Spin off of "Young Earth"

[Jenstet]

Again, not starting anything. I don't know very many religious people and I always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into history as far as creation goes. I have heard that some people don't believe in dinosaurs at all. Do most people believe dinosaurs were alive the same time humans were?

[pixelroper]

Yes, some would also say there are still dinosaurs around today. Google Paluxy Dinosaur to get info on the controversy involving dino & human prints.

[OnTheBrink]

I believe dinosaurs were on the ark.

[dalynnrmc]

Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp)or Christian Answers (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/home.html)has a ton of information about this. In short, yes, I believe that dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days with the rest of the animals, and were on Noah's Ark during the flood and died out (those that DID) in the post-flood conditions.

[Sue G in PA]

lots of GREAT info. on dinosaurs and how they fit into creation. I, too, believe they were on the ark. I believe they died out after the flood as the land was not suitable for them. There are scripture references to large, dino like animals (Behemoth comes to mind).

[Soph the vet]

Ditto. I believe they were on the ark as well. And I am supposed to be an animal expert....never worked on a dinosaur though.:smilielol5:

[Virginia Dawn]

Again, not starting anything. I don't know very many religious people and I always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into history as far as creation goes. I have heard that some people don't believe in dinosaurs at all. Do most people believe dinosaurs were alive the same time humans were?

Yes, some do not believe there ever were dinosaurs. They believe that God created the world "ready-made", fossils and all.

No, most people do not believe dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans. A very large number of Christians believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs existed long before people. But these are not the people who get publicity, nor are they looking for it.

[Janet in WA]

Again, not starting anything. I don't know very many religious people and I always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into history as far as creation goes. I have heard that some people don't believe in dinosaurs at all. Do most people believe dinosaurs were alive the same time humans were?There are descriptions in the Bible of creatures that sound for all the world like dinosaurs. I can find the references for you, if you like, or you can Google them easily with something like "dinosaur Bible".

[Karen in CO]

The best explanation I have heard was that it was juvenile dinosaurs on the ark and probably juveniles of many other species too.

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?

[dalynnrmc]

There are descriptions in the Bible of creatures that sound for all the world like dinosaurs. I can find the references for you, if you like, or you can Google them easily with something like "dinosaur Bible".

They're in Job. Behemoth and Leviathan. AiG addresses that, I believe.

And yep, you'll get a range of beliefs within Christianity just like you will out of it. :)

[Pencil Pusher]

Yes, some do not believe there ever were dinosaurs. They believe that God created the world "ready-made", fossils and all.

Do you know I'd never heard of this before today? But I was at a neighbor's house before this thread was posted, & her sister mentioned knowing people who believed this way. It's so weird to come here & see it again all of a sudden.

I guess I'd wonder...well...why do they say He put the fossils there? What would be the point? I mean, I guess that could be asked of anything, but...what's the law that says the simpler explanation is more likely? Unless there's some kind of religious reason to believe otherwise, I don't know why one would not accept a leg bone or something as *belonging* to something, kwim?

I'm just curious, too. I really enjoy the creation-evolution debates, but it's hard to have them in a constructive way.

[Virginia Dawn]

Do you know I'd never heard of this before today? But I was at a neighbor's house before this thread was posted, & her sister mentioned knowing people who believed this way. It's so weird to come here & see it again all of a sudden.

I guess I'd wonder...well...why do they say He put the fossils there? What would be the point? I mean, I guess that could be asked of anything, but...what's the law that says the simpler explanation is more likely? Unless there's some kind of religious reason to believe otherwise, I don't know why one would not accept a leg bone or something as *belonging* to something, kwim?

I'm just curious, too. I really enjoy the creation-evolution debates, but it's hard to have them in a constructive way.


I haven't read about that theory in ages, but my understanding is that the Earth was supposed to have been created that way for man's benefit. Since the proponents of this believed in the 6 day creation, but did not believe that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time that was how they reconciled the two. I heard about this in the context of Garner Ted Armstrongs radio broadcasts and publications back in the 70's.

I personally think that it would mean God had deceived man if it were true.

[camibami]

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?

I'm curious about that, too. I'm assuming that continental drift and Pangia (spelling?) do NOT fit into young earth science- right?

Maybe this should be a spin off, but I was talking to my husband about this thread. I have never heard anyone say dinosaurs were on the ark until recently. As a child, I never heard a peep from my fairly conservative Presbyterian church on Creaton Science. DH says he never heard anything from his very conservative Baptist church on it, either. Old Earth was the accepted "outlook" when we were kids, regardless of religious practice.

When exactly did this change, and how (and why?) is it so important? Obviously, I am not a young earth adherent, but I am honestly very curious as to WHY proving young earth theory (dinosaurs on the ark, etc) is so important? I am trying to be as innoffensive as I can- I just really don't understand why this issue is so important. To me, it seems that the proof gets more and more complicated, the "correct" theory gets more and more convoluted (ie fossils pre-made by God). And it seems to be a much more important issue- almost a salvation issue. I don't "get it", really.

Can anyone give me their thoughts on this? I hope I am not coming across offensive. I just want to understand the "why", not debate it.

[TXMomof4]

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?



When exactly did this change, and how (and why?) is it so important? Obviously, I am not a young earth adherent, but I am honestly very curious as to WHY proving young earth theory (dinosaurs on the ark, etc) is so important? I am trying to be as innoffensive as I can- I just really don't understand why this issue is so important. To me, it seems that the proof gets more and more complicated, the "correct" theory gets more and more convoluted (ie fossils pre-made by God). And it seems to be a much more important issue- almost a salvation issue. I don't "get it", really.

Can anyone give me their thoughts on this? I hope I am not coming across offensive. I just want to understand the "why", not debate it.

I am one of those people that does not have to have " AN ANSWER". I go back and forth on so much of this. I am a creationist, but young earth/old earth, intelligent design, assisted evolution, ARGH. I don't know. And I don't need to know. It isn't going to change the way I live my life. I feel the same way about the end times prophecies. To me, the bible clearly states that we will not know the time or the day. The end will come like a thief in the night, so, other than reading the warnings to the churches in Revelations, I'm not going to try to decipher it. All the debate in the world cannot come up with "THE ANSWER" so I'm not going to spend the time and energy on trying to find it when I am completely comfortable not knowing that answer.

I know that won't work for everyone, but I figure that is something I'll get an answer to someday without making myself crazy in the process.

