Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The six days of creation

and

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
Another question often related to evolution is the age of the earth. For evolution to have occurred there had to be lots of time - extremely long
periods of time! This is a fundamental requirement of the theory, hence, evolutionists stretch the earth�s history just as far as they can. The
Bible, on the other hand, though not giving a date for creation, limits the time to thousands instead of millions of years. When this view is
proposed people often show surprise and even scoff at the idea that the earth may relatively young. But why? Simply because they have been
conditioned to think in terms of an old earth philosophy and have never considered anything else.
Many are surprised to learn that there is much scientific evidence pointing to a young earth. Note the following cases.
1. Earth Population - Using the standard population growth rate and applying it to the general time evolutionists claim man has been on the
earth, the projected population at present would be 105000. This is 10 followed by 5000 zeroes. However, calculations show that all known
space could only hold 10100. That�s 104900 people left over even after all known space is filled! Such a figure is so absurd it is not worthy of
serious consideration. On the other hand applying the same growth rate to 2500 B.C. (or the approximate time of the flood, when the man�s history
began anew) the population of the earth should be about 4.5 to 5 billion. Remarkable isn�t it!
2. The Earth�s Magnetic Field - T.G. Barnes, well-known for his unique research in this area, has shown that at the known decay rate of the
earth�s magnetic field it will be depleted by about 3900 A.D. Using this data and projecting back into the past, he has calculated that a maximum
age for the earth would be no more than 10,000 years.
3. Shrinkage Of The Sun - The sun is gradually burning up. Science can measure the decreasing diameter of the sun. At the present rate it is
calculated that just 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its present size. At that size it would have been so hot that the earth would
burn up! Further calculations reveal that only 20 million years ago the sun would have been the size of the earth�s orbit around it. And 500 million
years ago it would have been so large that the entire solar system could fit inside it! But remember, evolutionists claim the sun is several
billion years old! So, something is wrong with the evolutionary timetable! Something is drastically wrong! According to this scientific data the
earth could not be very old.
4. Hydrogen In The Universe - The amount of hydrogen in the universe is decreasing at a steady and rather rapid rate. It is constantly disappearing
and is not being replenished in any significant amounts. Now, if the universe is billions of years old the question is: �Why is there so
much hydrogen?� The amount of hydrogen should be greatly reduced! In fact, according to the vast age of the universe offered by evolutionists,
it should have been depleted long ago. Since it is known that the universe has an abundance of hydrogen this would indicate that the universe
(with the earth) is very young. Evolutionists are at loss to explain why there is so much hydrogen.
5. Helium In The Earth�s Atmosphere - It is known that helium, the product of disintegrating minerals, is accumulating in the earth�s upper atmosphere.
The rate at which this is occurring is measurable. Now if the earth is as old as evolutionists say, based on the known rate that helium
is collecting there should be enormous quantities of it in the atmosphere. However, this is not the case. According to the amount of helium in
the atmosphere the earth is no older than about 10,000 years. If the earth is excessively old where is the helium? The only explanation offered
by evolutionists is that helium must, somehow, be escaping from the earth�s atmosphere. Is there any evidence of this? No. That such a light gas
could escape the gravitational pull of the earth is ludicrous.
6. Ocean Sediment - Sediment (the collection of minerals, sand and small rock particles) is being continuously deposited on the ocean floors.
The rate of this deposition can be calculated. Using this rate of accumulation an approximate age of the earth can be determined. If the earth
is extremely old the ocean sediment should show evidence of this. However, the ocean floors reveal an average sediment buildup of less than
3000 feet, which projects an age for the earth at approximately 10,000 years.
7. Moon Dust - Dust from space is continually being drawn into the gravitational pull of both the earth and moon. Estimates of the amount of
dust accumulation can be measured. Since the earth has an atmosphere the dust cannot settle directly because of being washed by wind and water.
On the other hand, since the moon has no atmosphere to disturb the dust it accumulates directly, meaning there is a distinct buildup. Based
on the ancient age of the moon set by evolutionists it was projected that the dust should be fifty to seventy feet deep. This is why the early
lunar landing modules had wide �feet� or �pods� - so they would not sink down. However, what a surprise it was to find a layer of dust only an
inch or so deep. Indeed, the moon is very young. And since all agree that the moon and earth are the same age this means the earth is also very
young!
There are many other similar, equally impressive, evidences which point to a relatively young earth.

