Christian Forums

Quote from: pppp on Mon Sep 28, 2026 - 10:48:07Whether there are scientists who support the version that the universe & the earth were created in billions of years or whether there are Christian scientists who are discovering new things,
but its up to the believers to choose which matches Scripture,
because any scientific theory that matches Scripture is more reliable.
I think this will be a reasonable approach.

What do you think, pppp, does 2+2=4 match scripture? Can you demonstrate that?  Or how about the fact that every living biological entity, whether it is a single cell or multiple cell contain a DNA molecule match scripture?  Again, can you demonstrate that?

I don't think you can demonstrate either of those two things and so much more; but I would bet that, in spite of that, you consider both highly reliable.

When you look at the sun, you are not seeing it as it exists now but rather as it existed about 8 minutes ago. The nearest star that we can see other than the sun is slightly less than 5 light-years away.  That means that when you see that star you are not seeing it as it exists now but rather as it appeared about 5 years ago.

The nearest galaxy is about 25,000 light-years away from the sun.  So when we view it telescopically, we are seeing it as it was about 25,000 years ago.  How can that be if the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old?  That doesn't seem to match scripture.  What do you think?

Thanks 4WD for your reply.
I have understood what you have written.
But in many of my former posts,
I had mentioned some points as why Science & Scripture do not match.
Regarding the age of the universe,
only God knows how old the earth is.
I know science is considered authority by many,
but even then there will always be new discoveries,
& there will always be opposing scientific groups.
I have read about such groups, whether in a former era or the present one,
& both have given equally convincing arguments
& both groups were professional scientists.
Coming back to the age of the earth ...Only God knows the truth about the actual age of the universe & the earth.
And when Christ comes back a second time,
I'm sure,
He will correctly give an answer to these questions.
But I'm repeating that in many of my former posts,
I had mentioned some points as why Science & Scripture do not match.
And the facts that I mentioned have been researched & then I wrote about them.
Whatever I post has already been written by professional scientists themselves or given by Scripture itself.
Whatever science says ...its ok to a point,
but I've been seeing how some scientists & some aethiests simply talk against Christian Scripture & are actively using science to prove that the miracles that took place in Our Christian Religion are just mere stories.
That's NOT fair at all.
If some scientists or a few atheists don't beileve in Our God,
that's their wish,
but to simply  use the science subject to debase our Christian religion is totally not accepted.
Every person is entitled to their own viewpoints but debasing The Christian Religion is just NOT acceptable & neither is trying to convince believers to leave the Christian religion.

Science relies on the laws of Physics & Chemistry,
but till now Science has not been able to prove how the Red Sea Parted, the miracle of how water turned into wine & how resurrections took place.
These are all miracles & they break the normal laws of Physics.
The formation of the universe & the earth too are magnificent miracles,
but may God only finally settle this matter of how old the earth & the universe is.
Till then, His Word is true about creation being made in six days.
Amen.

And scientific laws too can have exceptions.
For example.
The the Law of Conservation of Mass.

This law states;
 The law of conservation of mass states that the total mass in a closed, isolated system stays constant over time and can neither be created nor destroyed.
An example; If a person  mixes 4 grams of hydrogen with 32 grams of oxygen inside a sealed container, the water that the person will  create will weigh exactly 36 grams.

But the exception in Physics is; At speeds near the speed of light
tiny amounts of mass turn into energy follwing the formula (E=mc²)
where
E: Energy,
Mass (the amount of matter in an object),
c: The speed of light in a vacuum,
c²: The speed of light multiplied by itself,

Conclusion;
scientific laws too can have exceptions.

I also found something very interesting which suggests that the law of Conservation of Mass in Physics is matching the six day creation by Our God.

Genesis 2:1-2: "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work."
The similarity is that the Biblical verse uses a completed past tense for creation which means that the universe has already been created & no new mass is being added.

Ecclesiastes 3:14: "I know that everything God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken from it. God does it, that people should fear before Him."
The similarity is that the concept of the closed system resembles that what God established remains constant
& nothing is permanently lost or newly created in total quantity.

Colossians 1:16-17: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible... And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
This verse shows the ongoing preservation & coherence of the existing matter.


Hebrews 1:3: "upholding all things by the word of His power.

This shows that the current state of the universe as sustained & maintained.