[pixelroper]

When exactly did this change, and how (and why?) is it so important? Obviously, I am not a young earth adherent, but I am honestly very curious as to WHY proving young earth theory (dinosaurs on the ark, etc) is so important? I am trying to be as innoffensive as I can- I just really don't understand why this issue is so important. To me, it seems that the proof gets more and more complicated, the "correct" theory gets more and more convoluted (ie fossils pre-made by God). And it seems to be a much more important issue- almost a salvation issue. I don't "get it", really.

Can anyone give me their thoughts on this? I hope I am not coming across offensive. I just want to understand the "why", not debate it.

Because some believe the Bible literally. It is the literal Word of God.

Some scientific theories (when put forth) started people questioning whether the Bible was a fairy tale. Some Christians were swayed by these theories to abandon their faith. Some people use science to explain their absence of faith. Others question the theories themselves and offer up their own theories in support of the Biblical accounts.

Hope that helped.

[Virginia Dawn]

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?

I'm curious about that, too. I'm assuming that continental drift and Pangia (spelling?) do NOT fit into young earth science- right?

Maybe this should be a spin off, but I was talking to my husband about this thread. I have never heard anyone say dinosaurs were on the ark until recently. As a child, I never heard a peep from my fairly conservative Presbyterian church on Creaton Science. DH says he never heard anything from his very conservative Baptist church on it, either. Old Earth was the accepted "outlook" when we were kids, regardless of religious practice.

When exactly did this change, and how (and why?) is it so important? Obviously, I am not a young earth adherent, but I am honestly very curious as to WHY proving young earth theory (dinosaurs on the ark, etc) is so important? I am trying to be as innoffensive as I can- I just really don't understand why this issue is so important. To me, it seems that the proof gets more and more complicated, the "correct" theory gets more and more convoluted (ie fossils pre-made by God). And it seems to be a much more important issue- almost a salvation issue. I don't "get it", really.

Can anyone give me their thoughts on this? I hope I am not coming across offensive. I just want to understand the "why", not debate it.


I think it has come more to the forefront in the last 25 years. It seems to be an attempt to foil combat evolutionary thinking. Someone somewhere decided that if you believe the earth is very old, you must believe in evolution. And if you believe in evolution, you don't believe God created all living things, most importantly man, in the time span that seems to be indicated in Genesis. So parameters were constructed and theories proposed to explain just how God must have exactly perfomed the creation act as stated in Genesis word for word.

[Pencil Pusher]

I'm assuming that continental drift and Pangia (spelling?) do NOT fit into young earth science- right?

Huh. I know dh believes both of these. I'll have to ask him how they fit.

[dalynnrmc]

Pangea and continental drift fit perfectly into young earth creation ideas. Simply explained by the Deluge.

Really, go see AiG. LOL

[camibami]

I am one of those people that does not have to have " AN ANSWER". I go back and forth on so much of this. I am a creationist, but young earth/old earth, intelligent design, assisted evolution, ARGH. I don't know. And I don't need to know. It isn't going to change the way I live my life. I feel the same way about the end times prophecies. To me, the bible clearly states that we will not know the time or the day. The end will come like a thief in the night, so, other than reading the warnings to the churches in Revelations, I'm not going to try to decipher it. All the debate in the world cannot come up with "THE ANSWER" so I'm not going to spend the time and energy on trying to find it when I am completely comfortable not knowing that answer.

Oh, I know just how you feel! My private theory is that I believe the point of Genesis is...God created the world. How...well, thats not so terribly important. Its that He did that really matters!

Someone somewhere decided that if you believe the earth is very old, you must believe in evolution. And if you believe in evolution, you don't believe God created all living things, most importantly man, in the time span that seems to be indicated in Genesis. So parameters were constructed and theories proposed to explain just how God must have exactly perfomed the creation act as stated in Genesis word for word.

Well, I get that.I guess I don't get why the time span is SO important. The 6 literal days. But I do get it. It just seems odd to me that it is so important now, and wasn't when I was a kid.

[Cricket]

Oh, I know just how you feel! My private theory is that I believe the point of Genesis is...God created the world. How...well, thats not so terribly important. Its that He did that really matters!

I guess I don't get why the time span is SO important. The 6 literal days. But I do get it. It just seems odd to me that it is so important now, and wasn't when I was a kid.

There is much more to Genesis than the fact that God created the earth. It tells us why Jesus needed to come and die in our place. I had a friend who said that it was strange to him that people handed out New Testament-only Bibles. Without Genesis, people have no understanding of what created the gap between us and God in the first place.

As far as the time span, I've wondered about this too. Can't someone believe that the earth is old and still believe in a literal 6-day creation? I think someone somewhere went back and counted the generations in the Bible and came up with the idea that the earth is around 10,000 years old. I haven't studied enough about the issues to know though. Could there have been many generations that the Bible simply didn't mention? If someone "begat" someone else, does that have to mean a son or daughter or could it refer to a grandson or great-grandson?? We will probably never know. :001_smile:

Or maybe you mean why the 6-day time span for creation is important?

[dalynnrmc]

I think most of the "begats" include an age that would point to a direct generational pattern, and it's important mostly when it comes to the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, to me it's all theology which has nothing to do with doctrine. BUT, if it will make a difference as to whether someone believes or not, then it becomes more important to that person. In addition, I feel it's important when it comes to defending my faith these days. If you mention that you're a Christian, people almost ALWAYS will ask - at some point, if there's any conversation going on about it at all - about how you can possibly believe a book that claims to be entirely true and yet "conflicts" with what science "knows". It's about showing them that what "we" have been told isn't necessarily TRUE, and encouraging them to look into it for themselves.

So, no. It's not "important" for any individual in the long run. If it turns out that the earth is millions of years old, and I believe in my lifetime that it's only 6,000 years old, that isn't going to keep me out of heaven. But, it's important to me to learn as much as I can about my God, my Creator, my Friend, and so it's of interest to me. *shrug*

[gardenschooler]

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?


I found this on AIG. I haven't finished reading it yet, so I don't know if it references Pangea. Thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread

[Tommysmommy]

When exactly did this change, and how (and why?) is it so important? .... And it seems to be a much more important issue- almost a salvation issue.

It is important as a foundation. When Genesis is looked at as symbolic as opposed to literal, it opens the door to question the authority of the rest of the Bible.

Here's a link to an article that explains it much better than I can.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

[Mrs Mungo]

I am one of those people that does not have to have " AN ANSWER". I go back and forth on so much of this. I am a creationist, but young earth/old earth, intelligent design, assisted evolution, ARGH. I don't know. And I don't need to know. It isn't going to change the way I live my life. I feel the same way about the end times prophecies. To me, the bible clearly states that we will not know the time or the day. The end will come like a thief in the night, so, other than reading the warnings to the churches in Revelations, I'm not going to try to decipher it. All the debate in the world cannot come up with "THE ANSWER" so I'm not going to spend the time and energy on trying to find it when I am completely comfortable not knowing that answer.

