I disagree that they are not accurate, the inspiration of the bible tells me everything in it is right and has a purpose including the genealogies. Also if we know the age of humanity we know the age of the earth, Adam was created on the sixth day, so the earth is six days older than Adam who died at 930 years old.
How old is planet earth?
- Thread starter YoungChristianBoy28
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Genesis 1 v 1
It does say the words "God" (As in no one else or no other random process) and the specific word "Created". Hope this helps. It stands out. Another useful thing I have heard is the word for " God" used is "Elohim" which is in a secondary state of plural. In English we have singular and plural. In the original Hebrew there was singular, plural (As more then one) and secondary plural meaning more then two. It is this secondary context of plural the word "God" is used. This is why Christians use the term trinity.
Just thought it may help someone.
It does say the words "God" (As in no one else or no other random process) and the specific word "Created". Hope this helps. It stands out. Another useful thing I have heard is the word for " God" used is "Elohim" which is in a secondary state of plural. In English we have singular and plural. In the original Hebrew there was singular, plural (As more then one) and secondary plural meaning more then two. It is this secondary context of plural the word "God" is used. This is why Christians use the term trinity.
Just thought it may help someone.
I know good and well that God made the earh, but there are some contradictions here now in my life. My mom says the earth is around 2000-3000 years old, but my science teacher, Professor Hemsworth, says that it is in fact around 5 billion years old. I have read the bible many times but I just need a straight answer! 
I didn't read the whole thread, but I've actually been studying some subjects lately and I have documented some information that are related to this discussion somewhat.
1. Macro-evolution has not been adequately tested nor have evidences been provided using clear observable data. Scientists base their assumption of evolution off of a faulty framework.
2. We have ~6000 fossils of early primates according to the Smithsonian that they assume were early humans. These fossils are for the most part highly damaged and the majority are only fragments and not full skeletons. These aren't even human skeletons, although they call them human. They are primates and apes.
3. This is an excerpt from some of my notes: According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, we are 96% genetically similar to the chimpanzee. Fair enough. But according to the same institute, we are 90% genetically similar to cats, 85% genetically similar to mice, and 80% genetically similar to cows. Even more bizarre, we are 61% similar to the fruit fly! So I would guess we have also found "missing links" to cats, mice, cows, and yes, even fruit flies. But guess what? No fossils of that kind exist. Furthermore, the same institute makes a distinction between similarity and being identical which is a common lie and misapplication of terms used by evolutionists and misunderstood by most people. We are 99% IDENTICAL genetically to every other human being. Not similar, identical. The same is not true when comparing genetic makeup with other species. Similar is completely different than identical. In fact, according to National Geographic, we have a genetic makeup that is 25-30% common with rice. Are we rice people now too and not just monkey men? They claim this proves evolution, but I think it proves to the contrary since there are no links to these other species. Genes are simply building blocks that I don't feel adequately prove anything in regards to evolution. Everything has genes in common. I don't see how similarities in genetics can be equated to proof of evolution.
4. Furthermore, when looking at genetics, there is no adequate proof of positive genetic mutations. The articles describing positive mutations are rare, typically unsubstantiated, affect a very tiny group of individuals (like a family), or have been found in only a single human being. On the other hand, there is an uncountable amount of evidence of negative mutations, fully documented, studied, and witnessed on a large scale. Cancer is one example of a negative mutation common among our species and other species. Even certain so-called positive mutations are often accompanied by certain cellular disfunctions. The genetic studies on mutations seem to disprove positive types of evolution and actually seem to prove the curse of fallen man.
5. Evolution has been used as a means by which racism and other atrocities are perpetrated since its inception, even with "theories" predating Darwinism. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Ontogeny and Pylogeny", "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory". A lot of people don't realize that Darwin himself based his theory off of his view of "inferior races (comparing darker skinned humans to apes)" and the full title to his book is not just "On the Origin of Species", but "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
All in all, acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory is absurd. It is not reproducible, cannot be tested, lacks any form of evidence to adequately verify it, was born of racism, and makes grand claims that have never been substantiated satisfactorily.