Quote from: pppp on Sat Sep 26, 2026 - 08:23:44But there are a few groups of Christian Scientists,
who are also being supported by other scientists

Most Scientists who are Christians accept that the Earth is billions of years old. 
   
And most Christians accept that the days of Genesis are not literal 24 hour days.   We knew this long before modern science.   St. Augustine, revered as a great theologian by all three major branches of Christianity, admitted that the days of Genesis could not be literal days over a thousand years before modern science.
 

Thank you The Barbarian for your reply.
With reverence to  St. Augustine there are other Saints who agreed that the Earth was created in six days.
They were ...Saint Basil the Great, Saint Ambrose & Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

Quote from: pppp on Tue Sep 29, 2026 - 10:52:07Thank you The Barbarian for your reply.
With reverence to  St. Augustine there are other Saints who agreed that the Earth was created in six days.
They were ...Saint Basil the Great, Saint Ambrose & Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

As Augustine said, where scripture is not entirely clear, we should have the humility to be willing to change our opinions when new evidence is found.    Are Basil, Ambrose, and Ephrem not thereby good Christians?  Their opinions on the nature of Genesis is not a matter of orthodoxy, but a matter of opinion which varies among God's people.   God doesn't care how you see creation, except that you much accept it was His doing.  Creationists are no less Christians than any other, unless they make an idol of their interpretation and demand that other Christians must accept it.

Quote from: pppp on Mon Sep 28, 2026 - 17:01:33But the exception in Physics is; At speeds near the speed of light
tiny amounts of mass turn into energy follwing the formula (E=mc²)
where
E: Energy,
Mass (the amount of matter in an object),
c: The speed of light in a vacuum,
c²: The speed of light multiplied by itself,

Actually, observed mass increases at extremely high velocities.  This change is not seen by an observer moving at the same velocity as the mass.   Such an object appears to gain mass, not lose it.

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/augustine-on-the-days-of-creation/

Quoted article below from link above.

Quote

Augustine on the Days of Creation

A look at Augustine as an alleged old-earth ally with a review of his commentaries on Genesis and young-earth leanings.

Old-earthers claim Augustine as support for figurative interpretations of Genesis 1. But what did Augustine really say? In the video series The Great Debate (watch | buy), AiG's Ken Ham, and Jason Lisle, debate astronomer Hugh Ross (of Reasons to Believe) and Bible scholar Walter Kaiser (of Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary). Both of the latter are Christians who believe that the creation is billions of years old. The debate series was hosted by old-earth proponent John Ankerberg on his television show in early 2006.

On AiG's DVD release of the debate, AiG historian of geology Terry Mortenson offered extensive commentary from a young-earth creationist perspective. The following article is rooted in Dr. Mortenson's commentary on Ross's and Kaiser's appeal to Augustine in defending old-earth ideas.

Augustine of Hippo—famous church father, early theologian and . . . old-earth creationist?

Drs. Ross and Kaiser are just two of the many old-earth proponents in the church today who try to use the Christian theologian Augustine (AD 354–430) as a support for their belief in millions of years. But the idea that Augustine believed that is a myth. At first glance, this use of Augustine may seem to belong solely to the obscure domain of ancient church history or niche creation circles. However, the myth extends beyond that. For instance, Jim Manzi, writing in National Review Online in 2008 (and quoting a previous article he authored in National Review), passed the myth along:

Dealing with evolution places us back in the company of Augustine and Aquinas, who were both forced to figure out how to reconcile powerful proto-scientific ideas with Christianity. They described God as acting through laws or processes. In about the year 400, Augustine described a view of Creation in which "seeds of potentiality" were established by God, which then unfolded through time in an incomprehensibly complicated set of processes. . . .

Neither Augustine nor Aquinas was some kind of a pre-Darwinist. Augustine, for example, thought species were immutable and were not the product of common descent. What is striking about both of them, however, is their insistence on understanding and incorporating the best available non-theological thinking into our religious views.

Relying on this deep intellectual heritage, most major denominations in the Western world have accepted evolution as fully consistent with theism. Thoughtful conservatives would be wise to agree.

What Did Augustine Believe?

