we would know exactly the meaning of our region.
As Yoda would have said "There is no Words, There is only Meaning."

WE should be double checking the original poster their meaning of creationism/creation science which is:
"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
The poster said in the original post "If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He?"

The poster seems to have grown up in a "Because everyone dies OK so don't argue" thing.

The Poster is saying in this forum "OK so Christians like yourselves are saying hey, don't worry about Genesis, its a fable and fact mixed together, Yeah, Umm but the rest of the Bible IS truth yes?"
The poster seems worried that "Well if all Christians think that bits of Genesis is untrue, then why should the other bits of Genesis be proof? Like the Fall of Adam?" and therefore why should the Bible which constantly references the Fall be held as truth?

This situation is exactly like me saying the "U.N. doesn't exist", but insisting that U.N. Directives are sent out to every country.
Why should the Reciever (the poster) act on the Directives, if the person delivering the Directives does not believe the U.N. exists?

Why did God go to the trouble of delivering Genesis in that format? The Universe was created for us to explore correct?
Isn't that Creationism: Exploring how God works in everything we do.
Its not anti God to want to see Gods Works.
And the trouble is that Science has taken over the whole process of How does it work? Becuse we've done nothing but discuss meanings of words."

Can the onset of Death as a separate feature instead of something that always happened be a Scientific possibility?
Genesis says that it should be a separate feature because there is a before and an after, just like increased farming issues before and after feature, and childbirthing pains before and after feature.

I'm trying to work out if that is possible, is anyone else?
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I hate to say this, but rather someone believes in creation or evolution, it is not a battle of evidence. We have the same rock layers, the same stars, the same DNA. However, we have interruptations on the rock layers, stars, and DNA. It is not a battle of evidence, but it is a battle of Worldviews. I believe that the Bible is God's authoritative Word and I believe that what God says in Genesis is completely accurate and literal. People that believe in evolution believe in man's ideas. It is because we both have 2 starting points.

Here is a video from Answers in Genesis that explains more about it. It is called: Jurassic Prank by the late Dr. Tommy Mitchell.


True It's not Science vs Religion,
Religious people think Science is anti-God
Scientists were persecuted by the Church in history, and do not have a good opinion of religion, BUT Religion hates Science because it "proves" no need for God.
BUT
Look at my discussions about Dawkins random Evolution vs God using the same Evolution but choosing instead of being random.
It does work.
And that was thought of by a 6 year old Me in 1970' so what can others do?
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
True It's not Science vs Religion,
Religious people think Science is anti-God
Scientists were persecuted by the Church in history, and do not have a good opinion of religion, BUT Religion hates Science because it "proves" no need for God.
BUT
Look at my discussions about Dawkins random Evolution vs God using the same Evolution but choosing instead of being random.
It does work.
And that was thought of by a 6 year old Me in 1970' so what can others do?
Seriously, Choose a part of Genesis and try to see if theres proof that this really happened.
Start discussing How God made it physically possible in Genesis.
I personally don't care if there is really wild stuff, Electricity was thought of as a fluid at first. But because someone took that thought and improved it, we have what we have today.
It seems re: Genesis, Christians have a God Did it, or Its a Fable, but no research.
 
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

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Seriously, Choose a part of Genesis and try to see if theres proof that this really happened.
Start discussing How God made it physically possible in Genesis.
I personally don't care if there is really wild stuff, Electricity was thought of as a fluid at first. But because someone took that thought and improved it, we have what we have today.
It seems re: Genesis, Christians have a God Did it, or Its a Fable, but no research.

If we are going to look at Genesis properly we need to return te ball to the Scientists court instead of arguing which type of ball to use. Get them to tell US - They are there to help us, and many are Christians - so get them going.. hey what about this, is this possible?

~

This is a good example of forgetting about the time scale wit ha theory, this Scientific theory changed by 1 Billion years so don't worry about the process.

livescience.com 23 March 2014
When Did Earth's First Whiffs of Oxygen Emerge?
Oxygen levels in rocks suddenly rise starting 2.5 billion years ago — a spike called the "Great Oxidation Event." The jump was long held up as evidence for when cyanobacteria evolved photosynthesis. But a study published today (March 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience joins a growing body of data that suggests the earliest sun-lovers appeared long before this oxygen spike.

This a good example of the order of the Process.

