Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Alan]

Whatever it takes to maintain the evolution delusion. Agenda driven science is not science at all. Denial of ongoing and increasing information simply because it refutes mistaken hypothesis built upon former faulty or incomplete information, is corrupt human nature, not science in pursuit of truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1S_CU3ecNU

You say this as though you yourself have credible data and then you post this video from a non-scientist "Dr".


What I would really be interested in seeing is some research from a secularist scientist that has come to the conclusion that the earth and universe is 6000 years old, or are ALL non-christian scientists members of the conspiracy theory group;  the 14 billion year old universe.

[The Barbarian]

 During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:

    "Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

   
    COFFIN: Yes.

     
    Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

     
    COFFIN: Correct.

     
    Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

     
    COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

[The Barbarian]

There is absolutely no reason to read the creation story in Genesis as a metaphorical account of events.

I know you want to believe this.   However, Christians have known for a very long time that it is not a literal history.

It is not written as a poem, and even the use of language and grammar do in no shape or form indicate anything else but a normal, historical description of events.
The only reason why one would insist that the creation story is metaphorical is to try and fit evolution into the story.

That's obviously false.   Christians realized it was not a literal history over 1500 years before anyone knew about evolution.

Genesis 1 and 2 are in complete opposition to evolution.

As you have now seen, they are completely consistent with evolution.

Unfortunately there are people that seem to think our understanding of Genesis is defective and it needs to be fixed.

Your revision of Genesis is flawed.  However, it doesn't affect your salvation, so it doesn't "need to be fixed."

YE creationism is assumed to be truth, and Gods Word must be altered to fit the assumption, but not every error puts your salvation at risk.   Thank God for that.

Do you know how many times Genesis had to be altered in history

Early 1900s when Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

It probably seem like cheating YE creationists, when evolutionary theory is repeatedly refined and made more accurate as we gain new information.   But that's how science works.   Many YE creationists have revised their revision of Genesis, to accommodate speciation, the existence of transitional forms, the genetic data, and so on.   So it's not entirely one-sided.



 

[Alan]

During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:

    "Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

   
    COFFIN: Yes.

     
    Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

     
    COFFIN: Correct.

     
    Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

     
    COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

That about summarizes YE scientific research, thanks for that.

[The Barbarian]

That about summarizes YE scientific research, thanks for that.

Not just Coffin.    You might want to look up Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms, written by Kurt Wise.    A very straightforward and knowledgeable discussion of the situation.

I don't agree with him, he's a YE creationist, but he does a pretty good job of describing transitional forms and how creationists might think of them.

[AVZ]

During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:

    "Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

   
    COFFIN: Yes.

     
    Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

     
    COFFIN: Correct.

     
    Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

     
    COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

The excerpt is leading and attempts to insinuate that YE Creationists reject the scientific data solely on the basis that the Bible states otherwise.
This is most certainly not true and this part of the cross examination has been completely taken out of context.

What this cross examination refers to is the basis of which Coffin has build his premise.
Now every scientific theory has a premise, and its perfectly valid to build a theory on that premise whether true or false.
Some people start with a premise on the basis of Theism, some people start with a premise on the basis of Atheism. Neither is unscientific.
Lets turn this around:

Q) The Bible seems to indicate that the universe is only 5000 years old, but you think it's 500 million years old, correct?
A) Yes
Q) You say that because of information from scientific data, don't you?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have scientific data, you could believe the age of the earth to be 5000 years, couldn't you?
A) Yes, without scientific data

See, this line of questioning doesn't confirm or prove anything substantial, all it does is confirm that people build notions on premises.
It shows that in the absence of data you could believe anything you want BECAUSE of the absence of data.

Example:
Q) You believe God exists, don't you?
A) Yes
Q) You believe God exists because the Bible states so, correct?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have a Bible, could you believe God does not exist?
A) Yes, if the Bible didn't exist

In no shape or form does this line of questioning establish anything besides that fact that the believer has a basis for his believe.
You may as well ask the exact same questions to a Muslim and change the word "Bible" with "Quran", and the line of questioning still wouldn't prove any irrational premise by the believer.

