Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Creationism and Evolution may both be true.TheisticEvolution

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
S

Soma-Sight

Guest
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Evolution and the creation may BOTH be true. Always remember that there are several different translations of "day" in the Hebrew text of Genesis. The "day" may have meant more than 24 hours when it refers to the seven day creation week.

Also there is no mention as to HOW LONG Adam and Eve were in the garden BEFORE the fall. It may have been a billion years. The age of Adam that is in the Bible would only begin AFTER he sinned because before he and his wife Eve existed in ETERNITY not time like we know it now.
 
I used to believe that way but after the studies and research I have done, I no longer accept it.

I believe in the literal 6-day creation as stated in the Bible "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day" (Genesis 1:5) The sun didn't rise and set a trillion times in that day, only once!

There is actually a lot of scientific evidence to prove the earth is young, you just don't hear about it as much, evolutionists try to keep it all from becoming public knowledge.

Progressive creationism is not Biblical and there is more and more proof being discovered that the earth is a young earth.

Here are a couple of examples:

The sun is shrinking 5 feet every hour, that is one tenth percent every century. If the sun existed 100,000 years ago it would have been double the size it is now, 20 million years ago it would have been touching the earth. Life on earth would have been impossible just one million years ago!


The moon is receding 2 inches a year, if the earth is 5 billion years old, the moon would be out of sight by now.

As far as dinosaurs, I believe that they existed and that there is a possiblity some are still alive in deep forests and seas. Mostly they have become extinct over time. There is proof that they have walked the earth the same time as man.

This exerpt is taken from Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation byDennis R. Petersen (to save space, I just put in the main points):

"In the Paluxy River bed of Texas (near the town of Glenrose) there are layers of hard limestone rock...many petrified foot tracks have been found there, made by a variety of dinosaurs...Petrified footprints of what appear to be humans have been reported in the same rock alongside the tracks of behemoth animals like the mighty brontosaurus."
 
O yes, I almost forgot, that verse you quoted (2 Pet 3:8) is often used by those trying to prove progressive creationism. Please note, the word "like" means that this is a simile, a comparison to make a point, time is not an issue to God. Also, when read in context, this is not at all referring to the length of time it took God to create the heavens and earth. Reading Genesis 1 shows that the Bible is speaking of a literal "Earth" day there.

I believe that God used time when creating to set a standard for us. Do you not believe that God could have just thought it all into existance in a fraction of a second? I do for sure! Do you honestly think He needed to rest after that? I don't! He was setting the example for us in all that.
 
One question for you if you have time :biggrin

I guess the one problem with the 10,000 year earth is quite a simple one.

We dont know how long Adam and Eve were in the Perfection of the Garden BEFORE the fall. They could have been prancing around for a billion years or more because they had the tree of life. I know it says Adam lived to be 900 something but I think that was time counted AFTER the fall. What are your thoughts here. There is no scripture to support Adam and Eve falling from grace in a matter of days.
 
Heidi_Mighty_mo; which peer-reviewed scientific publications did you find those particular goodies in, exactly?




Quite.
 
Most of that came from a book called "Unlocking The Mysteries of Creation" by Dennis R. Petersen.

I have read and heard these same things from several other speakers, web sites, books and flyers.

In looking for the link I had read on the Paluxy River Bed prints I did just find this link that shows that the "human" footprints may not be human after all but this is still pretty interesting:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm

I have also listened to many speakers such as John Courson, Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie and Bob Coy that have mentioned much of what I have read in other places. I once went to a special presentation by a scientist that was basing creation research mostly on Mt. St. Helens and what has happened there since 1980. It was very interesting. See this link:
http://home.gallatinriver.net/howerter/ ... helen.html

I had once read a tract from a Scientist who is now a Christian who believes in the literal 6-day creation, young earth theory that used to be an evolutionist. I can't seem to find it but hopefully I can figure out the name and see if I can find a link to post when I have time.
 
But wait a sec, evolution says that we evolved from monkies, but the Bible says God made us from earth. Even if He DIDN'T make everything in seven days, there's nothin in the Bible that says we came from monkies. Do you think we came from monkies?
There was this scientist guy, Gish was his name (I had to do a report on his book) and he gives some sound reasons why creationism is just as scientificly legit as evolution. Like, there aren't any fossils of half-man-half-monkey people anywhere that you can be absolutely certain are actually half-man-half-monkies or something. My thing is, how come there are still monkies around, and still humans around, but no monkey-men walkin around? I think it'd be cool to see a monkey man! I WANNA SEE A MONKEY MAN!! It's be freaky and awesome!!MONKEY MEN ROCK!! I LOVE THE MONKEY MEN! (that would make a cool t-shirt)

Like, if I ever saw a Monkey Man, I'd say,
"HEY DUDE!! YER A MONKEY MAN!!"

heh... yeah,dude... that would rock...

