The best example for evolution is the same as that for an Old Earth/Universe!

[KerrMetric]

They all have the same "best piece of evidence".

And that evidence is CONCORDANCY.


It's that the many, many pieces of evidence from disparate disciplines all point to the same general picture of history. This concordancy, more than any single line of research, is the best evidence of all.

Though I am a geophysicist not a biologist I know of myriads of different pieces of evidence for biological evolution just as I know in depth the inumerable reasons why the Earth and the Universe are old. Certainly from my planetary science perspective I know of no evidence whatsoever that is in line with a recent Creation event, not even close, they all fall apart with a 30 second analysis. But whether it is physics, astronomy or geology the old Earth/Universe evidence is overwhelming to the point that to put forth the young hypothesis is ludicrous.

As I opened up with it's CONCORDANCY.

 

[dowlers]

I have only recently become interested in Creation/Evolution. Can you tell me all the various hypotheses and what they mean. What is young earth and what is old earth?

What do you mean by Concordancy. I'm not great with big words!

Sorry...

 

[KerrMetric]

I hope you were joking about concordancy meaning. It means things are all in agreement or harmony if you will.

Typically the young Earth viewpoint is that the Earth was created some 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Old Earth viewpoint is that geology/astronomy/physics are correct and that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Joman]

The Bible teaches that the earth is as old as the heaven.
That God created the universe we see in six normal days.
That a genealogy fixes the time-line from Adam to Jesus of Nazareth.
That evolution cannot be true, for if it were, then Jesus of Nazareth would be the son of a beast, instead of being the Son of God.
The universe is therefore, young.
The earth is therefore, old.

Joman.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The Bible teaches that the earth is as old as the heaven.

So?

That God created the universe we see in six normal days.

No, it does not. It says absolutely nothing about the length of the day.

 

[nvxplorer]

That evolution cannot be true, for if it were, then Jesus of Nazareth would be the son of a beast, instead of being the Son of God.

Are you saying Mary was a beast?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible teaches that the earth is as old as the heaven.

What does the Earth say about it's age?

That God created the universe we see in six normal days.

That is what the biblical author wrote. What does the creation have to say about it?

That a genealogy fixes the time-line from Adam to Jesus of Nazareth.

Is the geneaology right?

That evolution cannot be true, for if it were, then Jesus of Nazareth would be the son of a beast, instead of being the Son of God.

Last I checked, Jesus of Nazareth was the son of Mary. Mary was not a beast.

The universe is therefore, young.
The earth is therefore, old.

Joman.

I would say that the universe is really old and the earth is old.

What other reason, besides the bible, is there for believing that the earth is young? Is it only religious indoctrination and dogma that leads creationists to believe that the earth is young?

 

[Rut]

Hei!

So?

No, it does not. It says absolutely nothing about the length of the day.

I agree with you see in Genesis (I think) 2:4

Rut

 

[Dannager]

The Bible teaches that the earth is as old as the heaven.
That God created the universe we see in six normal days.
That a genealogy fixes the time-line from Adam to Jesus of Nazareth.
That evolution cannot be true, for if it were, then Jesus of Nazareth would be the son of a beast, instead of being the Son of God.
The universe is therefore, young.
The earth is therefore, old.

Joman.

ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE:
1. The Bible says creationism is true.
2. The Bible cannot be incorrect, even in the face of blatantly contrary evidence.
3. Therefore, creationism is true.