Is Genesis history?

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
You haven’t read the book, so you have no idea what they covered about genetics. They covered the fact that every species of the kinds on board need not be included, thus only two dogs - and not every species of canine - as one example, and came up with 85,000 kinds if memory serves, and analysis of the dimensions and number of floors on the ark yields the equivalent of 500 railroad boxcars of space, again if memory serves, as I don’t have my copy of it available, more than enough space.

As I posted above,

Neither Whitcomb nor Morris, having virtually no knowledge of biology, were aware of the amount genetic diversity that would necessarily have been aboard the ark—not in test tubes, but in real, living animals. For example, the “cat kind” is not a genus, but a family (Felidae) comprised of 14 genera. Furthermore, the claim that all modern animals in the cat kind “descended” (that is, “evolved)” from one “parent kind” is a clear-cut admission that macroevolution has been occurring since the animals boarded the ark.​

The same is true of the “dog kind,” and every other imaginary “kind” of animal.

To the point, all of the extremely diverse dog-like carnivorans belong to the family Canidae which includes three subfamilies:

Borophaginae: extinct

Hesperocyoninae: extinct

Caninae: there are three major clades of Caninae: wolves, South American canids, and foxes.

An original pair of Canidae gave rise over a period of 12 million years to all of the now extinct Canidae and to all of the Canidae that we still have. This evolution resulted from gradual environmental changes to which the animals adapted. Had that original pair of Canidae been aboard the ark in 2349, we would not have any of this biodiversity that we have today because 4,370 years would not have been anywhere near long enough to bring about the evolution (that Whitcomb, Morris, and other young earth creationists dishonestly call diversification through decent). For further information, please see this thoroughly documented research paper:

Evolutionary relationships among life-history traits in Caninae (Mammalia: Carnivora)

The amount of genetic diversity that would necessarily have been aboard the ark is thousands of times greater than what they “came up with” because they had virtually no knowledge of biology—including but not limited to genetics—and were unhealthily obsessed with an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is not taught today by any professors of Hebrew, professors of ancient Semitic Languages, or professors of Biblical languages anywhere in the world.

And you’re forgetting that God is almighty - He easily and instantly created any adaptations needed for animals to survive the new ecology on the post flood earth - you are analyzing everything from the materialistic and naturalistic perspective.

No, I am carefully and prayerfully analyzing everything that the Bible actually says rather than the wishful thinking of young earth creationists who place more value upon their imagination than they do upon the Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
Evolution didn't happen. God created the world over 6 days.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them

I am done talking to you. Carry on believing whatever deceptions you want. God's word is simple and clear on how the world came to be. It is there for you to read if you so choose.
If a man wants badly enough to believe something, nothing, absolutely nothing will change his mind—not even God Himself!
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If a man wants badly enough to believe something, nothing, absolutely nothing will change his mind—not even God Himself!
John 5:46
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
cat kind “descended” (that is, “evolved)” from one “parent kind” is a clear-cut admission that macroevolution has been occurring since the animals boarded the ark.

When they turn into a bird like evolutionists claim happened to theropods, and evolve a completely new body plan, then macro evolution will have occurred, until then, that’s called micro evolution.

Bacteria have a very high growth rate and mutation rate, and there are 30,000 or so species of them, and yet there is not one of them anywhere in the process of becoming a higher life form, because Macro evolution does not exist - but micro does.

Any evolution that leaves a germ still a germ, a finch still a finch, a moth still a moth, etc, is an example of adaptation that God built into DNA, and not macro evolution.

In fact the father of genetics, Mendel, proved long ago that genetic change is limited.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
When they turn into a bird like evolutionists claim happened to theropods, and evolve a completely new body plan, then macro evolution will have occurred, until then, that’s called micro evolution.

When radically incorrect information is posted on Christian message boards, the standard of Christianity is not only lowered, but its influence is depreciated and its character is brought into disrepute. The term macroevolution is correctly used to express speciation (species formation); the term microevolution is correctly used to express changes within a species.