(sorry, been hangin out with too many college guys at my job LOL)
 
:o Did I branch off topic? Sorry... I'm alittle tired....Uhh....What were we saying?.... Never mind.... I'm going to bed now.....


....heh...
Monkey men....
...dude....
 
^LOL! I wouldn't say you exactly got off-topic. I do think, though I may be wrong, that most Christians who believe in the combo of evolution/creation (what I call progressive creationism) would say that they don't believe that we evolved from monkeys or any other thing. Most of their point is to try to fit in the billions of years that evolutionists have to have to make it all "work".

It may seem harsh and I don't mean to offend but I personally feel, IMHO, that progressive creationism is another way to water down God's Word to make it more pallitable to all.

I am going to ask some questions that I would like answers to, I am not trying to be hypothetical with these - just looking for some honest answers: Why do some Christians find it so hard to believe that God created it all in 6 literal days or that the earth is only about 10,000 years old? Why do some Christians feel the need to combine two opposite ways of thinking? Do they honestly feel they have proof that He used evolution as His form of creation?

Either way, I believe these kinds of debates are healthy (as long as we stay humble and kind to each other) because it causes us to delve deeper into God's Word and desire to learn more about Him - what could be better than that? :biggrin
 
Ok, ok.

I know a lot of people dont want to think they evolved from monkeys. Especially Christians. I can understand that. For me personally I dont mind. I think they are cute anyways and nicer than humans. :biggrin

But I really want this question answered if it is not too much trouble.

How long were Adam and Even in the Garden BEFORE the fall?
 
O, I am sorry, I wasn't trying to avoid it, just thought you were being hypothetical!

I am sure no one really knows that one but I personally believe that they were there long enough to have several children, at least. This would be before Cain and Abel were born. How else could Cain have later found a wife off somewhere else?

That is the best I can do personally on that particular question. I haven't researched that particular point much yet. I still have sooo much to learn and am certainly willing to learn more. That is why I enjoy this topic so much! :biggrin

I would like to see what others had to say on this question as well!
 
I shall ask again:

Which peer-reviewed scientific journals did you find them in?

I'm not talking about a book for the general public here.
 
I am not claiming to be a scientist or that I know everything - I wish I could be that smart!! My beliefs are based mostly on faith, much like those of the evolutionists. I think it takes more faith to believe much of what they do than to believe in a Great Creator.

I am willing to accept God's Word as is, however, I am also willing to research it or read interesting facts that support Biblical creation. I don't mind a bit of a challenge because it keeps me on my toes.

Call me naive or narrow-minded, I can accept that, because I believe that evolutionists will reveal only the "facts" that support their beliefs. So I dont' think reading an evolutionary biased materiel will get me anywhere. It may very likely be the same way with much of the Christian material I read but as long as I can find the same info from many different sources, I am willing to believe it.

I don't know I can give you exactly what you want but I will do my best, these links are in regards to sun shrinkage:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3852.asp

You will see in that last link that there is debate over the subject of sun shrinkage. So, let's just assume that it really isn't shrinking over time and these people were all wrong in there initial studies. Does that change what I believe? No! Either way, I have not found any credibal information to prove to me that God didn't create the world just as He said in Genesis.

I am not done yet - I will have more later, but I am trying to do schoolwork with my boys right now too.
 
Well you're kind of edging onto my point here. The old creationist 'arguments' such as the shrinking sun (excepting fluctuations, it is estimated currently that the sun was a significant fraction brighter a couple of billion years ago, but that is it), the linear (hah!) decay of the magnetic field, helium levels and suchlike aren't actually proper science at all. Hell; some I have read are absolutely ridiculous even without any research needing to be applied (the 'U236 in quantity on the moon' was a particular gem I have found, as is the 'half-lifes can change, you know').

My point is that you should take such 'findings' with a pinch of salt if they have not actually been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as they would have been if they had the slightest real legitimacy. The scientific community is not one big happy conspiracy and if genuine findings were made and repeated which genuinely pointed towards an earth that was younger than expected, many scientists would be crawling over each other to investigate further.*

As yet, I have never heard of a single such 'young-Earth theory' finding it's way through a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Ever. And believe me; if one was and it stood up to repeated experiment and suchlike, you would hear about it.