The most funny thing about posting the above excerpt however is that this exact same part of the Arkansas trial is used by evolutionists to wipe the floor with Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. Read for example "Deception by Design" by Lenny Flank.
He uses this argument that ANY attempt to take creationism as a premise is irrational and insufferably naive.

Reality is of course very different.
Coffin does not reject scientific data solely on the basis of the Bible. He disputes the scientific data on the basis of scientific data.

[Michael2012]

Michael said:

I'm surprised to hear that you don't believe that God created you, for it is all over scriptures, that God created man. May I ask, how do you define a man? What is the make up of the man that God created?

Do you not know and understand the difference between create and procreate?  Apparently not.

Jesus told Nicodemus , "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit".  And it seems you haven't a clue about what that even means.  But I am not surprised that you do not know what is meant when it says that God created man.  The make up of the man that God created is his spirit.  It is not in his flesh that man is in the image of God, but in his spirit.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh", it seems that you want me to understand that your mom gave birth to your flesh by procreation. Is that what you mean? Now, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", what would you want me to understand by that? Please explain as I don't want to go on guessing. Thanks.

[Michael2012]

4WD,

According to your understanding of the scriptures, what do you say God created ex nihilo?

You say that God did not create Adam's flesh. Then who did?

Would you say that God did not create the animals' flesh? If so, then what in the animal did God create?

[Alan]

The excerpt is leading and attempts to insinuate that YE Creationists reject the scientific data solely on the basis that the Bible states otherwise.
This is most certainly not true and this part of the cross examination has been completely taken out of context.

What this cross examination refers to is the basis of which Coffin has build his premise.
Now every scientific theory has a premise, and its perfectly valid to build a theory on that premise whether true or false.
Some people start with a premise on the basis of Theism, some people start with a premise on the basis of Atheism. Neither is unscientific.
Lets turn this around:

Q) The Bible seems to indicate that the universe is only 5000 years old, but you think it's 500 million years old, correct?
A) Yes
Q) You say that because of information from scientific data, don't you?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have scientific data, you could believe the age of the earth to be 5000 years, couldn't you?
A) Yes, without scientific data

See, this line of questioning doesn't confirm or prove anything substantial, all it does is confirm that people build notions on premises.
It shows that in the absence of data you could believe anything you want BECAUSE of the absence of data.

Example:
Q) You believe God exists, don't you?
A) Yes
Q) You believe God exists because the Bible states so, correct?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have a Bible, could you believe God does not exist?
A) Yes, if the Bible didn't exist

In no shape or form does this line of questioning establish anything besides that fact that the believer has a basis for his believe.
You may as well ask the exact same questions to a Muslim and change the word "Bible" with "Quran", and the line of questioning still wouldn't prove any irrational premise by the believer.

The most funny thing about posting the above excerpt however is that this exact same part of the Arkansas trial is used by evolutionists to wipe the floor with Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. Read for example "Deception by Design" by Lenny Flank.
He uses this argument that ANY attempt to take creationism as a premise is irrational and insufferably naive.

Reality is of course very different.
Coffin does not reject scientific data solely on the basis of the Bible. He disputes the scientific data on the basis of scientific data.

As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.

[4WD]

4WD,

According to your understanding of the scriptures, what do you say God created ex nihilo?

