ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Darwin's Theory Of Old Earth

Is there any reason to believe that the earth is eons old other than to support Darwin's Theory?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 9/17/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



Eloy, in all my Christian experience I have met none like some here who constantly blend human speculation and Scripture. They accept only Scriptures which do not contradict their nonBiblical man-centered views.

When contradicted by Scripture they feel the need to resort to playground rudeness.

Keep up the good work!
---Warwick on 9/23/09


Lee I have repeatedly given Scriptures which show beyond doubt the 6 days of creation are the same length. I have also pointed out the rules of language say 24hrs. And applied logic. Are they 23 hours 59 minutes and some seconds or 24 hours+? Does it matter?

Conversely you give absolutely no Scripture to support your nonsense. Nor can you give support from the rules of language or logic.

Your view undermines the gospel, as Scriptures show.

If your view is correct language has no meaning. We therefore cannot know if Jesus death and resurrection was real or someones dream. What does died and rose again mean, or grace mean, or forgiven? You render it all meaningless. You are a true liberal.
---Warwick on 9/23/09


Eloy//People need to get back to the proven historical record in the Holy Scriptures, stick to this truth and let the vain imaginations of humans go astray.

The problem here is not that people have left the 'proven historical record' of Holy Scripture, but are challenging traditional beliefs based on poor interpretation of Scripture or in the case of the 6 day argument, lack of any scriptural basis whatsoever.

Remember that the old church used to condemn scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others simply because they beleived the evidence pointed to the sun as the center of our universe, not the earth.

And then there is the theory of the Young Earth Creation which also has its problems.
---lee on 9/23/09


//Nowhere in Scripture is your view supported.

Interesting that you say that when you have been totally unable to find a single verse that states the duration of any of the periods of creation.

The Genesis account is far to brief to make any more than a very few positive statements. We are left with speculations and in your case, base beliefs on assumptions.

A day as we know it depends not only on the rotation of the earth but also on the sun created on the 4th period, something you seem desperate to ignore to support your unscriptural view.
---lee on 9/23/09


Warwick, Thank you. Like a rebellious teenager whom vainly thinks that they know better than those whom have already passed their teens and are wiser then they, so too vain people whom spend no time in the Bible think they know what the Bible contains and try to promote their erroneous worldly views and answers over The Truth. Empirically, scientifically, literally, and in every other way, there was no big bang, no evolution, no dinosaurs, no billions or trillions of years for the earth, all these are lies. If proud deluded people choose to believe in crap, their foolishness rebukes them. People need to get back to the proven historical record in the Holy Scriptures, stick to this truth and let the vain imaginations of humans go astray.
---Eloy on 9/23/09




Warwick, You know, you're not that consistent with scripture use.IE
When I pointed out that Adam named the animals-your answer was "Only vertebrates"
When I say animals were for food- you say "ALL" animals were vegetarian??? (you fix it to suit)
When I said all creation was said to be in "a day" (singular "peiod of time")
you say that day was plural. (you "fix" it to suit your interpretation) right?
---1st_cliff on 9/23/09


Well said Eloy. Good to see you back.

There is too much vaunting of man's intellect here.
---Warwick on 9/23/09


Warwick, you are a Biblically incompetent and your post gives Christianity a bad name.
Do less blogging and more scientific study.
---Apologest on 9/23/09


Darwin had way too much time on his hands & way to vivid an imagination. I think he was an atheist. We all know where he is spending eternity.
---kimbe7777 on 9/22/09


1stCliff it seems you don't read the Bible but only trawl antiBiblical sites to find antiBiblical material.

Easy for you to answer: Did God say (Genesis 1:29,30-pre-sin, pre-flood) that vegetation was to be the food for man and animals?

Yes or no!

Now read Genesis 9:3 'Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. As I gave you the green plants (Genesis 1:29,30) I now give you everything.'

Did God now say (post-sin, post-flood) that He had given plants but now gave animals for food?

Yes or no!

Stick to Scripture and you won't go far wrong. But follow man's stories and confusion follows.
---Warwick on 9/22/09




1stCliff you may not be a follower but you used Ross' wrong information to contradict fact! You now know you were wrong but are too proud to admit it, aren't you?

'your narrow little confines' indeed the way is narrow, as Scripture says, and wide is the way to destruction-Matt. 7:13.