There are several problems with this view. To begin with, during the years AD 389-417, Augustine wrote three commentaries on Genesis and discussed the early chapters of Genesis in The City of God. His thinking changed in some ways in the process, and his writings are confusing, even somewhat contradictory, at points. Over the years he fluctuated between allegorical interpretations and literal views.1 But there is plenty of evidence that Augustine wasn't an old-earther. Rather, he believed that God created everything in an instant and that He described it for us as being completed in six normal days for the sake of our understanding. He wrote,

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.

Furthermore, Augustine believed the genealogies given in Genesis to be literal chronologies and that the pre-Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years.3 He also stated, "Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man."

Since Augustine believed that the original creation happened in an instant of time, there is no basis for thinking that he believed millions of years of time transpired before Adam.

Furthermore, Augustine believed that Genesis 6–8 describes a global Flood. Once again, this distinguishes him from old-earthers like Hugh Ross who believe the Flood was a local catastrophe in the Mesopotamian Valley (modern-day Iraq). Augustine spent five pages answering skeptical objections about the Flood covering all the highest mountains, the Ark being big enough, Noah having the ability to build it, and the feeding of carnivorous animals on the Ark.

Some claim that Augustine and other Christians of the past only believed in a recent creation and a global Flood because they didn't have contemporary old-earth and evolutionary theories to consider. (Indeed, some throw out the origins beliefs of all pre-19th-century Christians on these grounds.) Yet, early-20th-century evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following:

When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory . . . I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century BC.

Augustine therefore had alternative "scientific" theories about earth history in his cultural context, but he refused to merge Scripture with such ideas.

Even then the chronologies of Greek and Egyptian history do not agree; and since the former does not exceed the true number [of the duration of the world] implied in our Sacred Scripture, it may be accepted. Consequently, if this letter of Alexander [the Great] now so well known, is so far from authentic in its chronology, we can trust still less those other [pagan] documents, so full of mythology, which are cited in opposition to the established authority of inspired writings. The fact of the prediction that the whole world would believe and the fact that it has believed should prove that Sacred Scripture has given a true account of the past. Certainly, much that was predicted has been perfectly fulfilled.

In fact, he very specifically rejected the old-earth theories of some of his contemporaries, describing them in ways reminiscent of the uniformitarian and catastrophist theories of the 19th century:

I shall not dwell, then on the conjectures of men who "know not what they say" concerning the nature and origin of the human race. There are, for example, those who hold the opinion that men—like the universe—have always existed. . . . Suppose the following questions are put to these men: If the human race has always existed, how, then do you vindicate the truth of your own history which records the names of inventors and what they invented, the first founders of liberal education and of other arts, the first inhabitants of this or that region and of this or that island? They will answer that at certain intervals of time, most of the land was so devastated by floods and fire that the human race was greatly reduced in size and that from this small number the former population was again restored; and that, thus, at intervals, there was a new discovery and organization of all these things, or, rather a restoration of what had been damaged or destroyed by the great devastations; and that, in any case, men could simply not exist unless they were produced from man. Of course, all this is opinion, not science.

Thus, Augustine clearly had old-earth views to contend with in his day—from the Greeks and from other pagans—but he did not accept them and did not try to fit those ideas into Genesis.

What Augustine Didn't Know

That all said, we would be remiss if we claimed Augustine was an orthodox young-earth creationist. Augustine rejected the seven-day creation beliefs of Ambrose, who was instrumental in Augustine's conversion to Christianity.

Yet Augustine didn't know Hebrew and only attained a modest knowledge of Greek by the end of his life, after he had written his three commentaries on Genesis (and his book City of God, in which he also commented on Genesis 1–11). Augustine based his work on the Old Latin Version (Vetus Latina), a translation of the Septuagint inferior in accuracy to Jerome's later Latin Vulgate.

At first, this may seem to be a minor difference that couldn't possibly mislead a reader. However, whereas in modern translations of the Hebrew word beyom in Genesis 2:4 it reads "in the day that" (or when) God created the heavens and the earth, the Old Latin translation renders it, "When day was made," God made heaven and earth. This mistaken translation makes it more understandable why Augustine believed God made everything in a single day or a single instant.

