Age of the Earth and Creation vs. Evolution

I've found some lectures and debates on this site http://www.drdino.com to be really interesting in response to so many claims of science contradicting the Bible. I haven't searched any of the critical reviews of it yet, which I'm sure there are. Check out the age of the earth lecture available here http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index.jsp

I believe, as written in my novel "The Called", "that each day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years one day" ... Therefore, to me, each creative day was of the aforementioned time frame "The Called"https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2289&forum=41&1PS - Thanks for the links! ... Most interesting!

This simply put cannot be the case. First, plants were created before the Sun. I am not a bio major but I am reasonably sure that plants need sun in order to survive. Second, birds were created 2 days after plants. This would not be a big deal except if the days represented millions of years like you may suggest. There would be no birds to polinate the flowers.However, there is something much more important at hand. There was no death until Adam sinned. If the days represent a longer period of time then we have a problem. Either these plants lived a very very very long time - or - the bible is wrong. If there is death before Adam's sin then we have compromised the entire basis of dying through Adam and living through Christ. Ssecondly, the bible says at least three times that the entire earth was created in 6 days. To me this means the earth was created in 6 days. To a man who has never heard of the lie called evolution it means 6 days. The only way it can be distorted to represent more time is if we want to compromise the bible's integrity for what science tells us. The bible is meant to be read and understood. If you have to read 6 days to mean millions and millions of years then there is a problem.Lastly, if we say that the days are symblolic for a longer period of time then what stops us from saying the "story" of the Fall of Man is a symbol. If that is a symbol then why isn't the rest of the bible just a symbol that means "live a good life" like the rest of the religions teach. We alledged Christians need to stop trying to fit the bible into the science we have been taught. There is ample support for a 6 day Creation like the bible teaches but for some reason we must convince ourselves that some scientists are right. Have a little more faith in your God. How big is your God? My God is powerful enough to have created this entire universe in 6 days. If yours is not ---- then well -- what makes him powerful enough to forgive your sins.

Hello good people!I hate to sound like a broken record (see scriptures and doctrine section under “millions of years or literal days”) but there are many things about creation that we simply do not know. What do you think about, dinosaur bones, fossils and carborn-14 dating? James

I beleive that there were dinosaurs on earth before the flood and that some were really big. Then after the flood there were only 2 (remember what was taken on the Ark). Also after the flood humans began eating meat which meant the dinos would now be hunted. A lot started dying off. Also the biggest ones became hunted. It turned into people being heros if they could kill one ... so they did. However, some did survive. Dont you find it odd that almost every culture has some stories of dragons. The bible mentions dragons 36 times. The word Dinosaur wasn't invented until the mid 1800s. Also, in uncharted swamps in Africa there have been many many stories that there are dinoseaurs in there. Several scientists have confirmed that fact. One said that he saw one but that it cant be true because we know evolution to be true. Now do we really know that ... or do we think that.Carbon dating does not work. Did you know one time they found an animal and his head and leg were much different years. They were off by thousands and thousands of years. Also, scientists agree that if there was in fact a world wide flood then this would throw off any numbers of stuff that was dated before that time. Well... if we believe the bible we do believe in a flood. Fossis ... i have explained what i think about their dating and if they are of dinosaurs i believe that is also true.

Answers In Genesis is an organisation of creation scientists who have several evidences for a young earth. Search their site for Gary Parkers testimony. Excellent arguements for young earth. There is a term for people who belive in millions of years - "liberalists!!To change 7 days into 7,000 years (or more) is to alter the literal Word of God. Where do we stop?Mmmmmmmmmmmm.....

100% agree with Cja There is definite evidence for a young earth but for some reason we like to listen to about 55% of scientist who believe in evoluiton rather than the bible.

RhpmikeFirst, welcome to the forum Rhpmike! It is wonderful to have your input here and hopefully it will continue. Well, I myself do not believe in evolution, nor do I believe the earth is millions of years old. As I said before, many things about the story of creation are unknown. Genesis does tell the story of creation, but it is not very specific. Let us remember that Moses was not alive when all of these things happen. The entire book of Genesis is a prophesy.2 Peter 1:19-21 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that NO prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.2Timothy 3:16ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;Notice the symbolisms of light and day on our hearts, one of many symbolisms of day and night. I think we are in error when we try to look at the bible as a scientific journal for private analysis and interpretation. There is simply too much data missing. If we look at the spiritual significance of the bible, there is too much information to absorb in one life time. If I were studying the bible as a scientist, I could complete a very in depth study in 4 years but as the Spirit teaches me, I can never learn enough. Keep this in mind from and old man (Mr. Ravenhill) there is no fine knowledge into the Christian life, this side of eternity. The Holy Spirit is constantly trying to teach us things of spiritual significance; this is not to say I do not believe the bible, but we are simply not privy to the details of the story of creation. It seems to me the story of creation is not one that sets out to prove that God did it, the only proof we need for that is our faith. The greater question for us as Christians is what spiritual things can we learn from the story of creation?Your response to the question of dinosaurs is purely speculation. The best and only answer we have is that we simply do not know. To say that only two dinosaurs we taken would mean that only tow reptiles were needed, two birds and two mammals. Dinosaur is a term that describes a distinct group of animals, just as the term mammals describes a distinct group; all of them are still different animals however. The command was to take two of every kind of animal.James

With regards to the dinosaurs, maybe they did exist before the flood, so when Noah took two of every kind of them onto the ark, the rest would have been buried under the flood like all the other animals were (creating all the fossilised dinosaurs). However when the flood was over and the animals were set free again, the dinosaurs may not have responded well to the new/changed environment, which in turn would have caused them to become extinct. Just like how species these days are struggling to survive, like the coral in the Great Barrier Reef, because of global warming, opening of the ozone layer etcWhat do people think of this?ps. I totally love the evolution vs creation debate, it really fascinates me :-P

rhpmike wrote:"100% agree with Cja There is definite evidence for a young earth but for some reason we like to listen to about 55% of scientist who believe in evoluiton rather than the bible."Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that only 55% of scientists believe in evolution??? If so, where did you get that number from?