I have here in my home library about 30 English language dictionaries, and I shall quote from one of them that adheres to the very highest standards of lexicography in giving word meanings as they are actually used among literate persons:

Definition of microevolution
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
Definition of macroevolution
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003)

In the cat family, we have macroevolution on a grand scale!
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When radically incorrect information is posted on Christian message boards, the standard of Christianity is not only lowered, but its influence is depreciated and its character is brought into disrepute. The term macroevolution is correctly used to express speciation (species formation); the term microevolution is correctly used to express changes within a species.

I have here in my home library about 30 English language dictionaries, and I shall quote from one of them that adheres to the very highest standards of lexicography in giving word meanings as they are actually used among literate persons:

Definition of microevolution
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
Definition of macroevolution
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003)

In the cat family, we have macroevolution on a grand scale!

Are they still in the same animal family?

Yes, they are still in the cat family, felidae, they are still cats, ergo no large scale changes of acquiring sufficient new genetic information to change body plans or change family classification, has occurred.

Then there’s no proof there that an animal can increase its genetic information in the quantum leap necessary to change body plans and become a new type of animal

When a cat morphs into a gorilla or a horse, get back to me.

If macro evolution were a fact, evolving from a theropod to a bird would be an actual example of macro evolution in action.

But lung difference alone precludes that as being a fact.
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
20 minutes to 30 minutes

So in this segment I see a couple of individuals talking about this idea that there are small volcanoes that erupt today, and that there were bigger volcanoes that erupted in the past (which is undoubtedly true) that deposited greater quantities of lava.

Then there was this conclusion that because events of today, such as volcanic eruptions, might be smaller than some events of the past, that we therefore cannot use events of today to judge this expanse of time of the past.

Personally I think that this is kind of a baseless conclusion.

Was there something different about how volcanoes erupted in the past? No.

And what does that mean with regards to layers that have nothing to do with volcanoes? What is our excuse for them?

What exactly is the real argument here that the individual is making? It's kind of this open-ended thought that doesn't really have a particular technical case to it, it's just more of a broad idea and thought that isn't necessarily justified in anything that he has said.

Moving on...

Then the two individuals talk about radiometric dating and the one says that radiometric dating is where geologists get their idea that the Earth is millions of years old.

But actually this isn't true, scientists have had a number of ways of establishing that the Earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.

James Hutton was writing about an ancient earth in the 1700s with his observations at siccar point, while radiometric dating really has only been around since perhaps the 1900s? The idea that geologists judge the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating just isn't true. While radiometric dating might be an additional line of evidence for an old earth, it is not the original concept or body of evidence that led geologists to accept that the earth was. It's just icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Kelvin also had his own estimates in the 1800s as well of an earth hundreds of millions of years old which also predated use of radioactive dating.
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin - Wikipedia

Many historical scientists recognized that the earth was ancient long before radioactive dating was ever discovered.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

Then the individual talks about collecting samples and sending them to different laboratories for analysis, and receiving results that are different.

What should be said about this is that it's easy to get false data, but how does this individual address situations where multiple laboratories are giving the same result?

Again, it's not a matter of getting different results and debunking a method of analysis, but rather it's a question how you address results when they are yielding the same result? And I'm not talking about numbers one through 10 that happened to be similar, I'm talking about things that are parts per million or parts per billion in precision with each other.

View attachment 301263

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Data from independent labs worldwide using various analytical methods for various different isotopes on various samples collected from various locations around the world.

The odds of these laboratories receiving identical results is practically non-existent.

Anyone can go outside with dirt on their hands, pick up a rock and send it into the laboratory and that contamination will yield a false result. And then say "look my result is wrong therefore the method is flawed!". But this just isn't reasonable.

I work with a lot of soil, groundwater and rock dating myself (among other things, air, vapor, surface water, pore water, etc, I do a lot of lab related sampling, or have over the years) and anyone can contaminate samples. Anyone can collect samples that aren't representative of native soil or of a particular rock formation. And this is why we have things like quality assurance and quality control practices. practices where we run blank samples and duplicates and method and equipment blanks and spiked duplicates etc.

So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect bad samples. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?