Wgaf

THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Because of a growing liberal trend in theological circles and a failure to honestly examine the evidence, some professed Bible believers have
attempted to reconcile belief in God and the Bible with evolution. Many have been conditioned to think that by rejecting evolution they would
be looked on as antiquated and outside the educated circle.
Out of this effort to reconcile the two views has come the theistic-evolution position. Those holding this view feel they can believe both the
Bible and evolution, hence, they endeavor to burn the candle at both ends. Here are some peculiarities of those who promote the theistic-evolution
position.
First, since they claim to believe evolution, they see themselves as intellectual.
Second, since they profess to believe the Bible they see themselves as flexible.
Third, to keep from having to reject the Biblical account they are forced to make serious modifications in evolution.
Fourth, in order to align the Bible with the evolution theory they are forced to make serious modifications in the Biblical account. (It is a wonder
why men will go so far out of their way to attempt to adjust the scriptures to a theory that is beyond proof!) The �middle of the road� stance
of theistic-evolution is looked on as absurd by both evolutionists and creationists. It has no credible position, for both sides from which it draws
support reject it!
Theistic-evolutionists declare that God created the first life and then used evolution to develop all other forms of life. However, if one can
believe that God created the first life, why is it so difficult to believe that He could create all life whole and complete? By its very nature the
theistic-evolution view makes it necessary to stretch the days of the creation week into periods lasting millions of years. However, for the following
reasons the Biblical record will not allow such a senseless interpretation.
First, each day is combined with a numeral - �first day...second day...third day...� In the Hebrew Old Testament whenever a number is used with
the word �day� it is always a normal, twenty-four hour day. There are no exceptions to this!
Second, each day is qualified with the expression �morning and evening� which is a Jewish idiom for the night and day (or light and dark) portions
of a normal day.
Third, in literature a word is always to be understood in its literal sense unless there is something in the context demanding otherwise. There is
nothing in the context of Genesis one even suggesting a figurative meaning for the word �day.� (The only reason men want to give a figurative
meaning to the word �day� is because they have already rejected a literal rendering.)
Fourth, the Bible clearly puts all creation within the time frame of a normal week! In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote of a regular seven-day week
and used the creation week of Genesis one as a model. �For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...�
There is no way the days of Genesis chapter one can be made to mean long periods of time. In addition, if each day represents many millions of
years, how can the following be explained?
� The earth was created on day one, but the stars were created on day four. However, evolution teaches that stars existed many millions of years
before the earth.
� The Sun and moon were created on the first day. However, evolution teaches that the sun existed millions of years before the moon.
� Vegetation was created on day three, but animal life was not created until day six. However, evolution teaches that both plant and animal life
evolved together.
� Both fish and birds were created on the same day. However, evolution teaches that fish existed millions of years before birds.
� Birds were created on day five, but reptiles were created on day six. However, evolution teaches that reptiles came before birds. The theisticevolution
view and the Biblical creation week cannot be harmonized.
� In addition, vegetation was created on day three, but insects were created on day six. If each day represents many millions of years how did
plants which are dependent on insects for cross-pollination exist during all that time?