I recently saw a survey that surveyed science profs and scientists and asked if they believed in evolution. Most of the space and micro-biologists did not believe in evolution because they see the world oro human structure is just too complicated to be from evolution. They also realize that certain things are interdependent. In other words while species1 might not need a certain organ but species2 would need it. So while species2 was evolving iit would die off before it had millions of years to evolve. I dont remember the percentages of the poll exactly but just more than 50% did beleive in it. Also, dinosaurs did live before the flood and also after the flood. However, as well as animals now live shorter life sppans so the animals would not be as big. So dinosaurs are smaller and i already pointed out how we classify dragons and dinos as two different things when in reality they could be the same. The earth is not millions of years old. The scientists just make up that lie so that they can supposedly support evolution. In fairy tales we learn that frog + kiss = human. Evolution teaches us that frog + time = human. This is pure nonsense that they teach in schools.

Job 40:15-24 KJV Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. [16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. [17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. [18] His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. [19] He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. [20] Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. [21] He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. [22] The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. [23] Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. [24] He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.Many scholars believe the Leviathon and Behemoth, in the book of Job, refer to certain dinosaurs. I can't remember what they believe Leviathon was, but apparently Behemoth's description is remarkably similar to that of a brontosaurus. In some translations try to translate "behemoth" (which is the actual hebrew word) as "hipopotamus" (I believe that the Living Bible uses this...but don't quote me:-)). However, hippos don't have a "tail like a cedar". (for more info check out Dinosaurs and the Bible by Gary Parker)The big problem with evolution, from a scriptural view point, is that if God used this means, then the earth was not "very good" when He finished, because it had to rely on a meathod of "creation", that depends on death to work (after all, that is what natural selection and evolution depend on to work-one thing dies, something better pops up in its place). Scripture describes a "very good" creation, which is gradually eroding as a direct result of sin. Evolution explains a "chaotic" world that is gradually getting better. Ie. God begins with life, evoultion begins with death.In regard to young earth theory, I once heard a preacher say that "Yeah, God could have made the earth in "millions of years", but it takes faith to believe that when He said, in Genesis, 'six days' he meant it." (paraphrase) The true danger is in believing anything other than 6 days is that if we allow this passage to be "open to interpretaion", we leave the whole Bible open to scrutiny. After all, "God is not a man that He would lie, nor a son of man that He must repent". If we allow ourselves the right to change biblical accounts, we better have a very solid reason why, or it ceases to be the "final authority".This does not mean that we are to accept any teaching that pops up, because it seems "biblical", but to weigh it all against scripture. There is nothing to weigh scripture against. It is the "straight stick" by which all other sticks are to be compared.Consider this, once upon a time, divorce was almost unheard of. Now it seems that marriage is looked at as fluid. Abortion was ghastly, now when someone even miscarries the victims are given an "oh well, better luck next time" response. And don't get me started on the whole "gay ordination" debate.We need to understand that all the ppl who believe the above, have very well reasoned arguments to justify themselves (even the "gay ordination" arguments sound scriptural). Creation is the foundation for all our faith, after all, if we question creation, we question God's right to rulership. If we question His meathods, then we can question the whole fact.At the end of the day, to think anything else is unnecessary, because the scientific evidence to support "young earth theory" makes all other theories sound ridiculous. (refer to The Exciting Testimony of a Former Atheist/Evolutionist)Note: Audio files are linked from the Answers in Genesis website, and are in Real Media (.rm) format.

Wow. I already like this site. It definitely seems that CJaKfOrEsT is right on. I have not heard one thing in this thread that i disagree with. He is right on the account that that word should not be translated Hippo. Hippos have little tales.

According to the scientific method, neither view points can currently be proven. It takes faith-religion to make that leap of choosing a view point. So its ironic that a faith based system/religion is being taught in public schools often as a factual theory. Oh well, we are a religious nation of atheists. Remember, atheism is a religion according to the supreme courts! Interestingly enough, many theories regarding evolution and an old earth/unvirse can be scientifically ruled out. I really suggest watching the free videos on the drdino.com site. I've ordered his lecture series, and a few of his video taped debates. Can't wait to find the time to watch them.Oh as for carbon-14 dating, interestingly enough... I remember watching a documentary years ago on the Discovery Chanel some years back. If somethings under water with lots of minerals a mere month can make it fossilize and appear millions of years old to carbon dating. They faked alot of fossils, and fooled researchers at major universities. Was really an interesting documentary... not sure how accurate it was, but I couldn't help but think of hey.. if their was a world wide flood, wouldn't it have washed up much of the earths soil/minerals... something to think about.