I know that won't work for everyone, but I figure that is something I'll get an answer to someday without making myself crazy in the process.

Adding an I agree to this. I don't have the answers and I don't feel I need the answers in order to be a proper Christian. I *do* understand why other people feel differently though.

[Donna T.]

The question I have is how did the kiwis and koalas get back to 'down under'?


I just really don't understand why this issue is so important. .

Well, I can only tell you why it's important to me. It's important to me because if there was death before Adam (which you would have to believe in if you believe that dinosaurs existed for a long period of time before man) then the entire Word of God is a lie. If there was death before Adam, then the whole concept of there being a penality for sin is stupidity. If Adam was not the first man, then Jesus wasn't the second Adam. And, if Jesus wasn't the second Adam through which Redemption came upon all men (just as the first Adam brought sin into the nature of all men) then the whole Word of God is a lie, it's a fable, it's of no value whatsoever. So, no, I don't understand how someone can be a "Christian" and yet teach the opposite of what God has revealed to us through His Holy Word about sin, redemption, and salvation. If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??


Perhaps they are basing it on Gnostic Christianity - that so called Christianity which blends the mystery religions of the pagans with the truth of God's Holy Word. There is a Gnostic Christianity but it is not Biblical Christianity. What do they base their Christianity on? To each his own. One has a *right* to base their Christianity on Gnosticism if they want to, but it's not the same thing, obviously, as Biblical Christianity. Gnostic Christianity loves the old-earth teachings because it fits right into their theology, which I will not here promote, other than to say that they have to hold to their old-earth ideas, because if they did not, it would effect their ideas of the future. That future being the newly evolved state of Paradise that they claim they are ushering in through their higher level of so called "Christ consciousness". If there is no evolution in the physical world, then there is no evolution in the spiritual realm, and if there's no evolution in the spiritual realm, then their theology is folly because their Paradise is a fable and is impossible to obtain.

So, let's choose our fables wisely.

I understand this thread is about dinosaurs and not stricly evolution, but I'm just sharing why, from my perspective, this is a very important issue. Death before Adam = the Lord Jesus Christ is an imposter and a deceiver. That's pretty dang important.


Romans 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."

the rest of that chapter in Romans expounds upon the doctrine of death resulting from sin.

1 Corinthians 15: 21 - 22
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

1 Corinthians 15: 26
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

1 Corinithians 15: 47
"The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

EDITED TO SAY:
To the original poster of this question, please understand I'm not throwing this at you in a personal way. I understand your question. I really do. It's an important, valid question, and this is just my answer. Actually, I am missing church this morning due to illness, so I guess I'm feeling the need to be preachy! Many, many warm blessings to you.

[mom2att]

Since the Answers in Genesis site has been posted several times, I'd like to point anyone interested to a site which addresses creation with a different perspective. Hugh Ross is a Christian and a scientist with at PhD who has studied this exact issue for decades and has written extensively on the subject. You'll find articles directly addressing the dinosaurs issue, as well as many related articles on his website. Check the FAQ link or the Documents section at this website: http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml

[nmoira]

Death before Adam = the Lord Jesus Christ is an imposter and a deceiver. That's pretty dang important.Disclaimer: I was brought up Anglican, and left the church too many years ago to count.

What you have written is only true if the Bible is taken literally. Until I was well into my 30's I'd never met anyone who views every word of the Bible to be literally true. It was a shock to me, as I'm sure it might be a shock to someone in the opposite circumstance. Most people I know don't feel that their world is crashing around them if any part of the Bible gets challenged as to its literal truth.

[Jenstet]

I have friends who are mormon and the husband is a geologist. It always interested me in how he reconciled creation with the fossils. He believes that the Earth is millions of years old but also believes in the 6 days of creation. For him the 6 days are not measured by 24 hours but represent time periods. I thought that was a clever way of looking at it.

The reason I posted this question is because I like to explain to my kids how different yet similiar peoples beliefs are. Someday they will find what feels right to them, what makes sense to them. Right now the are fascinated with dinosaurs and what happened to them. Thank you for your replies.

[snickelfritz]

Since the Answers in Genesis site has been posted several times, I'd like to point anyone interested to a site which addresses creation with a different perspective. Hugh Ross is a Christian and a scientist with at PhD who has studied this exact issue for decades and has written extensively on the subject. You'll find articles directly addressing the dinosaurs issue, as well as many related articles on his website. Check the FAQ link or the Documents section at this website: http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml

I considered myself an athiest for a long time, because of this issue. During this time, I even saw Ken Ham in person. Bought some of his books. I can remember crying and wanting to believe and it just didn't fit. I bought the lie that you didn't believe in the real Jesus if you didn't believe as they did. Since I couldn't believe as they did, I couldn't be a christian. Through this, I stumbled upon the Reason to believe site and EUREKA! I can love Jesus and believe in an old earth.

Thankfully, I go to a (actually, conservative) church that considers this issue an "extra" one and not central to salvation.

I think I digressed. I just think it's important to keep salvation separate from all this other *stuff.*

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." and "God so loved the world that he sent his only son that WHOEVER believes in Him will not perish" THAT's what matters.

[Mrs Mungo]

I considered myself an athiest for a long time, because of this issue. During this time, I even saw Ken Ham in person. Bought some of his books. I can remember crying and wanting to believe and it just didn't fit. I bought the lie that you didn't believe in the real Jesus if you didn't believe as they did. Since I couldn't believe as they did, I couldn't be a christian. Through this, I stumbled upon the Reason to believe site and EUREKA! I can love Jesus and believe in an old earth.

Thankfully, I go to a (actually, conservative) church that considers this issue an "extra" one and not central to salvation.

I think I digressed. I just think it's important to keep salvation separate from all this other *stuff.*

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." and "God so loved the world that he sent his only son that WHOEVER believes in Him will not perish" THAT's what matters.

I tend to agree with this.

I don't necessarily believe that the universe was created in a *literal* six days. I don't believe that God set everything in motion and was hands-off after creating abiotic life. I think it's statistically impossible to start with one-celled organisms and through a seried of beneficial, spontaneous genetic mutations you get everything from whales to tulips. The hand of God was clearly there, throughout. I think some things in The Bible can be figurative and The Bible can still be true. Doesn't the extensive use of parables by Jesus suggest that? I think it's dangerous to suggest that anything other than belief in salvation through Christ is necessary to be a Christian.