The video doesn't talk about any of these quality assurance and quality control practices. And unfortunately these are more of the technical details that the general public doesn't really know about because they don't do the work. So the general public isn't really able to determine if what this individual is saying is true or not because they aren't familiar with the actual work that we do.

This video and the individuals in this video don't talk about any quality control related details, in fact if we were to actually search for this person's research, we would find that their research is in absence of all of these quality control and quality assurance procedures. I know this because I happen to have already looked into this topic, and if anyone is curious about more information, feel free to ask.

Again, it's just an omission of information on the part of those producing the video. Though we shouldnt necessarily expect super high quality information from a YouTube film.

And then they go into discussion about some conspiracy about scientists seeking to take down the Bible because of evolution or something like this.

This final couple minutes of the video segment doesn't involve any technical arguments nor does it address quality control shortcomings of the topics they just discussed nor does it discuss how understanding the age of the Earth was established long before radiometric dating ever existed.

It's more just open claims and people just thinking about philosophical challenges, but they aren't really addressing any technical science, rather they're just kind of openly talking and speaking their thoughts on a topic.

Onward to the next ten minutes! :)
You reference to 1sy Barron Kelvin (W Thompson) is a complete farce. Not only did he have zero expertise in sciences such as geology or biology (he was an engineer who specialised in electrical science and thermodynamics) he actually remained a creationist all his life. The only theory he did contribute related to his field of study was to conclude that the mainstream scientific view of the very old age of the earth being hundreds of millions and indeed billions of years old was wrong. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You reference to 1sy Barron Kelvin (W Thompson) is a complete farce. Not only did he have zero expertise in sciences such as geology or biology (he was an engineer who specialised in electrical science and thermodynamics) he actually remained a creationist all his life. The only theory he did contribute related to his field of study was to conclude that the mainstream scientific view of the very old age of the earth being hundreds of millions and indeed billions of years old was wrong. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.

Hm?

Kelvin proposed that the earth was millions of years old. This has nothing to do with whether or not he was a creationist (of course some creationists accept that earth is old). I'm simply speaking of the fact that scientists knew that earth was old before radiometric dating existed. And when I say old, I mean millions of years, not a few thousand.

And you mentioned that Kelvin wasn't a geologist and so maybe his opinion didn't count? Well if you feel that way, notice that I also mentioned James Hutton as well, the father of geology. Do you have a problem with Huttons credentials as well? I could tell you of other historical geologists as well, for there were increasingly more and more throughout time, who proposed, supported or otherwise knew that earth was millions of years old, long before radiometric dating was discovered in the 40s.

I'm simply pointing out that a number of scientists already knew that the earth was old before radiometric dating came about. Particularly James Hutton with his reference to siccar point which oddly enough you didn't mention in your response.

Understanding uniformitarianism and superposition (along with other things like the law of inclusions, original horizontality, faunal succession etc.) in geology is a crucial piece of what I was expressing in my post, so seeing that you didn't respond to that aspect suggests that maybe you didn't understand what I was expressing.

If you understand the fundamental concepts of relative dating in geology, you ought to know that it was very clear to historical geologists that earth was old.

And honestly, if my statement about Kelvin was the greatest of your concerns, then I'm fine with that given that it was more of an afterthought than it was a primary point of my response.

That's all. And if you would like to learn about these concepts of relative dating, feel free to ask.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.

Also, this appears to be incorrect, he claimed that thermodynamically speaking the earth was no less than 20 million years old. I think you got that backwards.

Earth sciences - Geologic time and the age of Earth

"Thomson calculated that not less than 20 million and not more than 400 million years" (meaning that he calculated Earth's age to be between 20 million and 400 million years old.

Of course he didn't know about radioactive decay and how it would perpetuate and maintain heat in the earth, and thus his estimates were an undershot of what we know today.

Gilbert,
Lyell,
Darwin of course,
Hutton,
Wegener,
Vine,
Osborn,
Newberry,
Lecont,
Irving,
Playfair,
Dutton,
DuToit,
Cotta,
Hooke,
Probably steno as well,

Etc. We could go on and on with geologists that promoted uniformitarian principals. Writings of geological societies going back into the 1900s and beyond, describe openly, the gradual collapse of YEC in conjunction with catastrophism related beliefs.