To summarise; if you find an apparently conclusive ground-breaking and foolproof piece of evidence which flies in the way of conventional scientific thought, investigate it further rather than taking it for granted. There is usually a reason if it is not taken seriously by the scientific community.


*EDIT: Your link towards the shrinking-sun issue is a perfect example. A finding was made which suggested abnormal data. The discverers involved did not immediately assume validity and that (as many creationists attempt to make out) that is was a linear phenonenon and not an aberration. What in fact happened was that further research was conducted to make sense of the aberration.

The same is the issue with the 'magnetic field linear weakening' (or exponential decay or whichever relationship the modern creationist attaches to it). Certainly, there has been a steady downward trend in recent records. I have looked at several magnetic records myself to verify this, and although it is more like a stock-valuation decrease, with many peaks along the way, it is a decrease.

But one should not immediately assume a neat linear or exponential decay just because that fits their worldview. Indeed, geological records and what little we know about theoretical geodynamics show that in fact the relationship is anything but linear or predictable in the long-term.

To summarise; just because a peculiar finding matches your views, you should not be quick to attach meaning to them without further investigation. Cynicism on such matters is vital.
 
Heidi_Mighty_Mo said:
You will see in that last link that there is debate over the subject of sun shrinkage. So, let's just assume that it really isn't shrinking over time and these people were all wrong in there initial studies. Does that change what I believe? No! Either way, I have not found any credibal information to prove to me that God didn't create the world just as He said in Genesis.

Well, at the risk of sounding like a preachy idealogue, the burden-of-proof does not work that way. Concepts are not 'true until disproven', but rather viewed with extreme criticism unless they can be backed up. I have seen little to nothing that can back up a literal creationist interpretation and a great many pieces of evidence flatly contradict it. The global flood could not possibly have occured as literally described, and one only needs to use common sense to work that one out (along with a calculator and a basic knowledge of physics in some areas). Much evidence, from numerous internally-consistent radiometric dating methods contradict a young-Earth, along with the formation of sedimentary rock, observed characteristics of distant star systems and red shift etc.

Occasionally in life one will find evidence that, upon first examination, appears to conflict with certain other findings. What one should not do is assume the piece of evidence that points to a more comfortable worldview is correct, but instead look at the discrepancy and why it occured, bearing in mind that it is an aberration in a sea of more regular findings.
 
victor hadin,

Just because evidence is present that doesnt make it true. Science changes its mind all the time with new findings. Have some faith in Christ and I am posotive you wont go wrong. :)
 
There are many things I refuse to believe until I have hard proof. I will admit however that I tend to grab at any evidence that proves creation. You are correct that I should research things further, I have been under the assumption that if I can find the same information from many sources it must be correct. The funny thing about that is I refuse to believe any evolutionary theory no matter how much "evidence" there is! I suppose that is kind of funny.

I will say this, even if the "facts" I had are all incorrect, I will still believe in God's word, no matter what. Prove to me anything and I will accept it but if it goes against His Word, then it is false as far as I am concerened.

As far as progressive creationism goes, I know it really doesn't matter if God chose to take millions of years or 6 days. I personally believe in the literal 6 days but I don't think any Christian who chooses to believe in millions of years of creation will go to hell simply because they don't agree with me. That would be just plain stupid since it is what Jesus did on the cross for us and the acceptance of that salvation that gets us there.

So, I guess maybe I am ignorant though I try not to be, but I am happy in my faith in His Word. There is nothing any Scientist could say that would make me believe differently. They may be able to prove to me that God used this method or that, as long as it doesn't conflict with His word, then I have no problem with it and I am interested in learning more.
 
Science nitpicks itself all the time, but that is a long way from saying that it is likely to about face and support literal creationist ideas.
 
Wow! Simultaneous post! Spooky! :biggrin

Heidi: I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Your beliefs are your business, really. I am just urging you to be a little more cynical of things people sometimes claim on the internet relating to science. Anyone can make a convincing-sounding 'finding' which can fool the layperson who does not investigate further.
 
victorhadin said:
Wow! Simultaneous post! Spooky! :biggrin

Heidi: I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Your beliefs are your business, really. I am just urging you to be a little more cynical of things people sometimes claim on the internet relating to science. Anyone can make a convincing-sounding 'finding' which can fool the layperson who does not investigate further.

LOL! :biggrin I knew you weren't trying to convert me and I am not at all upset. What you had to say was certainly legit and I appreciate you taking the time to share that with me! :) I just want ppl to understand the strength of my faith is not based on science but only on God and His Word.

Well - I need to go start the TaeKwon Do class in a few so maybe we can talk more later tonight or tomorow!
 
Back
Top