[Plaid Dad]

In case anyone's interested in another interpretation of this issue, here's a page that explains the Catholic position (http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp). There is a somewhat more in-depth discussion in this article (http://www.chcweb.com/catalog/files/evolutioncreation.pdf) (PDF). (Just so you're aware, the latter is addressed to a Catholic readership and contains a brief but explicit criticism of sola scriptura. I post it not in a spirit of debate but of understanding.)

The short version is that, although the Catholic Church has not spoken definitively on evolution, she affirms the literal meaning of Scripture while insisting that, in our exegesis, we look at the intentions of the author. What is the purpose of Genesis 1? Is it to give a scientifically accurate description of the timing and processes of physical creation, or is it to affirm that God is the sole creator, ex nihilo, of "the heavens and the earth," i.e., everything, including us?

For reference, here are some key passages from the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II) that speak to the interpretation of Scripture in the Catholic tradition (I've left out the footnotes and added the bold type):

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover. [...]

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Again, I post this for information's sake and to help give the OP a fuller sense of the range of Christian opinion on the topic. HTH!

[Cricket]

Well, I can only tell you why it's important to me. It's important to me because if there was death before Adam (which you would have to believe in if you believe that dinosaurs existed for a long period of time before man) then the entire Word of God is a lie. *snip*

This is what I believe too. I still wonder though if you can't believe in this and yet still believe the world is older than 6-10,000 years. Can you believe the world is old without believing in evolution? I'll have to do some more reading on the topic. I guess it really isn't important how old you think the earth is but believing that death entered the world as a result of sin is fundamental to Biblical Christianity.

[Virginia Dawn]

http://www.doesgodexist.org

[jacqui in mo]

Can you believe the world is old without believing in evolution? I'll have to do some more reading on the topic. I guess it really isn't important how old you think the earth is but believing that death entered the world as a result of sin is fundamental to Biblical Christianity.[/quote]

I've been leaning toward a young earth interpretation, and it has a lot to do with when death entered the picture. Because of this thread though, I'm pondering whether maybe the 6 days of creation WERE long periods as one theory goes, and maybe there wasn't death in those long periods until the fall of Adam & Eve. Do you have to have the literal 24 hour periods of creation to say that death had not yet been a part of the world? What I'm trying to say is why couldn't there have been long periods of creation with no deaths of living things until after man was created (& and fallen)? Not an argument here, just pondering...

[Mrs Mungo]

This is what I believe too. I still wonder though if you can't believe in this and yet still believe the world is older than 6-10,000 years. Can you believe the world is old without believing in evolution? I'll have to do some more reading on the topic. I guess it really isn't important how old you think the earth is but believing that death entered the world as a result of sin is fundamental to Biblical Christianity.

Many people believe that death as a result of sin applies to man, to the soul, to the spirit and that it doesn't/didn't apply to animals.

[Virginia Dawn]

I guess it really isn't important how old you think the earth is but believing that death entered the world as a result of sin is fundamental to Biblical Christianity.

Well, there are those that would disagree with that statement too, if you are referring to all forms of physical death.

You see it is a well known fact that death and decomposition are absolutely essential to the physical life on this earth. Even if you assume that none of the millions of creatures on earth ate any other creatures before Adam and Eve were banished from the garden, they had to have eaten plants. Every plant that was eaten died. At the least, Adam and Eve at fruit. That piece of fruit was no longer living matter after it was chewed and digested. I hate to think of what the Garden of Eden would have been like if all that fruit that Adam and Eve digested did not decompose in some manner. :tongue_smilie:

Most food plants need organic matter to live and grow. Organic matter is is produced by death and decay.

Also the Bible does not categorically state that all forms of death did not exist prior to Adam's sin. The threat of death was directed specifically to human beings. One also wonders how Adam and Eve would have the slightest idea what death meant if nothing had ever died. It would seem to be unsporting of God to make a law that could not be understood by man.

Another argument is that the nowhere does the Bible state exactly how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and Adam's sin. An unprovable assumption must be made to come up with a specific time period.

[Michelle in AL]

Thanks Plaid Dad for taking the time to post this. This is exactly what I as a Methodist believe. I'm going to print out your post and save it for my kids when we study Genesis in Omnibus next yr.

Whenever this topic comes up in our science co-op I have the hardest time, explaining why our beliefs differ from young earth creationists. I've even had one teacher insinuate to my dd that she would go to hell if she did not believe in a literal 6 day creation (my dd had not expressed in anyway what she believed, but the teacher knew how I felt). Thankfully, it didn't ruin her faith, but it did ruin a friendship.

Blessings, Michelle in AL

[Donna T.]

Another argument is that the nowhere does the Bible state exactly how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and Adam's sin. An unprovable assumption must be made to come up with a specific time period.


Adam only lived 930 years (Genesis 5: 3), so how long could it have been?

[Virginia Dawn]

You got me on that point. :-)

[Cricket]

Many people believe that death as a result of sin applies to man, to the soul, to the spirit and that it doesn't/didn't apply to animals.

Today is the first I heard of that idea. That is very interesting!

[Lady Katherine]

lots of GREAT info. on dinosaurs and how they fit into creation. I, too, believe they were on the ark. I believe they died out after the flood as the land was not suitable for them. There are scripture references to large, dino like animals (Behemoth comes to mind).

:iagree:

[Lady Katherine]

Well, I can only tell you why it's important to me. It's important to me because if there was death before Adam (which you would have to believe in if you believe that dinosaurs existed for a long period of time before man) then the entire Word of God is a lie. If there was death before Adam, then the whole concept of there being a penality for sin is stupidity. If Adam was not the first man, then Jesus wasn't the second Adam. And, if Jesus wasn't the second Adam through which Redemption came upon all men (just as the first Adam brought sin into the nature of all men) then the whole Word of God is a lie, it's a fable, it's of no value whatsoever. .... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??

I'm glad you posted this. I was trying to think of how to explain this point of view, and now I don't have to.:thumbup1: I think I first heard it explained this way by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Soph the vet]

Well, I can only tell you why it's important to me. It's important to me because if there was death before Adam (which you would have to believe in if you believe that dinosaurs existed for a long period of time before man) then the entire Word of God is a lie. If there was death before Adam, then the whole concept of there being a penality for sin is stupidity. If Adam was not the first man, then Jesus wasn't the second Adam. And, if Jesus wasn't the second Adam through which Redemption came upon all men (just as the first Adam brought sin into the nature of all men) then the whole Word of God is a lie, it's a fable, it's of no value whatsoever. So, no, I don't understand how someone can be a "Christian" and yet teach the opposite of what God has revealed to us through His Holy Word about sin, redemption, and salvation. If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??

