HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
- Thread starter MyrtleTrees
- 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.
E
Evolution and Christianity do not mix, can not mix, and it’s a shame people even think otherwise.
God said he created each kind, that totally excludes evolution of any sort,
if we change out view to try to match the Bible to what we think science says, it is basically caving. Even the man who thought up evolution in the end denied it.
using the word evolution, christian or not, should be avoided at all costs
microevoltion is even a bad term, I believe at creation God write into our dna things which would help later in things, in other words, the dna did not change, but something that was later needed was more prominent, while things which were no longer needed Faded
God said he created each kind, that totally excludes evolution of any sort,
if we change out view to try to match the Bible to what we think science says, it is basically caving. Even the man who thought up evolution in the end denied it.
using the word evolution, christian or not, should be avoided at all costs
microevoltion is even a bad term, I believe at creation God write into our dna things which would help later in things, in other words, the dna did not change, but something that was later needed was more prominent, while things which were no longer needed Faded
This isn't a matter of salvation for us. To the atheists, I am aware why they push it, to them it is, they have been doing it from the beginning because they are angry with God. But I don't think even dust-to-man theory somehow takes intelligence evident in creation out of the table, or eliminates God (they thought). Some people might feel like our faith needs justification or needs to be made more palatable, so they make efforts to match it with current science. But that's not where I'm coming from. Before I was a believer, I would team up with a Christian in the class to debate the biology professor, who was pushing the TOE like a dogma upon us, and dogmatism was something I was always against. They lack transitional fossils, and always have, and committed fraud in the past to fake them. But Christianity likewise gets dogmatic not about basic tenets of faith which you kind of have to brace a little bit to preserve it, but about things that are often down to interpretations and theories, and get very fundamental about this, which I also hate. Just because it is true that Adam and Eve started a real, literal Messianic genealogy in the Bible, people derive many many conclusions around it, that are only presuppositions. We could open a can of worms now because I've got much worse things to say, but this isn't the time or place.
That's your opinion, EG. But I can't think that way. (You know I love you though, you're one of my dearest brethren around here.)
If the Bible's ever taught me anything, it's that something that's a seeming contradiction might not actually contradict at all. The Bible has taught me to consider and be careful not to jump to conclusions more than science ever did.
The Earth is probably younger than most of us think, and there are some nice arguments in geology for that. But our ideas and theories what and how happened exactly when I was not even in the making is not going to be my hill to die on.
If the Bible's ever taught me anything, it's that something that's a seeming contradiction might not actually contradict at all. The Bible has taught me to consider and be careful not to jump to conclusions more than science ever did.
The Earth is probably younger than most of us think, and there are some nice arguments in geology for that. But our ideas and theories what and how happened exactly when I was not even in the making is not going to be my hill to die on.
I can't be sure about something like that. You may be right. Or maybe not. There's a visual of events that most people imagine in their head when they read Genesis, while I believe the Scripture is 100% true, I don't believe majority of peoples' reimagining of it and the narratives that come from it to have the same authority just because the majority thinks it.
Kind speciation is a fact Biblically first and scientifically second, agree. I am also sure that Adam and Eve were real people who started a real genealogy, which I can be sure from the Biblical context. I go no further than that because I can only defend what I'm sure about. I might say I think something is more or less likely in my opinion, and that's that. The way most people imagine the garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit, etc and what they were exactly and how they looked, I am not on board with a lot of that. I can't force myself to think something to fit in. But unless I find some hard proof for the opposite, I will always concede that the official consensus might be correct. I am not a contentious person who goes around starting topics on BDF to start strife and tell people they are wrong and I'm going to give them "the revelation".
Kind speciation is a fact Biblically first and scientifically second, agree. I am also sure that Adam and Eve were real people who started a real genealogy, which I can be sure from the Biblical context. I go no further than that because I can only defend what I'm sure about. I might say I think something is more or less likely in my opinion, and that's that. The way most people imagine the garden of Eden, the tree, the fruit, etc and what they were exactly and how they looked, I am not on board with a lot of that. I can't force myself to think something to fit in. But unless I find some hard proof for the opposite, I will always concede that the official consensus might be correct. I am not a contentious person who goes around starting topics on BDF to start strife and tell people they are wrong and I'm going to give them "the revelation".
-
1
- Show all
I think that Genesis 1:1 stands alone. That is, it tells us who the creator is that made all things. Genesis verse 2 does not connect with the beginning, but at a time of man's appearance eons later. Man is 6,000 years in residence, but the planet appears very ancient, and from the beginning. Think of the light that we see from the vast galaxies, that light took millions and more light years to get here, signifying that the "beginning" was long, long ago.