Early geologist began recognizing the flaws in young earth creationism and catastrophism basically the moment they began critically investigating geology. The moment people recognize things like superposition and numerous layers of varying lithology, It became abruptly apparent that the Earth was old. So when later individuals like Kelvin came around, many scientists already knew that the earth was old and it was just a matter of determining exactly how old.

"Farce" he said...lol. if you want to see something that is a "farce", I'd be happy to point you to some YEC "academic" works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
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

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Also, this appears to be incorrect, he claimed that thermodynamically speaking the earth was no less than 20 million years old. I think you got that backwards.

Earth sciences - Geologic time and the age of Earth

"Thomson calculated that not less than 20 million and not more than 400 million years" (meaning that he calculated Earth's age to be between 20 million and 400 million years old.

Of course he didn't know about radioactive decay and how it would perpetuate and maintain heat in the earth, and thus his estimates were an undershot of what we know today.

Gilbert,
Lyell,
Darwin of course,
Hutton,
Wegener,
Vine,
Osborn,
Newberry,
Lecont,
Irving,
Playfair,
Dutton,
DuToit,
Cotta,
Hooke,
Probably steno as well,

Etc. We could go on and on with geologists that promoted uniformitarian principals. Writings of geological societies going back into the 1900s and beyond, describe openly, the gradual collapse of YEC in conjunction with catastrophism related beliefs.

Early geologist began recognizing the flaws in young earth creationism and catastrophism basically the moment they began critically investigating geology. The moment people recognize things like superposition and numerous layers of varying lithology, It became abruptly apparent that the Earth was old. So when later individuals like Kelvin came around, many scientists already knew that the earth was old and it was just a matter of determining exactly how old.

"Farce" he said...lol. if you want to see something that is a "farce", I'd be happy to point you to some YEC "academic" works.
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.
My point is, he has no training in archaeology, biology, geology...how can you reference someone like that as being an expert on evolutionary science? He has zero credibility against creation scientists who are experts in their respective fields that say his initial assumptions were wrong.
Also, he remained a creationist...the article on him clearly states that fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.
My point is, he has no training in archaeology, biology, geology...how can you reference someone like that as being an expert on evolutionary science? He has zero credibility against creation scientists who are experts in their respective fields that say his initial assumptions were wrong.
Also, he remained a creationist...the article on him clearly states that fact.

All I was pointing out is that early scientists (geologists and non-geologists alike) knew the earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered. And I'll just repeat myself that this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a creationist and this has nothing to do with evolution, but rather it's a discussion of if the earth is old (there are old earth creationists that exist, in case you did not know). Part of me wonders if you have any idea what I am talking about...

That's all.

I never said Kelvin was a master geologist, I never said that he calculated the age to be 4.56 billion years either. I was simply giving examples, among the other dozen scientists added, of scientists who proposed, supported, or were simply aware of the earth being old.

Notice that Kelvin amounted to perhaps just a sentence or two in my post of multiple paragraphs. You're nitpicking at something largely irrelevant to the message I was conveying.

Here's a list of geologists who conducted research and supported uniformitarianism as well:
Is Genesis history?

These geologists had an understanding of an ancient earth long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.

Here's actually an interesting video, somewhat related to the topic of catastrophism vs uniformitarianism in the early days:

In this video, the narrator describes some of the earlier days of geology in which catastrophism began decaying on a growing scale amongst geological societies. It's the timing in which old earth and uniformitarian acceptance began becoming wide-spread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All I was pointing out is that early scientists knew the earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.

That's all.

I never said Kelvin was a master geologist, I never said that he calculated the age to be 4.56 billion years either. I was simply giving examples, among the other dozen scientists added, of scientists who proposed, supported, or were simply aware of the earth being old.

Notice that Kelvin amounted to perhaps just a sentence or two in my post of multiple paragraphs. You're nitpicking at something largely irrelevant to the message I was conveying.

Here's a list of geologists who conducted research and supported uniformitarianism as well:
Is Genesis history?