:iagree: and here is another thought....not that I have an adequate answer...According to Genesis 1 God created plants on Day 3 and the Sun on Day 4...if there were large gaps of time instead of literal 24hr. days, what would happen to the plant's need for photosynthesis? And here is another thought... the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yom" and when placed next to an ordinal number (first, second, etc.), or any number, refers to a 24hr. period rather than an epoch which it can mean in other context. Hmmm.....
The bottom line for me is that God is all powerful and certainly could have created the universe in 6 days and He is certainly able to communicate to us through His Word, the Bible. If you only believe some of it, how do you know which part to believe? Just thinking out loud:).

[jail warden]

If you only believe some of it(the Bible), how do you know which part to believe? Just thinking out loud:).

That's exactly what I think! If I can't believe these "smaller" (still huge though:001_smile:), details how can I truly trust that Jesus died for ME and that if I believe in Him, I will be saved AND that he died and rose again.

[Phred]

If I may... I am not trying to offend anyone nor am I trying to stomp on anyone's beliefs. I just feel that the side of scientific inquiry needs to be heard here. What we know:
The earth is 4.53 billion years old (give or take a few million years). There is simply no way we can have mistaken a 6,000 year old earth for a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Continental drift is a process that happens slowly, over millions and millions of years. It is not easily explained by a "deluge" of any sort. Water, no matter how much of it, resting on the top of continental plates will not cause them to budge.
Likewise the evolution of species is also a process that takes place over long time periods. The concept that a group of eight people (such as Noah and his family) could then give rise to the entire population of the earth with all the genetic diversity we see today is not possible. You see, the eight of them would have had to have carried all the known genetic variations of humanity as well as all the known genetic diseases within them. That's if you're going to say that evolution is not possible. They would have been one mighty sick group of eight people and one of them would have been swearing his head off. (tourettes syndrome)
The Paluxy footprints are a hoax that even answers in genesis doesn't use anymore.You see, even if you've just skipped over everything else I've typed because it doesn't agree with what you believe, please read this one thing: Creationists don't do one thing that they could do, that they should do and I wonder why... they don't take the millions of dollars that they have and do actual research. They don't test their "theories" or write papers. They just try to find holes in what scientists do. Finding something else wrong doesn't prove you right.

Lastly, and I'm not Catholic so I don't know if the Pope is the same as the Catholic church... I thought he was. But Pope John Paul II said:In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the re-foundation of the Academy, it gives me pleasure to recall the intentions of my predecessor, Pius XI, who wished to bring together around him a chosen group of scholars who could, working with complete freedom, inform the Holy See about the developments in scientific research and thus provide aid for reflections. To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth.

And later

there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation

Still later

Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm all for people believing as they wish. However, I'm not certain I appreciate the implied sentiment that you *must* be a young-Earther in order to be a Christian. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general theme I see among some people.

[jail warden]

I'm all for people believing as they wish. However, I'm not certain I appreciate the implied sentiment that you *must* be a young-Earther in order to be a Christian. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general theme I see among some people.

This is how I view the Bible. I'm definitely not saying that you "must" be a young earther. I am all for grace. That believing in Jesus is the most important part. If I'm wrong with believing the young earth aspect, I'm He would know that I believed in Him with my whole heart, and that wouldn't be a salvation breaker.

I know that for myself, I must believe in the whole thing. I know others don't have that need and that's fine for them. I definitely am not the one who says what is right and what is wrong.

Please know that what I was saying was for ME and I was not trying to imply that you must believe what I believe.

[Donna T.]

You got me on that point. :-)

The Bible is even more precise than that because it records that Adam sinned before the birth of Seth. I don't have my Bible right here in front of me right now (I'm at work), but I believe (could be wrong here, but should be close) Adam was a little over 100 years old when Seth was born.


And, please, I hope no one thinks I'm saying that you have to believe in a 6000 year old earth to be a "true" Christian. I do not think that. But, I do think that you have to believe that there was no death before Adam's sin because that is so clearly taught in Scripture. Adam brought death to the world, not just to mankind. It's just so clearly taught in Scripture that I don't really understand how anyone could say they believe the Bible but not believe that. I'm not talking about plants. I'm talking about things that have the breath of life in them... like dinosaurs.

[Mrs Mungo]

Please know that what I was saying was for ME and I was not trying to imply that you must believe what I believe.

I purposefully spoke generally because I didn't mean any one specific person. In fact, this same topic was debated on another board I'm on yesterday but most of the people there are atheists and had *no idea* some people believe the earth is 6K years old.
eta: I do appreciate the clarifications :)

[CookieMonster]

If I may... I am not trying to offend anyone nor am I trying to stomp on anyone's beliefs. I just feel that the side of scientific inquiry needs to be heard here. What we know:[LIST]

Um...sorry...but this is not what we know. It's the best possible explanation available from current evolutionary science. There's a big difference between those two statements. Furthermore, these listed knowns have changed dramatically every year according to the latest research produced. "Know" is much too strong a word to use here.

The earth is 4.53 billion years old (give or take a few million years). There is simply no way we can have mistaken a 6,000 year old earth for a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Actually, it's quite simple to make this mistake. All dating methods (i.e. radiometric dating) all begin with assumptions. The assumption evolutionary scientists make is that things are continuing on now as they always have (uniformitarinism). Using such dating methods as are used to create an evolutionary timescale on rocks whose ages are known (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) have given completely wrong date ranges. (For more on this see Does Radiometric Dating Prove the World is Old (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove).)

Continental drift is a process that happens slowly, over millions and millions of years. It is not easily explained by a "deluge" of any sort. Water, no matter how much of it, resting on the top of continental plates will not cause them to budge.

First of all, the beginning of Noah's Flood was, by it's very nature, supernatural. It was God's judgement on the Earth. That which is supernatural supercedes scientific laws, analysis, or observation.

Secondly, a ripping open of the Atlantic ocean floor and the resulting tumult would most certainly explain the current placement of the continents. The fact that they currently move ever so slighty does not mean they have always moved in this fashion. (For more on this see: Plate Tectonics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp) and Where Did All That Water Come From? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp) .)

Likewise the evolution of species is also a process that takes place over long time periods. The concept that a group of eight people (such as Noah and his family) could then give rise to the entire population of the earth with all the genetic diversity we see today is not possible. You see, the eight of them would have had to have carried all the known genetic variations of humanity as well as all the known genetic diseases within them. That's if you're going to say that evolution is not possible. They would have been one mighty sick group of eight people and one of them would have been swearing his head off. (tourettes syndrome)

It is absolutely concievable that the eight people who got off of the Ark had the genetic information in them to produce the myriad of variations we see in humankind today. This is something anyone versed in genetics would attest to, even if they loathe the Bible.