Additionally, Augustine regarded the Apocrypha—which gives further support to the idea of an instant creation—as inerrant Scripture. However, the Apocrypha is clearly not God's inerrant Word

What Augustine Couldn't Know

Not only did Augustine not support old-earth views but he also rightly considered himself a limited human and regarded his thinking on Genesis to be fallible. In the last book he wrote (about three years before his death), called Retractions, he sought to review all his books and make corrections where he had erred. Concerning his final, most literal commentary on Genesis, Augustine wrote, "In this work, many questions have been asked rather than solved, and of those which have been solved, fewer have been answered conclusively. Moreover, others have been proposed in such a way as to require further investigation."

In the aforementioned commentary Augustine also rejected the allegorical interpretations found in his two earlier commentaries on Genesis, though he remained uncertain about his interpretation of the length of Creation Week days.

Whoever, then, does not accept the meaning that my limited powers have been able to discover or conjecture but seeks in the enumeration of the days of creation a different meaning, which might be understood not in the prophetical or figurative sense, but literally and more aptly, in interpreting the works of creation, let him search and find a solution with God's help. I myself may possibly discover some other meaning more in harmony with the words of Scripture.

Though insisting that he was interpreting "day" literally, in that last commentary he had tended to regard at least the first three days (before the creation of the heavenly bodies) to be figurative—though he never ventured to say how long these non-literal days lasted. Two years after completing his last commentary on Genesis, Augustine wrote in City of God, "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone to explain in words—what they mean." So his statement in the Retractions indicates that he was still no more certain about the days of creation at the end of his life than he was in his earlier writings. He is hardly one to cite as an authority in support of the day-age view, as Ross and Kaiser (with many others) have done.

Thus, Augustine offers no real support for old-earth views. He admitted his uncertainty and fallibility; he was significantly less educated on the issue than others; and even when he strayed from the Bible's clear teaching, he only did so to espouse the possibility of creation in an instant—not old-earth ideas of his time, and certainly not the millions-of-years ideas of old-earth creationists today.

We also should keep in mind that the young-earth view has been, by far, the majority view of the church since it has been in existence—for eighteen centuries, whether from a Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox perspective. The idea of an old earth—and the various compromise interpretations developed to fit billions of years into Creation Week—did not arise out of the Bible; they are attempts by, on the whole, well-meaning Christians to integrate with Scripture what they believe (mistakenly) are scientific facts. They are thereby unknowingly elevating the naturalism-fueled speculations of secular science over the clear teaching of Scripture. The result dilutes both Scripture's teaching and God's character, and it flies in the face of good science.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Sep 27, 2026 - 14:58:22Psa 19:1  To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Rom 1:19  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Nothing in the above scriptures supports deep time evolution but within the minds of those who have already determined such is truth by faith in the observations an extrapolations of the imaginations of fallen humanity. Not factual science. Nor can anyone anywhere, find any other Holy scripture at all suggesting even in the slightest sense, that the verses you quoted mean or support anything like deep time evolution. These thoughts have developed within the minds of fallen humanity alone. No biblical author ever uttered or wrote any words supporting any such thing, but only words which if taken as simply stated, contradict the idea altogether.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Sep 27, 2026 - 15:05:09No, and I have never said that.  But I will say here that the YEC are not the mouthpieces for God either; nor are the SDA, nor are the answersingenesis, nor are the Catholics, nor are the Protestants, nor any other group or organization that you can name.

No, but the word of God speaks for itself. Which word never even begins to suggest anything like deep time evolution anywhere at all. While at the same time it does simply state that which completely contradicts the faith of deep time evolution, many times over. These are the words that many you mentioned above believe as simply stated. Not their own words, as those of the deep time evolutionist faith absolutely must rely upon to believe as they do. They have no scriptural support or authority for what they believe at all, without adding what is not actually stated in the scriptures themselves to what is simply stated. 

 Actually,
Coming to the seminal reasons in connection with the creation of all things "in the day that the Lord
God made heaven and earth," we observe that St. Augustine saw the absolute impossibility of any successive creative acts on the part of God. Moreover, if the six days were not natural days, as we
know them, there is certainly no question of such a day in this one day. On God's part creation could only be one single act identical with the simple essential act that is Himself. "He spake, and all things were made,"10 "creating them simultaneously."11 Yet nothing is more certain than that the /beginnings of created existence were successive.

The true idea of evolution is change over time towards greater perfection. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (331-396) "taught that the Creation was potential - that God imparted to matter its fundamental laws and properties, but that the objects and completed forms of the Universe then developed gradually, under their own steam, out of primordial chaos."
 
https://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine's theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.'