You claim to know the mind of God? Why He created any creature? If He does not tell us, we know nothing.

Do you imagine God did not know man would sin? Was not Jesus the lamb, from the beginning. Assuredly God did know man would one day eat animals.

You say there is no other reason for sea-creatures than to be food? Are you sure of that?
---Warwick on 9/22/09


If the truth were obvious, we would all be in agreement. But it isn't, and we aren't.
---mugwump on 9/22/09


Warwick, I'm not a "follower" of Dr Ross or any other man, but he does make some fine observations ,thinking outside the box,(your narrow little confines).
IE ,(my own observation) God said "let the waters teem with living creatures" Right?
Why??? to look at???
Shrimp,lobster, crab.. are the ugliest creatures in the sea but, man ,are they tasty>> No other reason for sea creatures except to feed mankind! (demonstrated by Christ who fed the multitude).

Want pretty fish? get a bowl of angel fish!
---1st_cliff on 9/22/09


Lee-partly correct. God though outside time created time, for us-'our concept of time'-no such thing!

Day-length is controlled only by the earth's rotation rate.

Genesis 1:3-5 'And God said "let there be light' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening and there was morning-one day.'

Verse 8 '...And there was evening and there was morning-the second day.'

How could there be a second day if the earth was not rotating?

And a third, fourth, fifth, sixth?

Your understanding of Scripture and reality, and logic is fatally flawed.
---Warwick on 9/22/09


Lee you wrote 'Howbeit, faulty interpretations of scripture by man may very well do the job of leading one astray.'

You do not give interpretations of Genesis satisfying yourself with ignoring that which contradicts your nonBiblical views.

Scripture interprets Scripture and from Scripture we see the writers and Our Lord Jesus took Genesis as sober history, as fact. Nowhere in Scripture is your view supported.
---Warwick on 9/22/09


1stCliff, it is not my 'contention' that Adam and Eve had not seen death but what Scripture says, that death entered the world by sin.

Do you imagine God is unable to creat humans who were unable to conceive of death, even if they had never seen it? Did He also have to teach them to speak?

Believe what you like about 'the natural food chain of animals' but God said the food chain was vegetation. Stick with Scripture and you won't go far wrong.

I have seen plenty of death but watching a person slice an animals throut open, with blood gushing, is still shocking. Can you imagine the first time?

God also told them to be fruitful and fill the earth. Do you think He had to give them a demo?
---Warwick on 9/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


.cluny, if it is antiBiblical, then it is also antiTruth and it is falsehood. Just as an adult parent's words are more wise than the immature child's words, so too Omniscient God's recorded words in their original tongue is The Truth, and excellent over inferior mortal man's words. God's Eternal Spiritual Mind is not matched by any unregenerate clay's mind.
---Eloy on 9/22/09


apparently cliff, you do not believe these verses:
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things.(after the flood)
or maybe you belive this instead?
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
---MIchael on 9/22/09


God would be God if Genesis stated the earth was a billion years old. At heart is the intolerable situation that science would find itself in admitting a moral agent had anything to do yet alone master all of creation, for that agent would be owed if not worship, awe and wonder.

Carbon dating takes more faith than anything in Christianity and evolution is not even reasonable.
What science claims corporately, scientists individually and quietly know is laughable - spontaneous biogenesis.
---larry on 9/22/09


//On the other hand God's word and His Word will never lead you astray.

Howbeit, faulty interpretations of scripture by man may very well do the job of leading one astray.

It is derived from scripture that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and as such is not limited by any concept of time.

In other words, He simply called the worlds into existence out of nothing and that task was/is not governed by our concept of time.

Consequently the first 3 days of creation were not governed by our concept of time as the sun was not yet created nor do we know anything at all regarding the rotation or non-rotation of the earth.

Too many of our classical beliefs are hypotheis without any real tangible evidence.
---lee on 9/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Warwick, OK here's the deal,your contention is that Adam and Eve had not seen death so this was shocking,right?
God told them the price of disobedience was death,something that they had no knowledge of?