As for the diseases we see, many of them are genetic mutations. Mutations can happen at any time in a population and are by nature not present in the preceding generations. And even many that aren't mutations have come about through the expression of recessive genes. (For more information on this see Genetics: No Friend of Evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp) and Noah Descendents (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/22/feedback-noah-and-race) .)

Creationists don't do one thing that they could do, that they should do and I wonder why... they don't take the millions of dollars that they have and do actual research. They don't test their "theories" or write papers. They just try to find holes in what scientists do. Finding something else wrong doesn't prove you right.

You're right that proving someone else wrong does not prove you to be right. (But, it does prove that the other person is wrong.)

And, creationists have spent $ doing research of their own. The Institute for Creation Research comes to mind. Creationists have also spent quite a bit of time reviewing the factual evidence (fossils, rock layers, dating) and interpreting it through the lens of Scripture. They do write papers. They spend a lot of time and money trying to spread the truth to whomever will listen. The reason they seem to spend so much of their time disproving evolutionary science is because so many people come to them with questions about it. (See What is Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science) and Creation Where's the Proof? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp) .)


To the OP: I know you didn't want to make a debate out of this. Sorry. I just couldn't let those statements go without countering them. If anyone is interested in my side/view, they can look at it now.

I'll post an answer to your original question next.

[CookieMonster]

Again, not starting anything. I don't know very many religious people and I always wondered where the dinosaurs fit into history as far as creation goes. I have heard that some people don't believe in dinosaurs at all. Do most people believe dinosaurs were alive the same time humans were?

Jenstet, I know this thread has gone quite far from where you started it, but I'd like to address your original question with my own story.

When I first became a believer I don't remember what I thought about creation or evolution. I honestly don't think I thought about it one way or the other. Somewhere along the line I know I learned that what God said in his Word was true - all of it. Whenever it was that I learned about the creation of the world and Genesis and all of that I cannot say. It happened fairly early on, but when, I don't know. I put two-and-two together: God's Word is true and the creation account is in it, so it's true.

So after that I simply believed that God must have created the Earth, cuz the Bible said He did. I didn't know anything more about what the Bible had to say on the subject, nor did I know anything about how to refute evolution. Whenever I heard about evolution in school, I just quietly told myself that I didn't believe it. I didn't have any specific thing I believed, I just didn't believe in molecules-to-man, my-uncle-is-a-monkey evolution.

During this time in my life, I did not know what to do with dinosaurs. I think I was one of those people who said, when pressed, that dinosaurs must not have existed. I conveniently cannot remember. I had nothing to base this on, because all that creation/evolution stuff was too much for me to delve into.

Then sometime around a couple of years ago I was introduced to young earth creationist beliefs in their foundation and entirety. I can't even tell you how or when. But, over time I learned more and more. It's really hard to wrap your mind around a world that is only 6,000 years old when you've been taught otherwise for your entire life, let me tell ya. It was at this time in my life that I realized that - duh! - dinosaurs and people lived together from the beginning of time. Land dinos were created with land animals. Flying dinos with flying creatures. Sea dinos with the sea creatures. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Many dinosaurs and so-called prehistoric animals were killed out in the tumultuous ice-age that followed the flood. And other dinosaurs were killed out after the ice age, along with other troublesome, large creatures as man spread out over the earth.

That, I would say, is what most young earth creationists believe about dinosaurs. I hope that answers your question.

[CookieMonster]

I'm not certain I appreciate the implied sentiment that you *must* be a young-Earther in order to be a Christian. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general theme I see among some people.

:iagree:

[Phred]

Um...sorry...but this is not what we know. It's the best possible explanation available from current evolutionary science. There's a big difference between those two statements. Furthermore, these listed knowns have changed dramatically every year according to the latest research produced. "Know" is much too strong a word to use here.
No, "know" would be quite an accurate word to use here. Also, evolution is a theory of the sciences of biology. To say "evolutionary science" is incorrect. But, onward...

Actually, it's quite simple to make this mistake. All dating methods (i.e. radiometric dating) all begin with assumptions. The assumption evolutionary scientists make is that things are continuing on now as they always have (uniformitarinism). Using such dating methods as are used to create an evolutionary timescale on rocks whose ages are known (i.e. Mt. St. Helens) have given completely wrong date ranges. (For more on this see Does Radiometric Dating Prove the World is Old (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove).)
Assumption is such a misleading word. You let go of a rock and you assume it's going to hit the ground. Why do you assume that each and every time you let go of that rock? Because gravity works the same way every time. When you use the wrong dating methods on rocks that you know the dates of then certainly you get the wrong dates. But when you use the technology correctly you get the right dates. For instance, carbon 14 dating is only good back to about 50,000 years. Beyond that it's useless. You have to use an isotope whose half life is appropriate for the span of time you're trying to date. If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that.

First of all, the beginning of Noah's Flood was, by it's very nature, supernatural. It was God's judgement on the Earth. That which is supernatural supercedes scientific laws, analysis, or observation.
No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it? It could also be analyzed. We would simply have an event that defied all natural laws and was obvious in its defiance. Something as large as Noah's flood would have left evidence. It did not. The water would have to have come from somewhere and gone to somewhere. Again, it did not. I know it's easy to be able to say, "supernatural" and be done with it... but you can't do that. Once something "supernatural" touches the natural then it is no longer just magic, it's real and it's leaving a trace that can be studied.

Secondly, a ripping open of the Atlantic ocean floor and the resulting tumult would most certainly explain the current placement of the continents. The fact that they currently move ever so slighty does not mean they have always moved in this fashion. (For more on this see: Plate Tectonics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp) and Where Did All That Water Come From? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp) .)
But there isn't any evidence that this happened.

It is absolutely concievable that the eight people who got off of the Ark had the genetic information in them to produce the myriad of variations we see in humankind today. This is something anyone versed in genetics would attest to, even if they loathe the Bible.
Find one. Especially since Noah and his sons were not of different genetic stock.

As for the diseases we see, many of them are genetic mutations. Mutations can happen at any time in a population and are by nature not present in the preceding generations. And even many that aren't mutations have come about through the expression of recessive genes. (For more information on this see Genetics: No Friend of Evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp) and Noah Descendents (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/22/feedback-noah-and-race) .)
Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does.

You're right that proving someone else wrong does not prove you to be right. (But, it does prove that the other person is wrong.)
Which you are about the age of the earth, the flood and evolution.

And, creationists have spent $ doing research of their own. The Institute for Creation Research comes to mind.
Please then show us one paper or experiment or something they've produced. Just one would be sufficient.

