• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A novel view on Old Earth Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quantrill

Active Member
Science means knowledge. And true science is God's word. Psalms 19:4, Romans 10:17.

You are wrong because there is micro change with all life. Even though it is never really macro it is called evolution.

You're mixing 'Truth' with science and knowledge. The Bible is not a 'science book'. If it touches on the creation at times, which it does, what it says is true. When it involves at times history, which it does, what it says is true. But it is not a history book. The Bible is a book concerning Redemption. It is revealed Truth from God. Man's efforts to understand the creation is science. Thus it is always making errors, changing it's mind, etc. etc. Man's efforts to understand the Word of God involves God revealing it again also. There is no need to call the study of God's word a science.

Evolution is evolution. God did not create through evolution.

Why let the philosophy of science define God's creation?

Quantrill
 

37818

Well-Known Member
"When I use the term 'evolution', I am referring to the idea that after the earth was formed it took millions of years to produce organic molecules and then many more millions of years of evolutionary processes and 'survival of the fittest' to produce people (the molecules-to-man theory)." (The Evolutionist of a Creationist, Jobe Martin, Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1994, p.10)

Quantrill
While I do hold an old universe view, Genesis 1:1-2, I also hold the 6 days Genesis 1:3-31, to be actual 6 earth days. Exodus 20:11. So effectively I fall in neither YEC and OEC camps. So I differ on some points of both views.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
New Deep time is false and has no scientific basis (don’t tell anyone).
Astornomically, the evidence is an old universe. Andromeda Galaxy has been measured to be 2.5 million light years away. What we see may no longer exist. That would go for the more distant galaxies as well. The measured 13.7 billion years for the known universe could even be too young. Psalms 102:26, Revelation 20:11, Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Astornomically, the evidence is an old universe. Andromeda Galaxy has been measured to be 2.5 million light years away. What we see may no longer exist. That would go for the more distant galaxies as well. The measured 13.7 billion years for the known universe could even be too young. Psalms 102:26, Revelation 20:11, Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17.

The only problem area that confounds both sides as all other areas favor young earth.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
If one understands the 4. Billion years for earth's crust in or before Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:3-31 can still be plausible to be a mere 6000 years. But I think much older do to global flood evidence. Do to the same type of plant and animal fossil layers on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument

Read

Read

Hugh Ross tries to combine creationism with deep time. I reject deep time as part of evolution and I rely on Biblical creationist scientists to be correct in scientific and mathematical issues beyond my education.
 

Quantrill

Active Member
While I do hold an old universe view, Genesis 1:1-2, I also hold the 6 days Genesis 1:3-31, to be actual 6 earth days. Exodus 20:11. So effectively I fall in neither YEC and OEC camps. So I differ on some points of both views.

I hold also to the same. I hold to the Gap Theory. I believe it is Scriptural.

Quantrill
 

Quantrill

Active Member
God created life directly, as in Genesis 1 and Geness 2. Micro evolution was one result which you deny.

Yes, I do deny. Evolution has no part in God's creative process. Not Macro. Not Micro.

In other words I could say Macro-bs. Or, I could say Micro-bs. Both are still bs.

Quantrill
 

Quantrill

Active Member
Well then if that is how you see it, you are to me irrational. There is no reasoning with you that I can see.

Why let the philosophy of science define God's creation?

You say I am irrational. Yet you use philosophy to understand God and His creation.

Quantrill
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Do you believe that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood 4300 years ago?
Not if the evidence does not support it. Honestly I do not believe a mere 4300 years is supported by the known physical global flood evidence. Biblical OEC believe in the universal flood not a global flood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top