His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

Aquinas simply quoted Augustine's teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Sep 30, 2026 - 11:00:39Actually,
Coming to the seminal reasons in connection with the creation of all things "in the day that the Lord
God made heaven and earth," we observe that St. Augustine saw the absolute impossibility of any successive creative acts on the part of God. Moreover, if the six days were not natural days, as we
know them, there is certainly no question of such a day in this one day. On God's part creation could only be one single act identical with the simple essential act that is Himself. "He spake, and all things were made,"10 "creating them simultaneously."11 Yet nothing is more certain than that the /beginnings of created existence were successive.

The true idea of evolution is change over time towards greater perfection. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (331-396) "taught that the Creation was potential - that God imparted to matter its fundamental laws and properties, but that the objects and completed forms of the Universe then developed gradually, under their own steam, out of primordial chaos."
 
https://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine's theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.'

His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

Aquinas simply quoted Augustine's teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.

That is all fine and dandy, for them to think as they wish. Nevertheless, God said -

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,......
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Thank you for your reply The Barbarian.
You had written -
Actually, observed mass increases at extremely high velocities.  This change is not seen by an observer moving at the same velocity as the mass.   Such an object appears to gain mass, not lose it.


E=mc² applies strictly to an object at rest.
It means that even when a particle is sitting perfectly still, its inherent, unchanging mass is a stored form of energy.
When an object is moving, the movement doesn't automatically convert an object's rest mass into enegy & turning mass into energy requires a chemical reaction etc.,
Just accelerating an object adds kinectic energy to it from a sourse that is external.

But the outside observer sees the object gaining kinetic energy.
Because energy and mass are equivalent, this extra energy behaves like extra mass.

Thank you The Barbarian for your answer-
you wrote-
As Augustine said, where scripture is not entirely clear, we should have the humility to be willing to change our opinions when new evidence is found.    Are Basil, Ambrose, and Ephrem not thereby good Christians?  Their opinions on the nature of Genesis is not a matter of orthodoxy, but a matter of opinion which varies among God's people.   God doesn't care how you see creation, except that you much accept it was His doing. 



Conventional Science will always keep finding new evidence in support of evolution.
Laws will be made, theories will be explained
& when something is more convincing,
the older laws will be replaced.
Except God Himself no one knows how old the earth is.
But what is seen is The Word of God & that's the most reliable.
And if Conventional Science can come up up with reliable laws/theories/explanations that exactly fit the SIX day creation of God, then that's acceptable.

Just wanted to share a few Bible Verses resembling The Law of Gravity.

Job 26:7
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
    he suspends the earth over nothing.

This verse tells about the suspension of the earth in empty space
which is similar to what is believed that the planets float in a vaccum.


Colossians 1:17: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
This verse shows the binding force of creation showing how scientific laws like gravity keep planets & galaxies from flying apart.


Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being.

Job 38:33: "Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you(a human being) set up God's dominion over the earth?"
This refers to the fixed unchanging laws  that govern the universe & the celestial movements.

Proverbs 8:27 "When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep"

Quote from: Amo on Sun Sep 27, 2026 - 13:08:53Sounds good. Please do expound upon scripture in revealing deep time evolutionary processes as the mechanism of our existence.

The Bible doesn't say anything about evolution.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Sep 27, 2026 - 13:08:53Or explain how or why their interpretations are wrong. According to what standard?

I probably already have, but sure we can go again.

The 7 days aren't literal.  They're a literary device that shows ardor and persistence in an undertaking.

Why should we read it that way?  Because we have a bunch of other examples of the same device in literature from the same period and area.  In all cases, there are 7 days enumerated, and each day ends with someone repeating a certain phrase, except for day 7 when the undertaking is complete.

The basis is literature; not science.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Sep 30, 2026 - 07:39:30No, but the word of God speaks for itself. Which word never even begins to suggest anything like deep time evolution anywhere at all.

It never suggests anything like DNA transcription, either.  Not everything that is a fact, is in the Bible.

QuoteWhile at the same time it does simply state that which completely contradicts the faith of deep time evolution, many times over.

No, it's true that a the interpretation of some men contradicts the observed fact of evolution.   But that's something else entirely.