Creationists have also spent quite a bit of time reviewing the factual evidence (fossils, rock layers, dating) and interpreting it through the lens of Scripture. They do write papers. They spend a lot of time and money trying to spread the truth to whomever will listen. The reason they seem to spend so much of their time disproving evolutionary science is because so many people come to them with questions about it. (See What is Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science) and Creation Where's the Proof? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp) .)
They don't spread the truth. The spend money taking what is the truth and twisting it to fit their preconceived notions... ie, scripture. All you really need to know is contained in the statement they make their "researchers" sign which states that nothing shall be written that does not agree with scripture. So no matter what they find they'll ignore anything that doesn't agree with the already agreed-upon outcome. That's not research... it's whitewash.

[Phred]

Jenstet, I know this thread has gone quite far from where you started it, but I'd like to address your original question with my own story.

When I first became a believer I don't remember what I thought about creation or evolution. I honestly don't think I thought about it one way or the other. Somewhere along the line I know I learned that what God said in his Word was true - all of it. Whenever it was that I learned about the creation of the world and Genesis and all of that I cannot say. It happened fairly early on, but when, I don't know. I put two-and-two together: God's Word is true and the creation account is in it, so it's true.

So after that I simply believed that God must have created the Earth, cuz the Bible said He did. I didn't know anything more about what the Bible had to say on the subject, nor did I know anything about how to refute evolution. Whenever I heard about evolution in school, I just quietly told myself that I didn't believe it. I didn't have any specific thing I believed, I just didn't believe in molecules-to-man, my-uncle-is-a-monkey evolution.

During this time in my life, I did not know what to do with dinosaurs. I think I was one of those people who said, when pressed, that dinosaurs must not have existed. I conveniently cannot remember. I had nothing to base this on, because all that creation/evolution stuff was too much for me to delve into.

Then sometime around a couple of years ago I was introduced to young earth creationist beliefs in their foundation and entirety. I can't even tell you how or when. But, over time I learned more and more. It's really hard to wrap your mind around a world that is only 6,000 years old when you've been taught otherwise for your entire life, let me tell ya. It was at this time in my life that I realized that - duh! - dinosaurs and people lived together from the beginning of time. Land dinos were created with land animals. Flying dinos with flying creatures. Sea dinos with the sea creatures. Dinosaurs were on the ark. Many dinosaurs and so-called prehistoric animals were killed out in the tumultuous ice-age that followed the flood. And other dinosaurs were killed out after the ice age, along with other troublesome, large creatures as man spread out over the earth.

That, I would say, is what most young earth creationists believe about dinosaurs. I hope that answers your question.

Dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before mankind ever set foot on planet earth. There have been at least four major ice ages in earth's past. At no time did dinosaurs and people live together. The passages in Job refer to the hippopotamus.

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

Way to go...

[Donna T.]

No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it?

The Deluge was observed and there is an account of it. In fact, there are many accounts of a global flood from a variety of sources.

[Peek a Boo]

The Bible is even more precise than that because it records that Adam sinned before the birth of Seth. I don't have my Bible right here in front of me right now (I'm at work), but I believe (could be wrong here, but should be close) Adam was a little over 100 years old when Seth was born.


And, please, I hope no one thinks I'm saying that you have to believe in a 6000 year old earth to be a "true" Christian. I do not think that. But, I do think that you have to believe that there was no death before Adam's sin because that is so clearly taught in Scripture. Adam brought death to the world, not just to mankind. It's just so clearly taught in Scripture that I don't really understand how anyone could say they believe the Bible but not believe that. I'm not talking about plants. I'm talking about things that have the breath of life in them... like dinosaurs.

==============

If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??
==============

so how many one-handed, one-eyed Christians are there?
Or are we to not take that literally?

The death spoken of in the Bible is the separation of man from God. A literal physical death is there also, but isn't the Biggest point. "On that day you will surely die" -- which day? die how?

"Romans 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."


The death spoken of does NOT apply to animals who do not have a soul. The entire point of the Bible is to restore Man to God.

another note: how old was Adam when he was created? Was he created in an adult form? [similar to the discussion about creating the earth in a "mature" state] was he created appearing as age 20? 30?
If he was intended to live forever, would there be an accounting of how many years old he was before the Fall? Or does his lifespan in years begin after the Fall? I tend to take the Bible as God's Actual Word, but He's The Master at Language, using many literary devices to make known His will :) He sure does leave out a lot of details about this period.

another question I've been sincerely pondering:
was cain *the first* baby? or merely the first one mentioned by name?
They were told to go forth and multiply right after being created.

i tend to fall in the "God did it. That's the Point" camp.
I think we can absolutely have a literal 24-hour day or millions of year era SOMEwhere in creation.


"and here is another thought....not that I have an adequate answer...According to Genesis 1 God created plants on Day 3 and the Sun on Day 4...if there were large gaps of time instead of literal 24hr. days, what would happen to the plant's need for photosynthesis?"

....I have full Faith that if God can create plants w/o the sun He can sustain them w/o the sun :) Besides, you're assuming that the Light spoken of earlier in verse 3 was not conducive to photosynthesis.


oh --and Phred!

I agree that "know" is an accurate word. It's the accuracy of the knowledge that is in dispute.

"Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does."

i guess you missed the first several posts about the differences in Christian belief. :)

"All you really need to know is contained in the statement they make their "researchers" sign which states that nothing shall be written that does not agree with scripture."
really? I thought they hadn't written anything? {{Please then show us one paper or experiment or something they've produced. Just one would be sufficient.}} whitewash --like when a "scientific" theory is put forth [and dismissed] that doesn't agree w/ already understood scientific principles? whitewash. got it.

supernatural:
**If it's supernatural, then it's not necessarily going to leave "natural" traces, would it? You're assuming a supernatural event would leave natural traces and react in "natural" ways. Like when you mention "If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that. That's cuz the sources you're referencing are discussing a SUPERNATURAL creation. [[back to **]] .....Or have you observed a supernatural event and know your assumption to be true?

that we don't have evidence of a ripping open of the Atlantic ocean floor doesn't disprove the theory.

Especially since Noah and his sons were not of different genetic stock.
FALSE: earlier, The sons of God married the daughters of men.
There's a lot of discussion about who the wives were that were brought on the ark. Lots of room for diversity there.


================================================== ====
And like the abortion thread, yes, you can absolutely have a different understanding of Scripture or a misunderstanding of the nature of God and still be a Christian. A 'strong' Christian at that ;)

[Donna T.]

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

Way to go...