My belief is that they were well acquainted with death having witnessed the natural food chain of animals! This way they fully knew the penalty
and were culpable.
Your way they are innocent having no knowledge of the penalty!
---1st_cliff on 9/22/09


Warwick, On the contrary,, when I cite scripture you ignore them,when they don't fit your theology ..like 2Pet.2.12 "brute beasts ,made to be taken and destroyed"(KJV)..for food for one reason!
Why would God include meat in diet if they were never meant to be eaten?
Why are steak,pork chops and chicken wings so tasty? If they were never meant to be eaten God would have made them unpalatable!
---1stcliff on 9/22/09


1stCliff, in Genesis 1:29,30 God explains what He gave man and animals to eat. No ants!

Genesis 3:14-19 God pronounced the curse upon Satan, Man, the animals, and the earth. Is it obvious physical changes occured then. Eve being told child bearing pain would now be greatly increased. Were animal features and diets changed then?

The Koala survives on eucalyptus leaves, which causes them health problems. They thrive on other vegetation. Were eucalyptus leaves the diet God gave them or just what is available to them here?

Do you see no difference between ants and sentient animals? We react very differently to dead bugs on our windscreens than to seeing a dog killed. Why, is it maybe that we inately know the difference?
---Warwick on 9/22/09


How quickly the mockers rise to ridicule God's word.

In the NIV(and other translations) Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9, 39:10, Psalms 29:6, 92:10. refer to a 'wild Ox,' the Hebrew being 're-hame,' which does not mean unicorn!

The KJV does use unicorn but four hundred years ago when it was translated I understand unicorn was a synonym for rhinoceros.

---Warwick on 9/22/09


Shop For Church Bulletins & Supplies


1stCliff, Ktiso raises a good point. Ross is wrong about the stand the church fathers took upon 24hr day creation. He has removed this from his website.

As Ross makes such an obvious mistake upon the church fathers, why should we trust other things he says?

Your problem stems from your antiScriptural prejudice which causes you to fall into the error of accepting any source which agrees with you. Better to do your own research.

You were lead astray by a deceiver. On the other hand God's word and His Word will never lead you astray.
---Warwick on 9/22/09


Cluny - and let us not forget about those unicorns the Bible mentions. Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9, 39:10, Psalms 29:6, 92:10.

So if anyone asks you if unicorns exist and you truly believe the Bible, you have all the proof you need except for what is observed in nature.

O'well, maybe they took off with the dinosaurs.
---lee on 9/22/09


Mugwump ... No bats aren't birds.

But I sometimes think I am bats
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/22/09


Aren't bats birds? :-)
---mugwump on 9/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


\\
Any theories that counter the Holy Bible record are the follies of ignorant clay and the falsehoods of the condemned enemy.
---Eloy on 9/22/09\\

Does this include insisting that bats are mammals, unlike Leviticus which calls them birds?
---Cluny on 9/22/09


Any theories that counter the Holy Bible record are the follies of ignorant clay and the falsehoods of the condemned enemy.
---Eloy on 9/22/09


Lee to Warwick:

//You might also note that not all those who attack your pet beliefs are necessarily compromisers or liberals, but serious and conservative students of the Bible.//
More likely, they have abandoned biblical authority because of fear of secular "science"

//Frankly, it must be your hobby to denigrate other Christians.//

Stop being such a mimophant. You denigrate biblical creationists.

//Of course, I rather doubt those that believe in an young earth will bother to read any of them since they already claim to know the 'truth'.//

More likely, they are just boring old claims of contradictions between Gen. 1 and 2, long ago refuted.
---Ktisophilos on 9/22/09


Cliff:

//Warwick, I read the so-called VanBebber/Taylor expose' but also Dr.Ross's rebuttal which makes them look foolish//

I've read both, and also Refuting Compromise which makes Ross look foolish.

For one thing, Ross's article claiming that most church fathers believed in long creation days is no longer to be found on his website.

//Death passed to all "MEN" are the bibles words, //

Sure, and there are fossils of undoubted Homo sapiens "dated" (by methods Ross accepts) to almost 200,000 years ago. This is longer than we can possibly stretch the genealogies of Adam. This alone is enough to refute Rossism.

Gen. 1 also teaches that animals were created vegetarian along with humans.
---Ktisophilos on 9/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Lee I read the YEC article and it is full of holes! I have read much better articles over the last 20 years. He has nothing new to say, only offering arguments which have been blown out of the water many times before. You imagine I don't read what others say? I read what you write, and carefully, don't I?