If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that there are only three things that God created ex nihilo, all the rest it says He made.  The first is "the heavens and earth".  Some scholars consider that to be a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism.  You can look that up.  basically it means the totality of everything, namely, all the "stuff" from which everything in the entire universe is made of.  Second, is life.  Biological evolutionists think that somehow life just came about.  I don't believe that.  The probability that all the right chemicals formed together into DNA and was somehow "zapped" with just the right energy and life began is essentially zero.  So life was created by God.  And third and the last creation in Genesis was the spirit of man given to Adam and Eve.  Everything else came [was made]about according to the laws of nature that was created with the stuff of the first creation ex nihilo.  How much of what was made came about by active engagement of God Himself I am not ready to stipulate.  I know that on occasion He does intercede in the process through actions outside of the natural realm that he set in motion, but not really that often.  That is what I think.  I believe that is consistent with the two main forms of God's revelation.  One is His general revelation as revealed by the universe as it is.  God says that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. "   The other is His special revelation as revealed in His written word, the Bible.

[AVZ]

As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.

Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.

[Alan]

Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.

No, perhaps my grammar didn't explain my query correctly, I am looking for an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.

[AVZ]

No, perhaps my grammar didn't explain my query correctly, I am looking for an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.

Yet another gem. You want me to show you scientific research by an Atheist that proves Genesis is true?

[4WD]

Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.

Not an odd question at all.  Obviously you didn't even read, let alone understand, the question.  YECs are not the only "creationists".

I am a creationist.  But I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist who believes the universe is about 13+ billion years old and the earth is about 4+ billion years old.  And I do so in complete acceptance of the Bible.  I simply reject the YEC interpretation of the Bible as it relates to creation.

[Alan]

Yet another gem. You want me to show you scientific research by an Atheist that proves Genesis is true?

I said nothing of Genesis, please show me scientific data that supports a 6000 year old earth, if it is true then at least some scientists without a biblical agenda would have revealed it.

[AVZ]

Not an odd question at all.  Obviously you didn't even read, let alone understand, the question.  YECs are not the only "creationists".

I am a creationist.  But I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist who believes the universe is about 13+ billion years old and the earth is about 4+ billion years old.  And I do so in complete acceptance of the Bible.  I simply reject the YEC interpretation of the Bible as it relates to creation.

He was asking for a non-biblical creationist. How many creationists do you know that are atheist?

[AVZ]

I said nothing of Genesis, please show me scientific data that supports a 6000 year old earth, if it is true then at least some scientists without a biblical agenda would have revealed it.

You are on a roll, aren't you?
There are two options: Either unguided evolution is true, or guided creation is true.
By definition evolution takes millions of years.
So how many Atheists do you think there are who believe guided creation is true?

[4WD]

He was asking for a non-biblical creationist. How many creationists do you know that are atheist?

He didn't ask for a non-biblical creationist.  He asked for

an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.

[Alan]

You are on a roll, aren't you?
There are two options: Either unguided evolution is true, or guided creation is true.
By definition evolution takes millions of years.
So how many Atheists do you think there are who believe guided creation is true?

Stop dancing around the question, if the earth is 6000 years old, at least one scientist that has never read the bible should be able to confirm your belief.


And it has ZERO to do with what scientists believe, I'm asking for research and data.

[th1b.taylor]

Alan,
You nailed it, it does not matter about a scientist's belief structure.  Of course that applies in both directions.  A Christian Scientist's opinion is every bit as valid as the
atheist, I used to be.

And Barbarian,
I am sick of you lying and telling people hat it is not a salvic issue because it is.  in Mat, 18:3 jjesus said:
"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.

[4WD]

"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.

And what, precisely, does it mean to become like little children.  What is it about little children that would make them capable of entering the kingdom of heaven?

[AVZ]

Stop dancing around the question, if the earth is 6000 years old, at least one scientist that has never read the bible should be able to confirm your belief.


And it has ZERO to do with what scientists believe, I'm asking for research and data.

I am not dancing around the question. Your question is irrational, because any scientist who discovers that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist.
Evolution CANNOT account for a young earth there simply would not be enough time. So any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, CANNOT be an evolutionist.
So then if a young earth can only be explained by creation...then the scientist must also admit there is a creator.
And where do we find that creator...in the Bible!

You want me to show you scientific data from a scientist who discovered that the earth must be created...but yet rejects that there is a creator!
That is an irrational request on your part.