@AdamjEdgar the main point is to just understand that there is more to the discussion than just radiometric dating. A lot of YECs focus on absolute dating because it's easy to confuse people with numbers (as noted in my posts above), but seldom do they actually enter discussions on structural geology or areas of relative dating studies, which predated and are, in my opinion, much more compelling than absolute dating concepts. Hence why the father of geology (James Hutton) is from the 1700s and not from the 1940s.

And in order for anyone to really understand the earth, they have to begin with principals of the 1700 and 1800s. And in order to understand Earth's age, this is also where people must begin.

But YECs typically skip the actual geology and they jump straight to radiometric dating of the 1900s.

And if you don't understand principals of relative dating, I would just suggest that you ask a geologist about them (you're welcome to ask me or others here on this forum if you would like) or go study up. Then when you understand them, geology will make much more sense and we will be able to have a more formal conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.
My point is, he has no training in archaeology, biology, geology...how can you reference someone like that as being an expert on evolutionary science? He has zero credibility against creation scientists who are experts in their respective fields that say his initial assumptions were wrong.
Also, he remained a creationist...the article on him clearly states that fact.

I have been researching and following young earth creationist organizations for more than 15 years. A major part of their ministry is to deceive the public into believing that scientists today are split over the issue of young earth creationism versus evolution, and that the theory of young earth creationism is scientifically viable. However, there own data shows that there are today more than 3,000,000 scientists worldwide who have earned one or more doctoral degrees in one or more field of science and who endorse the theory of evolution; conversely, there are fewer than 50 such scientists worldwide who endorse the theory of young earth creationism; and of these, no more than three are employed in any field of science. Most of the others are employed by young earth creationist organizations, and there job is to promote the theory of young earth creationism.

Moreover, none of the approximately 47 such “scientists” worldwide who currently endorse the theory of young earth creationism have any formal education in evolutionary biology or the biology of natural populations and consequently use their own seriously incorrect vocabulary in arguing against the theory of evolution.

Furthermore, they viciously attack scientific data techniques, but they are not able to show how supposed errors on the magnitude of four or five percent disprove the fact that the earth is 4.54 billion years old; or how those supposed errors disprove very old dates for fossils, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think that YEC scientists are largely just worried about the idea of science being used as an attack on God. Which is really unfortunate, but to be fair, atheists are making efforts to use it as such. Thankfully we have things like the biologos foundation and countless Christian scientists who trust in the Lord to ultimately handle the matter.

Just like with these vaccines, it's not really a debate on efficacy of the vaccines, but rather the conflict runs much deeper. In the case of the vaccines, it's a conflict over American freedom vs public health. Whereas with YECism it's, in the YEC view, a challenge against a world view based around scripture. Nobody actually has any legitimate scientific position against an old earth. Rather it's just a conflict born out of a deep trust in a very particular view of Christ and scripture.

I would say that, for people who look at the earth through the lense of superposition, cross cutting relations, inclusions, faunal succession, original horizontality etc., Who are also familiar with stratigraphy and sedimentology, and are also able to understand structural features of rock formations, that in investigating independent lithologies and characteristics of bedding, it becomes pretty well apparent that the earth is extraordinarily old. It takes time to be able to effectively do this. But it's worth the time if you have the time to spare.
 
Last edited:
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

power1

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2021
721
127
canada
Visit site
✟25,282.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.
5511d73e37a55bafb356b832bbd3add477d40ae8.jpg
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
Just a statement on how the liar has been here since the garden, and comparing that to evolution. (which is basically saying God is a liar)

Every year, Satan dupes unwitting Christians into squandering hundreds of million dollars and hundreds of million man-hours fighting a theory that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or the Christians faith.
 
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

power1

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2021
721
127
canada
Visit site
✟25,282.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Every year, Satan dupes unwitting Christians into squandering hundreds of million dollars and hundreds of million man-hours fighting a theory that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or the Christians faith.
I think you mean evolution. That is Satanic doctrine.
5511d73e37a55bafb356b832bbd3add477d40ae8.jpg
 
Upvote 0