I will cover only one point because of lack of room but will happily answer more if you like. The writer doubts the days of Genesis 1 are 24hrs because he says the creation account in Ch.2 says it all occurred in one day. Even in translations which use day it does not say one day, but the day.

Cont.
---Warwick on 9/22/09


Cluny: "Did I say WHAT I believed?"

Not really. You seem to be one of those evasive types that only hint at your beliefs so as not to be pinned down. Pray, tell us what you DO believe. One more time:

Dot you believe in a long-age earth? If so, what reason do YOU have for supporting a long-age earth theory if not for upholding some form of non-biblical species development?
---jerry6593 on 9/22/09


1stCliff, how ironic of you who rarely quote Scripture, to demand I do, as I regularly quote Scripture to illustrate my understanding, and in context! I do not promote nonBiblical or antiBiblical theories, but hold to the truth of Scripture.

As you should know, after Adam and Eve sinned God proclaimed the curse upon Satan and them-Genesis 3:14-19. God says, because of sin, death entered the world, the curse being proclaimed upon Satan, Adam and Eve, the livestock, all the wild animals, and even the ground. God says that Adam being made from the ground will one day return to it. But you say the curse-death, disease and misery-involved only man!

Romans 8:20-22 shows the whole of creation groans under it.
---Warwick on 9/21/09


That's quite right, though there's only one species of marsupial that's native to North American--the opossum.

Anyone here remember Pogo?
---Cluny on 9/21/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Lee you reject some of Genesis because it contradicts your nonBiblical theories. What I have written I have supported with OT and NT Scripture. You assume something is missing. It isn't. God knows better than us and this is His account of creation.

You do not reject Genesis for Biblical reasons for in all the length of this debate you have not given one, not one, Scripture to defend your opinions.

Actually Lee I am known as an encourager of the faithful and I encourage you to think again and put your trust in the God who was there, who makes no mistakes and does not lie. Do not put your trust in man ('princes') who were not there, who are falible and sinful. Read Psalm 146: 3-6.
---Warwick on 9/21/09


1stCliff Adam and Eve had seen no death, living where man and animals were vegeterian vs.1:29.

God told them the price of sin was death. They sinned and an animal/s was slaughtered to give them their covering. Would this slaughter not be shocking to them, who had seen none? Would this not shockingly illustrate the ugliness of sin?

Though I had seen animal death, my job on our farm was to cut the throats of the animals we ate. It was upsetting. I finally refused to do so. How much more upsetting for Adam and Eve?

Man's sin brought about the flood of Noah which killed billions of creatures.

Do you notice that you rarely, if ever, quote Scriture to support your theories?
---Warwick on 9/21/09


Warwick, I'm still waiting for your spin on anteaters diet,they have no teeth,and were designed by the creator for eating insects.
AH.. but now to get around that hurtle you say God doesn't consider insects as living sentient creatures who's life is insignificant. Their death doesn't count as real death??? Where do you draw the line??,cockroach??, grasshopper?? praying mantis? (who eats her mate after mating)
---1st_cliff on 9/21/09


//You will notice compromisers and liberals here do not attack Numbers, Joshua, Isaiah, etc but passionately attack Genesis! I wonder why?

Likely because the Genesis account particularly of the Creation is far too brief and we are left with a lot of assumptions & speculation.

You might also note that not all those who attack your pet beliefs are necessarily compromisers or liberals, but serious and conservative students of the Bible.

Frankly, it must be your hobby to denigrate other Christians.
---lee on 9/21/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Another very good reference on the fallacies of the YEC is found at noble-minded dot org. They have several articles pointing out the deficiences in the argument for a young earth creation. Of course, I rather doubt those that believe in an young earth will bother to read any of them since they already claim to know the 'truth'.
---lee on 9/21/09


Warwick, I read the so-called VanBebber/Taylor expose' but also Dr.Ross's rebuttal which makes them look foolish
Death passed to all "MEN" are the bibles words, granted some of us may look like animals but we're just plain humans!and this applied "ONLY" to us!
Produce the scripture that says otherwise!
Bible says God clothed their nakedness,there's no secondary meaning to this IE blood, sacrifice etc.. this is just your spin on it! It's not mentioned is it?
---1st_cliff on 9/21/09


Alan, you wrote '...the marsupials, whom Noah carefully allocated to Australasia only.'