Heres a bit about The first time Oxygen appeared in the atmosphere. Sulfuric acid was one issue with a planetary atmospheric failure during the dieback of all land species and return to the waters.
have a look at the attached summary of the Earth:Making of a Planet video
Timeline of Photosynthesis on Earth
4.6 billion years ago -- Formation of Earth
3.4 billion years ago -- First photosynthetic bacteria
They absorbed near-infrared rather than visible light and produced sulfur or sulfate compounds rather than oxygen. Their pigments (possibly bacteriochlorophylls) were predecessors to chlorophyll.
2.4–2.3 billion years ago -- First rock evidence of atmospheric oxygen

2.7 billion years ago -- Cyanobacteria
These ubiquitous bacteria were the first oxygen producers. They absorb visible light using a mix of pigments: phycobilins, carotenoids and several forms of chlorophyll.


s.
 

Attachments

  • Earth The Making of a Planet.txt
    9.3 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
CHALLENGE:
Have a look at below questions, copy them into a new post and and try to do some Science to Genesis theories.

Does this above process show the Fall?
Where in the process could the Fall have happened?
Which fruit did they eat? Is the choice of fruit reflected in one or more of the curses?

1. but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.
2. I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
3. Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,


Why is this part of the curse of Childbearing?
4. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
### I do NOT like the domination wording, that isn't love. I believe this describes family life, not conflict.
I personally would rename this verse as
4. Your dependance will be on your husband, and he will lead the family.

s.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!
Your after direct proof of creationism. I am after direct proof of evolution.

We are travelling past each other in opposite directions.

All I see are sudden appearances in the fossil record of species, not the transitional species which should be abundant.

Species rarely adapt to environmental changes rather they become extinct. Well that is what the fossil record states, 97% of all species are now extinct.

The trilobite appears suddenly and fully formed, raring to go.

Where is that gradual, gentle transition from one species to another. Oh, I miss the old days when you could believe something, without any evidence. These days the evolutionary theory is listing badly, too much evidence of abrupt change.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen P

Active Member
Jun 5, 2020
163
20
56
SYDNEY
✟18,396.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
klutedavid

Did you see this previous post of mine?

"Look at my discussions about Dawkins random Evolution vs God using the same Evolution but choosing instead of being random.
It does work.
And that was thought of by a 6 year old Me in 1970' so what can others do?"

And there is my Schroeder reference post here on How Adam was given the ADAM simultaneously allowing Humans to trace evolution back to the earliest apes, BUT still comply to Genesis where it says God created Adam. "The Bible describes him as being created in the image of G‑d"
Image, not Body of God. . God is what we would call Spirit. That is what he gave Adam.
Adam was created a being of dust, AND then became a Being of Spirit AND Dust.

The Fall and Childbirth pains section og Genesis actually match with this above.

S.
 
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

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Where do I start? How about whales? They are completely air breathers and live in the ocean. They need sleep as mammals do. One half of the brain sleeps at one time so that the animal can come up for air. The first whale had to have the half brain capability or it drowned. That would have been the end of the whale species there and then. How did the whale know to keep half its brain active? There are countless other roadblocks.

You could also check out this web site:
www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

This website says that its objective is to make the general public aware that “the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.”

Out of the more than 3,000,000 million scientists who have earned at least one doctorate in at least on field of science, and who are employed today as scientists, not one, no not one, would agree with these two statements because the statements are absolutely false! We have today, tens of billions, yes billions with a “b”, pieces of data that support the theory of evolution.

This website also says, “We use the term ‘evolution’ to mean, ‘The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.’”

This, of course, is NOT how scientists use the term ‘evolution’. The manner in which scientists use the term ‘evolution’ is summed up here:

Evolution is a biological process that makes living things change over a long time. The explanation of how this process works and how living beings have come to be the way they are is called the theory of evolution.​


Our English word “gospel’ is a translation of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον which is found in the Greek New testament 76 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The cognate verb εὐαγγελίζω is found in the Greek New testament 54 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The bad news is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (NRSV); the good news (the gospel) is that “they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV) Therefore, the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the Christian faith and is absolutely harmless. However, the teaching of young earth creationism is highly relevant to the Christian faith—but only in an extremely negative way! Indeed, every year, thousands of young people turn away from Christ because they have been incorrectly taught that the Bible teaches young earth creationism and they know for an incontrovertible fact that the earth is at least hundreds of million of year old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0