[Amo]

As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.

The problem of course, is that anyone who once believed the world is countless millions of years old, then changed there convictions to it being only thousands of years old, would likely become a creationist. This of course has happened. There would be no good or logical reason to deny the bibles creation account, if one became convinced the world was actually as young as scripture declares. Nor of course would they any longer be accepted by old earth evolutionists as anything but a young earth creationist.  The following sites contain testimonies of scientists converted from evolution to creation, the natural result of those scientists who actually did do as you suggest none have.

https://www.icr.org/article/95/

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/from_evolution_to_creation_lumsden.html

http://www.learnthebible.org/world-famous-atheist-converted-by-the-scientific-evidence-for-god.html

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php

http://www.dawntoduskpublications.com/html/Confession.htm

https://standingforgod.com/2010/10/17/truth-of-the-creation-testimony/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owDOD7WZvEw

This pretty much goes both ways. Those converted to old earth evolution, are of course no longer considered young earth creationists. Your request has nothing to do with seeking truth in the matter, but simply a setup toward a manipulated outcome. One that supports your own views. In reality though, it does no such thing.

[4WD]

AVZ. Amo,

All creationists are not young earth creationists.  In fact I think it is safe to say that most creationists are not young earth creationists.  Few creationists hold to the 6000 year old earth [and universe].

[Texas Conservative]

Ha ha ha ha.  This discussion is funny.  No scientist has a definite age for the earth.  Not a single one.

[AVZ]

AVZ. Amo,

All creationists are not young earth creationists.  In fact I think it is safe to say that most creationists are not young earth creationists.  Few creationists hold to the 6000 year old earth [and universe].

And the point is?

[Alan]

I am not dancing around the question. Your question is irrational, because any scientist who discovers that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist.
Evolution CANNOT account for a young earth there simply would not be enough time. So any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, CANNOT be an evolutionist.
So then if a young earth can only be explained by creation...then the scientist must also admit there is a creator.
And where do we find that creator...in the Bible!

You want me to show you scientific data from a scientist who discovered that the earth must be created...but yet rejects that there is a creator!
That is an irrational request on your part.

Nope, that doesn't equate. If the earth is in fact merely 6000 years old then those facts should be confirmed by at least some percentage of scientists without needing to insert the faith that God created it in a specific timeline. God aside, those facts should be popping up all over the place in the scientific community but you would prefer to pit scientific data against God, when as 4WD continualy states, it isn't so, science continues to reveal the facts of creation that God did in His timeline and it isn't in 6000 years.

[Michael2012]

If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that there are only three things that God created ex nihilo, all the rest it says He made.  The first is "the heavens and earth".  .......  Second, is life.  ........  And third and the last creation in Genesis was the spirit of man given to Adam and Eve.  Everything else came [was made]about according to the laws of nature that was created with the stuff of the first creation ex nihilo. 

How did you come to know that these 3 were created out of nothing? Is it said in Genesis? If so, can you cite the Genesis scripture?

On life: Is life created or is it given coming from a source?

On the spirit of man: Is it created or is formed or is given?

In your answers please cite reference scriptures.

[Alan]

Ha ha ha ha.  This discussion is funny.  No scientist has a definite age for the earth.  Not a single one.

Perhaps not definite, but not a single one says that the earth is only 6000 years old, the only ones that do need to fill in the blanks with faith rather than facts.

[4WD]

How did you come to know that these 3 were created out of nothing? Is it said in Genesis? If so, can you cite the Genesis scripture?

On life: Is life created or is it given coming from a source?

On the spirit of man: Is it created or is formed or is given?

In your answers please cite reference scriptures.

Sorry, but your questions don't make any sense.  What could God have made the heavens and the earth out of?  Out of what could God have made life?  And out of what could God have made the spirit of man?