You are are misinformed, marsupails live in the US and South America also. Marsupial fossils are also found in Europe, Asia and Africa. If you wish to make fun of Scripture or another's beliefs you need to know what you are talking about or you make yourself look foolish.

Also fossils of bison, camels and elephants have been found in the UK. Have you noticed any lately?

Platypus fossils have been found in Patagonia which is in south America.

Where creatures live today is not where anyone placed them but where they have survived.
---Warwick on 9/21/09


1stCliff you pose questions as if they are unique and new. They are old, and have been answered and answered and....

This is God's creation and he alone is free to act as He sees fit. Fortunately He is loving and just!

God warned Adam and Eve that the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve sinned and God pronounced the curse upon Satan, and them. He then made coverings of skin for them, by slaughttering an animal/s. By this they learned the reality of the price of sin, that a covering (or atonement) could only be effected by the shedding of blood-Lev. 17:11. What an indication of the blood sacrifices and the final horrific blood sacrifice, which was to follow!
---Warwick on 9/21/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


"Did I say WHAT I believed?

I simply pointed out that, contrary to the assumptions of the original post that started this thread, old earth and evolution were believed before Charles Darwin"
---Cluny on 9/20/09

That sounds like a side-step to me. Pray, tell us what you DO believe. One more time:

What reason do YOU have for supporting a long-age earth theory if not for upholding some form of non-biblical species development?
---jerry6593 on 9/21/09


Martin Luther said-Christian 'soldiers' should defend whatever part of Scripture the world is attacking at a particular time.

You will notice compromisers and liberals here do not attack Numbers, Joshua, Isaiah, etc but passionately attack Genesis! I wonder why?

Genesis is foundational to our faith, showing our God is creator, setting Him above and apart from any god! It defines sin, and its consequence death. It is THE foundation for the gospel. It is the foundation of marriage, and why we wear clothes. But they attack it, in fact ridicule it, treating it scornfully, akin to the way atheists and other Bible-haters do!

Psalm 11:3 'when the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?' Or what are they doing?
---Warwick on 9/20/09


Cliff ... The penguins did not live in cold conditions then. Was there ice at the poles before the flood?

In any case, Noah collected them all up from around where he lived & it was not cold there. It was only after the flood that they were distributed to their new continent.

Same as all the marsupials, whom Noah carefully allocated to Australasia only.
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/20/09


Alan, Genesis 1:29,30 shows originally man and animals were vegetarian.

Man was not told he could eat animals until after the Flood-Genesis 9:3.

Is this difficult to comprehend?

If death (particularly of humans) occurred before Adam's sin then the basis of the gopspel is undermined and the NT writers and Jesus did not know the truth. Blind guides?

As regards insects/vegetation a little study will show God does not describe them (e.g. mosquitos) as being alive, in the sense animals and humans are.

As regards tortises and porcupines you ignore the effect of the fall, and assume these features did not have an original purpose.

Adam's wisdom? From God perhaps?
---Warwick on 9/20/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Warwick, Big problem with your "theory" (death *of animals* entering in after Adam's sin)
Immediately after he sinned ,God killed animals to clothe them.
So you're saying God says "now that Adam has sinned it's OK to kill animals"????
Wow! So now it's alright to cause death??
After all God sets the example,right?
---1st_cliff on 9/20/09


1stCliff do you really think this anteaters trivia is difficult to answer?

You think me unlearned, unable to answer such basics? Or are you unlearned, having done little research? I easily answer your-shock horror/Bible is wrong trivia every time you raise it. Apparently the problem lies with you.

You boldly told us church fathers rejected 24hr-creation-days. Your source was not historical records but Hugh Ross!

Historical records show him and you wrong. Have you checked this? Unlikely. You duck and weave moving on, raising some 'problem' and when it's knocked over you dredge something else from Ross' antiBiblical book, something else to undermine Scripture! Read the Van Bebber/Taylor expose of Ross' mistakes!
---Warwick on 9/20/09


The Hebrew doesn't define the earth age,yet,the Evolution Theory is not implied.
A day[yom] is defined by the letters yod,vav and mem.
The pictorgraphs,yod is a hand for work,throw,worship.Vav(Y)is a Tent peg which hooks and secures,mem(m)is water for moving representing, chaos,might or blood.Together it's "work" and "Flow" known as "DAY".
[In that day,in that very same day].
Rom 5:12
Wherefore,as by one man SIN ENTERED into the WORLD,and death BY SIN,and so DEATH PASSED upon all men,for that all have sinned.