OK... let me wrap my brain around this. You are saying that Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology because... a little remnant of us who still believe that the Bible is literal truth and that science does not disprove the truth of the Biblical record are making such an impact?? Where are the kids who are being taught these "interpretations"? Certainly not in the government schools. And, as we have here shown that not all Christians agree on this, then not all Christian children are being taught these "interpretations". Yet, we have such an impact?

I don't think anyone here has said that science is against God. That's a stereotype.

[Peek a Boo]

And we wonder why Japan, China and India are overtaking our lead in science and technology. Our kids are being taught interpretations like this and then they are sent out into the world with an attitude that they have every right to believe whatever they wish even if it is against everything that we know based upon evidence. "The heck with this stuff. We don't need new computer chips based upon theory. Nobody believes that science stuff anyway. It's against God."

Way to go...

Yeah. It's a good thing they don't teach religious stuff in japan, china and India. :rolleyes: {{but I think Donna T nailed that one, lol.}}

Who said science is against God? [[besides you?]] I tend to see more scientists against God, but science itself is a wonderful exploration of God's Universe.

[CookieMonster]

Phred, I'm sorry I seem to have upset you. I certainly did not mean to.

If would allow me to, I'd like to make a few corrections, although I know it will have no bearing on what you believe.

No, "know" would be quite an accurate word to use here. Also, evolution is a theory of the sciences of biology. To say "evolutionary science" is incorrect. But, onward...

Hmmm...good point. Replace "science" in my statement with "theory" and I think I'll come out saying what it is I wish. So, I guess that should read: It's the best possible explanation available from current evolutionary theory.

If things did not continue now as they had previously then the world would have heated up to a temperature that neither you nor I would be here. I notice your sources don't mention that.

I must confess that I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about here. I'm sorry I can't answer you.

No... If something supernatural were ever to occur it could be observed. Otherwise how could there be an account of it? It could also be analyzed. We would simply have an event that defied all natural laws and was obvious in its defiance. Something as large as Noah's flood would have left evidence. It did not. The water would have to have come from somewhere and gone to somewhere. Again, it did not. I know it's easy to be able to say, "supernatural" and be done with it... but you can't do that. Once something "supernatural" touches the natural then it is no longer just magic, it's real and it's leaving a trace that can be studied.

Mia Culpa...you are quite correct. A supernatural event could very well be observed. I don't know what came over my faculties to have missed that error. And, you're right, it would have been observed. And it was. Dozens of ancient cultures have strikingly similar global flood stories. (See This (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/flood.asp)and others.)

I would say that Noah's Flood did leave evidence, quite a bit of it. If there really was a worldwide flood you would expect to see billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And we do.

I invite you to investigate the traces that Noah's Flood have left. ( See this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp)and others (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp))

Oh, so now mutations and evolution can happen. You folks are amazing... one minute evolution doesn't happen the next it does.

Of course mutations occur. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse. Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution).
(Mutations (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp))

[Mrs Mungo]

==============

If I say I am a Christian but yet I teach that there was death before Adam, then I am double-minded. I hate conversations about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. But, here is the one place that I have to draw the line.... if one believes there was death before Adam than that one does not believe the Bible and if one does not believe the Bible, then on what are they basing their Christianity??
==============

so how many one-handed, one-eyed Christians are there?
Or are we to not take that literally?

Have you read the book The Year of Living Biblically? it's by the same guy who wrote The Know-It-All. Basically, he spent a year trying to follow as many Old Testament rules as possible, to include not wearing mixed fibers, touching menstruating women and stoning people (which meant tossing very tiny stones at people and hoping they didn't notice). ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Have you read the book The Year of Living Biblically? it's by the same guy who wrote The Know-It-All. Basically, he spent a year trying to follow as many Old Testament rules as possible, to include not wearing mixed fibers, touching menstruating women and stoning people (which meant tossing very tiny stones at people and hoping they didn't notice). ;)


hee hee --i've heard about it, but not read it. Yet.

{{maybe he should have stoned them accurately to get a better feel..... :eek:}}

[Mrs Mungo]

hee hee --i've heard about it, but not read it. Yet.

{{maybe he should have stoned them accurately to get a better feel..... :eek:}}

I liked the Old Testament part. However, the author is of Jewish heritage and I think he felt a connection there. He clearly didn't feel a connection with or understand the New Testament as understood by most Christians.

[pixelroper]

It is unreasonable to promote theory as fact.

Just pointing out... Science is limited by what we can observe (using the senses we have) and test for repeatedly in a lab or elsewhere. Theory is theory. Many theories are being taught as fact, this is sloppy science. Also the amount of reverse engineering (in the evolutionary/anthropology/biology/geology) currently taking place is obscene. It has become standard practice to use theories in building more theories and then a scurry to find any applicable supporting "facts" and ignoring anything in their way or contrary to what they want to theorize about. We are in a theory whirlwind. Plus there is the little problem of some people wanting to 'leave their scientific history mark' and being unethical in order to achieve it.

As it doesn't really matter to me (the creation of the world) and I firmly believe man is not omniscient I have not bothered to remember all the little details that could illustrate what I'm saying right now. This is not my purpose, obviously. Sorry. I can recommend some books such as Bones of Contention.

We DO NOT KNOW many things:D. I am currently very unhappy [enraged] w/scientists right now b/c they are messing around w/primary needs such as food, playing w/immune systems and doing very questionable things to human embryos. I question all the do-goody science excuses as stocks in pharmaceuticals and genetic research keeps rising while plenty of live humans are still starving. Let us not forget all the damage done by well intentioned wacky science (look at US child birth practices in the early part of last century). In fact it seems the only sciences that go anywhere... w/any results... are the sciences involved w/war.

I will now place my hands over my ears, hum loudly and rock to and fro. Thank you for your time:)

[Mrs Mungo]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.

http://scrapbookingforhire.com/evolution.jpg

[Sis]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.

http://scrapbookingforhire.com/evolution.jpg

:lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution).


Evolution isn't a building up of genetic order. It's simply change over time. Good change, bad change, any change. The changes that benefit the organism usually remain, the ones that are neutral might remain or might not, the ones that are deleterious can "pressure" an organism out of existence. (Though "pressure" is an imprecise word because it implies intention, and that's wrong.) It's not simple to complex, bad to good, disorder to order. It just isn't. That's a basic misunderstanding. And it affects the whole argument.

Man isn't the pinnacle of evolution like you see in the erroneous textbooks, starting "down" at amoeba progressing "up" to homo sapiens. He's just a twig on the branch. Evolution doesn't imply increased order at all.

[pixelroper]

I saw this earlier and I couldn't NOT post it in this thread. It's just too hilarious.


Thank you for sharing :rofl:.