On a side note, I have also been studying ancient near east religions. Evolution ironically seems to be a partial rebranding of the Chaldean (Assyrian, Babylonian, Akkadian) creation myth. In the myth, you have the primordial water Apsu and the chaos Tiamat who produce other gods through their mixing. Compare to the primordial ooze and the state of chaos the early universe was in that life was said to have been born from. From these gods comes all sorts of creatures, half birds half cats, half human half animal, and all sorts of mixtures of species. The death of one of these gods leads to the creation of humans from its blood. This sounds eerily similar to Darwinian evolution to me. But the gods names and attributes have been replaced by naturalistic terminology. It's nature worship in both systems of belief, evolution just doesn't use the term gods to describe nature. This is similar to how planets used to be called gods, but now are simply called planets.
1. Macro-evolution has not been adequately tested nor have evidences been provided using clear observable data. Scientists base their assumption of evolution off of a faulty framework.
2. We have ~6000 fossils of early primates according to the Smithsonian that they assume were early humans. These fossils are for the most part highly damaged and the majority are only fragments and not full skeletons. These aren't even human skeletons, although they call them human. They are primates and apes.
3. This is an excerpt from some of my notes: According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, we are 96% genetically similar to the chimpanzee. Fair enough. But according to the same institute, we are 90% genetically similar to cats, 85% genetically similar to mice, and 80% genetically similar to cows. Even more bizarre, we are 61% similar to the fruit fly! So I would guess we have also found "missing links" to cats, mice, cows, and yes, even fruit flies. But guess what? No fossils of that kind exist. Furthermore, the same institute makes a distinction between similarity and being identical which is a common lie and misapplication of terms used by evolutionists and misunderstood by most people. We are 99% IDENTICAL genetically to every other human being. Not similar, identical. The same is not true when comparing genetic makeup with other species. Similar is completely different than identical. In fact, according to National Geographic, we have a genetic makeup that is 25-30% common with rice. Are we rice people now too and not just monkey men? They claim this proves evolution, but I think it proves to the contrary since there are no links to these other species. Genes are simply building blocks that I don't feel adequately prove anything in regards to evolution. Everything has genes in common. I don't see how similarities in genetics can be equated to proof of evolution.
4. Furthermore, when looking at genetics, there is no adequate proof of positive genetic mutations. The articles describing positive mutations are rare, typically unsubstantiated, affect a very tiny group of individuals (like a family), or have been found in only a single human being. On the other hand, there is an uncountable amount of evidence of negative mutations, fully documented, studied, and witnessed on a large scale. Cancer is one example of a negative mutation common among our species and other species. Even certain so-called positive mutations are often accompanied by certain cellular disfunctions. The genetic studies on mutations seem to disprove positive types of evolution and actually seem to prove the curse of fallen man.
5. Evolution has been used as a means by which racism and other atrocities are perpetrated since its inception, even with "theories" predating Darwinism. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Ontogeny and Pylogeny", "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory". A lot of people don't realize that Darwin himself based his theory off of his view of "inferior races (comparing darker skinned humans to apes)" and the full title to his book is not just "On the Origin of Species", but "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
All in all, acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory is absurd. It is not reproducible, cannot be tested, lacks any form of evidence to adequately verify it, was born of racism, and makes grand claims that have never been substantiated satisfactorily.
On a side note, I have also been studying ancient near east religions. Evolution ironically seems to be a partial rebranding of the Chaldean (Assyrian, Babylonian, Akkadian) creation myth. In the myth, you have the primordial water Apsu and the chaos Tiamat who produce other gods through their mixing. Compare to the primordial ooze and the state of chaos the early universe was in that life was said to have been born from. From these gods comes all sorts of creatures, half birds half cats, half human half animal, and all sorts of mixtures of species. The death of one of these gods leads to the creation of humans from its blood. This sounds eerily similar to Darwinian evolution to me. But the gods names and attributes have been replaced by naturalistic terminology. It's nature worship in both systems of belief, evolution just doesn't use the term gods to describe nature. This is similar to how planets used to be called gods, but now are simply called planets.