It's not stating death and sin did not already exist,rather death BY SIN,PASSED UPON ALL MEN.
Sin is trangession of the law,
plants,animals everthing else, did not sin,just man.
---char on 9/20/09


\\What reason do YOU have for supporting a long-age earth theory if not for upholding some form of non-biblical species development?\\

Did I say WHAT I believed?

I simply pointed out that, contrary to the assumptions of the original post that started this thread, old earth and evolution were believed before Charles Darwin
---Cluny on 9/20/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


alan //Adam must have had great wisdom to understand the concept of death (Gen 3.17) when he had no evidence of it among animals

And he must also had great wisdom when he saw animal breed and give birth.

The Genesis record is simply too brief and was not designed to answer most of our questions we see on this forum.
---lee on 9/20/09


//Lee ... Everything alive ate leaves and seeds?

And being born & raised on a farm, I also believe pigs ate the worthy parts of the droppings of other animals.

Of course, I am assuming that God had created pigs by the time Adam was still in the Garden.
---lee on 9/20/09


Lee ... Everything alive ate leaves and seeds?

I wonder what the mosquitoes ate? I wonder if in those days humans swatted them? Oh no they couldn't have, for that would have killed them!

And of course there would not have been any tortoises or porcupines, designed with armour and protection against predators.

Adam must have had great wisdom to understand the concept of death (Gen 3.17) when he had no evidence of it among animals
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/20/09


It is printed right in my King James Bible that the creation happened in 4004 B.C. Doesn't that settle it?
---mugwump on 9/17/09

Really? Where does it appear in your "King James Bible"? I have obviously missed that verse, as I have never read anywhere in 'my' King James Bible that creation occured in 4004BC. How could that be possible since the notation of BC and AD didn't come into use until AFTER the life of Jesus?
---tommy3007 on 9/20/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Warwick, God created anteaters in a very unique way,their diet is living creatures or are you going to say they "evolved" that way?
Vultures eat "dead stock" God's environmental creatures....they too evolved??
Without fish, there would be no penguins or maybe they just ate snowballs?
---1st_cliff on 9/19/09


cluny: "Actually, the "old earth" and evolution were believed BEFORE Charles Darwin."

Of course they were. Even the ancient Greeks had their own form. But to most, it is Darwin's baby.

But that's not the issue here. What reason do YOU have for supporting a long-age earth theory if not for upholding some form of non-biblical species development? What is it that has convinced you that Darwin, et al. was right and the Bible is wrong.
---jerry6593 on 9/19/09


"Unless you are attempting to age the earth when it was still void of form - NO."
---larry on 9/18/09

Compare your theory to God's own handwritten description:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth
---jerry6593 on 9/19/09


The Earth is about 4.54 Billion Years and the Universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old. We can see objects with the Hubble Telescope that are over 14 billion light years away [ the Universe is expanding].
We regrettably have too many people on ChristiaNet that want to treat modern science the same way Galileo and Kampar were treated by the religious inelegancies of their day. God started the whole process of creation. But he did not do it according to any account found in scripture. If that is a problem to you , too bad. God is great and all powerful and all the he created is good and very beautiful. Go look at some of the Hubble Photos on the Internet, the color in some of the Nebulas is absolutely beautiful.
---The_Friendly_Blogger on 9/19/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


How readily Lee joins Bible mockers!

God's word is my guide not opinions or speculations.

Why shouldn't swifts be insectivores?

Genesis 1:29,30 makes it perfectly clear that originally man and animals were vegetarian. But Lee says, of me 'he might speculate that everything alive simply ate grass & seeds.' Why speculate?

Man was not told he could eat animals until after the Flood-Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear death came into the world because of sin.

But Lee says it is my 'theory that death did not precede Adam.'

Interestingly fruit bats, large creatures, (wingspan of up to 1.5 metres) have teeth like a carnivore but live on fruit.
---Warwick on 9/18/09


Warwick ... I know I am being simplistic, but it saddens me then, looking for example just at birds, that the huge variety of structure, plumage, abilites, and so on, is not a result of God creating this wonderful array, but of Satan introducing sin & death into the world.