From Vine's OT dictionary:

Create

bara' (H1254), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen_1:1; cf. Gen_2:3; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

Bara' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" (Isa_41:20; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7, Isa_45:12; Amo_4:13), yatsar, "to form" (Isa_43:1, Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7; Amo_4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa_45:18 : "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [`asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5; Isa_45:18; Isa_65:17); man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:12); Israel (Isa_43:1; Mal_2:10); a new thing (Jer_31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa_4:5); north and south (Psa_89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa_45:8); speech (Isa_57:19); darkness (Isa_45:7); wind (Amo_4:13); and a new heart (Psa_51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.

Especially striking is the use of bara' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [`asah] the earth, and created [bara'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa_45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa_44:12-20; Isa_46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (Isa_43:16-21; Isa_65:17-25).
Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara' is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory.

qanah (H7069), "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen_14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen_14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deu_32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Psa_78:54; Psa_139:13; and Pro_8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.

The cognate languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic meaning of "to get, acquire." Ugaritic, however, attests the meaning "create." In fact, qny is the primary Ugaritic term to express creation. The close relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the contextual meaning of qanah as "create" in the Old Testament passages cited above argue for the use of qanah as a synonym for "create" along with bara', `asah, and yatsar.

`asah (H6213), "to create, do, make." This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for "create" only about 60 times. There is nothing in- herent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when `asah is parallel to bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation.

Unfortunately, the word is not attested in cognate languages contemporary with the Old Testament, and its etymology is unclear. Because `asah describes the most common of human (and divine) activities, it is ill-suited to communicate theological meaning—except where it is used with bara' or other terms whose technical meanings are clearly established.

The most instructive occurrences of `asah are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen_1:1 uses the verb bara' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen_1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: "And God made [`asah] the firmament...." Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only `asah. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bara'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: Gen_1:16 (the lights of heaven); Gen_1:25, Gen_3:1 (the animals); Gen_1:31; Gen_2:2 (all his work); and Gen_6:6 (man). In Gen_1:26-27, however, `asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness....So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, Gen_2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, Gen_5:1 equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in Gen_2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."
It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.

[Amo]

Perhaps not definite, but not a single one says that the earth is only 6000 years old, the only ones that do need to fill in the blanks with faith rather than facts.

There are no facts saying how old the earth is. Those who discount creation see countless millions of years according to their own understanding. Those who allow for creation see much evidence to support the same. Neither can prove the age of the earth, beyond any question. Those who reject creation would necessarily arrive at wrong conclusions concerning materials created at or in a certain state, not believing such but attributing that state to long ages of time and process apart from creation. Those who believe in creation cannot prove anything along these lines either, not knowing themselves the original composition of anything when created. The real issue is what evidence supports, creation or evolution, not exact understanding of times involved. Though there is a correlation between both views and time in relation to either or.

[4WD]

There are no facts saying how old the earth is.

I am not certain what you mean by that.  There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years. 

[Texas Conservative]

I am not certain what you mean by that.  There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years.

Radiometric dating is a mathematical model that can never be proven.

We can prove some dates via C14, but that's it.

[AVZ]

I am not certain what you mean by that.  There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years.

The age of the earth is not in question here. Genesis does not mention a creation day for the earth.
This discussion is about evolution, unless you wish to argue that the earth evolved.

Although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age.
For example: we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.
And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

[The Barbarian]

And Barbarian,
I am sick of you lying and telling people hat it is not a salvic issue because it is.

No, that's wrong.   Unless you make an idol of creationism, it doesn't matter a bit.   If you don't want to accept evolution, you are no less Christian than the rest of us.

in Mat, 18:3 jjesus said:

Nothing whatever about evolution.   Here's what He said:


"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So you don't need all your new doctrines and extra stuff.   Just listen to Him and accept what He tells you and stop trying to rationalize it.    Here's how you know how He'll chose those who go with Him and who will go with Satan and his angels:

Matthew 25:31-46

Do that, and you're with Him.    Don't do it, and He will send you away.   

Just that simple.   Notice evolution has nothing to do with it.   

Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.