If you doubt this tell us, with scripture, which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are contradicted.


 

Quote from: pppp on Thu Oct 01, 2026 - 08:02:12Conventional Science will always keep finding new evidence in support of evolution.

We see it happening today. Biological evolution is just "descent with modification" or "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."  I think what you doubt is not the observed fact of evolution, but rather common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

Quote from: pppp on Thu Oct 01, 2026 - 08:02:12Laws will be made, theories will be explained
& when something is more convincing,
the older laws will be replaced.

Technically, theories explain laws.   Theories are stronger than laws, because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain things.

QuoteAnd if Conventional Science can come up up with reliable laws/theories/explanations that exactly fit the SIX day creation of God, then that's acceptable.

That's the difference between belief and science.   Theories are accepted when they are useful in explaining the world.   So evolutionary theory is used to design antibiotic protocols to avoid bacteria evolving resistance.  As YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood writes:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

There is no observed species to new species evolution

Quote from: pppp on Thu Oct 01, 2026 - 10:28:20Just wanted to share a few Bible Verses resembling The Law of Gravity.

Job 26:7
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
    he suspends the earth over nothing.

The spreading out is inflation, not gravity.

4WD, it depends how people see a Verse.
But many see this verse(Job 26:7) as related to Gravity.

There are some other verses related to Science.

Isaiah 40:22 – "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...''
Jeremiah 33:22 – "...the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured..."

Job 28:25
When he established the force of the wind
    and measured out the waters,

Ecclesiastes 1:6-7
6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.
7 All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.

Leviticus 17:11 – "For the life of a creature is in the blood..."
Genesis 2:7 – "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."

Psalm 111:2 – "Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them."

Quote from: pppp on Fri Oct 02, 2026 - 12:50:274WD, it depends how people see a Verse.

No, not really.  It depends how God intended it.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Thu Oct 01, 2026 - 13:41:41There is no observed species to new species evolution

Even most creationists now admit the fact that new species evolve.

The rapid origin of new species (in thousands of years or less) is not speculation but demonstrated fact
YE creationist John Woodmorappe Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Thanks to all for your replies.

Came across something really interesting.
Sometime earlier had read about an incident in which
crew members abandoned a sea vessel due to an attack from a massive reptilian animal about 108 years ago.
When the crew members told this story about a massive reptilian animal which attacked them,
It was considered a myth.

But just because they were mere sightings,
so no one believed them,
thinking that most probably they had seen another massive marine animal.
But what they saw, they saw. It was not a part of their imagination nor were they telling a myth nor was it another massive marine animal.
Moreover what they saw & described was totally different.

And resembled something like a massive lizard.
And this massive marine animal acc., to science had lived about 80 million years ago.
So how could they see something more than a century ago which had gone extinct millions of years ago?

But 47 years ago, the fossils of a massive marine reptile was found.
The total length was 43 feet.
The skull measured about 5 feet 7 inches.
And the lower jaw measurements measured about 6 feet.
And the teeth were conical, powerful & large.
It had a streamlined body, four paddle-like flippers, a powerful tail,
& a heavy jaw and neck.
Very interesting.

Then there is something else interesting about evolution that came out.
Acc., to Conventional science there was a small four legged animal similar to the size of a dog.
They ate freshwater fish & other smaller animals near the water's edge gradually shifting to marine environments for richer sources of food & in this present era is one of the biggest marine animals due to evolution over millions of years.
But when skeptics asked how could it have been possible for such a small land animal to become of the largest marine mammals.
The reason that was given was the availability of large amounts of marine food that helped this marine animal to become massive.
But again, conventional science refuted this theory itself.


Reasons;
Differences between molecular clock estimates & the sudden appearance of the fossil record.

Acc., to conventional science the shift from land animals to marine animals happened within approx., 10-15 million years.
But others disagree that this time span is too short for such massive redesigning without leaving behind a more complete chain of transitional intermediates.

Skeptics also question the survival of intermediate forms like this half land & half marine animal.
They stated that any animal which was as small as a dog & which was incapable of fast running & not not fully adapted for marine life would have faced severe predatory & environmental disadvantages, making it unlikely to become one of the biggest marine animals.

So again, regarding this marine animal,
conventional science is contradicting itself.