The albatross instead of being created like that by God, speciating into that huge marvellous bird because of the opportunity now to eat fish.

And frogs, not made by God to help keep down the slugs in my garden, but some grotesque development of a flower eating animal.
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/19/09


Thanks Cluny, I get your point.
---Warwick on 9/19/09


\\
Cluny was not Usshers calculation of the age based upon Biblical genealogies? Do these genealogies not give some 4,000 years Jesus to Adam?\\

All I said was that Ussher's chronology wasn't even part of the KJV "as originally written," much less part of the original inspired texts.
---Cluny on 9/18/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


//Also, what about the swift? It's constructed so it can't land on the ground to eat vegetation, and catches all its food (insects) whilst on the wing. Bats also, & albatross can't forage on land.

And this clearly blows a big hole in Warwick's theory that death did not precede Adam. Of course, he might speculate that everything alive simply ate grass & seeds.
---lee on 9/18/09


Alan what you write about is speciation, when creatures adapt to their environment. Those which survive in a particular environment are those within a population who have a feature which allows them to survive. A good example is plump furry mice surviving in a frigid climate while slim short-haired ones will not-speciation.

Some bears are herbivores, others omnivores, and some like polar bears are almost carnivorous. They have adapted to a specific environment. Panda bears eat mostly bamboo, but will eat animals to survive.

There are reliable reports of herbivore lions, and carnivouous sheep.

Search the web for 'How did bad things come about.' from creation dot com.
---Warwick on 9/18/09


Cluny was not Usshers calculation of the age based upon Biblical genealogies? Do these genealogies not give some 4,000 years Jesus to Adam?

You seem to be searching for anything which will undermine God's word!

Are you saying chapter and verse divisions somehow undermine Biblical truth!

The same with punctuation marks. Of course punctuation marks are different between different languages as they have different punctuation! I could demonstrate this clearly if this site permitted non English punctuation. When translating from one language to another that which is translated is translated into the second language, with the second language's punctuation marks, words, and grammar! This does not make the translation incorrect.
---Warwick on 9/18/09


Unless you are attempting to age the earth when it was still void of form - NO.
---larry on 9/18/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Cluny, you are absolutely right!
---mugwump on 9/18/09


\\ It is printed right in my King James Bible that the creation happened in 4004 B.C. Doesn't that settle it?
---mugwump on 9/17/09\\

No, for two reasons.

1. The chronology of Abp. Ussher was added a century or two AFTER the the publication of the KJV.

2. The chronology of Abp. Ussher is not part of the original Biblical mss.

For that matter, neither are chapter and verse divisions. They are added by moral, fallible, man.

As well as punctuation marks.
---Cluny on 9/18/09


Cliff ... Yes, what DID the fish eat if there was no death before then Fall?

Also, what about the swift? It's constructed so it can't land on the ground to eat vegetation, and catches all its food (insects) whilst on the wing. Bats also, & albatross can't forage on land.

Cluny ... Many will search the KJV in vain for that date.
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/18/09


It is printed right in my King James Bible that the creation happened in 4004 B.C. Doesn't that settle it?
---mugwump on 9/17/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Historical records agree with Cluny that Charles Darwin did not invent evolution, simply popularized it, with assistance.

It was long thought he provided a mechanism for evolution but modern science has shown him to be wrong. See the documentary movie/DVD 'The Voyage that Shook the World' for verification. See also The Creation Answers Book, ch. 6, by Scientist researcher Dr Don Batten.

As regards teeth/carnivory Dr Roland Kays attempted to catch Kinkajou (potus flavus) 'Honey bears.' They are classified as carnivores because of their skulls and teeth, however Kays discovered they are herbivores.

The same goes for fruit bats and the red panda, and other bear species. Teeth shape does not prove what a creature eats.
---Warwick on 9/17/09


Further to Cluny's comment, God said "let the waters teem with living creatures" ,most of the sea creatures eat "plankton" tiny living creatures!
As I said before the "mayfly's" natural life cycle is as few as 24hrs!
As to Adam's sin,death passed on to all "men" not animals!(read it right)
---1st_cliff on 9/17/09


so is a fruit bat...
---MIchael on 9/17/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.