and

FRUITS AND TENDENCIES OF EVOLUTION
Typical of many evolutionists is this statement from The Meaning of Evolution, by G.G. Simpson: �Man is the result of a purposeless and
materialistic process that did not have him in mind.�1 A more recent statement by the famed evolutionist, Julian Huxley, expresses the same
sentiment: �Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational thought. Darwin pointed out that
no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural
agency in its evolution.�2
On the cover of Gamaliel Bradford�s work, Darwin, is the statement: �The life of a gentle, tolerant and lovable man, who overturned the world
of thought, shifted the whole attitude of science, and upheaved the very foundation of religion and morality.�3 And, again: �He made hell a
laughing stock and heaven a dream.�4 Such statements reveal the true nature of modern evolutionary thinking.
Lying at the root of all evolutionary ideals is a basic anti-creation, anti-God attitude. It is principally a materialistic philosophy with nothing
to offer but doubt and despair. Most evolutionists have an automatic barrier that reacts at the very mention of the alternative to their theory,
namely, creationism.
That the theory of evolution is a negative and unproductive philosophy is shown by the following.
1. Evolution Is Non Beneficial To Science. Davis writes: �If anything good has come out of the evolution theory, it is certainly difficult to
detect it. And it is a self-evident truth, accepted by all thinking people, that a tree is known by its fruits.�5 Dr. W.R. Thompson states: �I am not
satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.�6 Thompson adds: �The success
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.�7
Research centered around the modern concept of the theory of evolution has contributed little, if anything, to scientific knowledge. One hundred
fifty years of evolutionary probing has not produced anything significant so far as true science is concerned and there are some who feel
that it has, in a number of instances, been detrimental to scientific progress.
2. Supporters Of Evolution Often Do Not Square With The Facts.
The theory, therefore, becomes a bias doctrine. In modern scientific circles it has become fashionable for evolutionists to say of others: �Why,
you�re not looking at both sides of the issue.� Now this may sound impressive to the unaware, but when the truth is known it is the evolutionist
who fails to look at both sides of the issue. When only favorable information is presented and when detrimental information is suppressed or
neglected, obviously the scientific process is being cast aside.
Evolution, of course, is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it was unproved and unprovable.8 But listen to the 20th
century�s leading exponent of evolution, Julian Huxley: �Whether or not we like it, Darwin�s theory is confirmed...thanks to Darwin we accept
evolution as a fact.�9 This illustrates how bias evolutionists are in their defense of the theory. But in spite of such a statement (which has been
echoed by many others) there are thousands of good scientists throughout the world who reject evolution. (The reader may want to again refer
to chapter 4.)
3. Evolution, To A Large Degree, Grew Out Of Atheism And Has A Tendency To Promote Atheism.
Evolutionists make a fetish out of what they call academic freedom. To them it means the license to teach anything that they want to, even to
the advocacy of those things which undermine the basic foundations of society.10
This seems to be the trend among many evolutionists - teach what you wish regardless of the consequences. And atheism, by way of deceptive
evolution, is one of those things being subtly advocated. In a pamphlet entitled Evolution Implies Atheism, published by the American Association
for the Advancement of Atheism, president Woosley Teller said: �The God idea cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of evolution.�11
Evolution stands in direct opposition to belief in God. This, of course, is admitted by all leading evolutionists. Real supporters of the theory are
quite clear and adamant when discussing this, for they realize there can be no reconciliation between the two. And, indeed, there cannot!
4. The Doctrine Of Evolution Creates An Atmosphere Tending Toward Immorality. When young people are led to believe that they are only the
result of an evolutionary process, that they are nothing more than advanced creatures possessing no soul, and that there is no God to whom they
will one day give account, what can be expected of their moral outlook? Some youth have said: �If we are no different than dogs or cats, why
should we believe in moral rules?� Where does this idea originate? It is not self-taught and it does not likely come from the home. No doubt it
is instilled through the subtle influence of evolution presented in the classroom and is a conclusion drawn from information found in science
textbooks. This attitude is typical with a growing number of youth. As a result with many there is no shame in declaring, �I don�t believe in
God.� Others feel no guilt when being sexually permissive. And yet others have no sense of remorse when becoming involved in violent acts.
Parents, educators, politicians and theologians are baffled when youth become so �animal-like� and are puzzled to find the cause. Then everything
is blamed but the real criminal - Godless evolution! When evolution is taught in the classroom and when youth are left with false,
misleading impressions, what else can be expected but a downward spiral in their moral outlook?
5. Evolution Has Been Instrumental In Producing Corrupt Systems Of Society. Communism is largely based on atheism and breeds in the atmosphere
of atheism. However, few are aware that Karl Marx, designer of the communist philosophy, drew heavily on Darwin�s concepts of natural
selection and survival of the fittest. Atheistic communism began with its roots grounded in evolution. As entomologist Geoffrey Taylor says:
�Darwin�s Origin Of Species and Marx�s Das Capital... heralded the two great secular faiths of modern times - Evolutionism and Communism.
Let me say at once that I believe both these faiths to be wrong; that each enshrines not a truth, but an illusion. Also they are in my opinion to
some extent connected and intertwined.�12 (Note: Marx requested that his book be dedicated to Darwin.) In connection with this Davis says:
�Since the adoption of the Marxian philosophy, Russia has consistently stressed the hatred of God and all forms of religion; Russia not only
denies the existence of God, but makes atheism �a necessary premise of the system on which its government is formed.�13
If one understands something of how ideas take hold of individuals and nations, he cannot doubt the influence of Darwin�s theory of survival of
the fittest upon the thinking of Nietzsche�s philosophy, and he accepted the principle that the few who rule should not be bound by any kind of
morality that would hold them down.14
Later, during the Nazi regime, leaders of Nazism capitalized on the concept of survival of the fittest and for several years systematically bred
men and women of the so-called �pure Aryan race� in an attempt to produce a �super-human race.� The connection with evolutionary ideas is
all too obvious.
When evolution is blindly accepted and forced upon people there is a tendency to do away with the individual. After all, if man is really nothing
more than animal what place does the individual hold? Such a materialistic philosophy as evolution leads to a purposeless life. Man becomes
just another cog in the wheel, an insignificant part of the human mass. This, of course, is but another way of describing state socialism, the
backbone of communism.
The United States will never be made communistic by a frontal attack on her ideology, but there is a good chance of bringing it in by the back
door of state socialism. As men fall more and more under the influence of the philosophies of evolution and atheism and as they turn away from
belief in the Supreme Creator, they cannot help but head down the road of corrupt government.
These brief observations of the fruits and tendencies of evolution are but a beginning point. Who could truly measure the evil which has already
resulted from this assumed theory? And who knows what added evil the future holds?

All used with permission from the author.

sorry Brent, I can read and think for myself. I did not and have not ever believed in evolution, I was insulted when taught the theory of evolution in school, but my friend who has studied and debated evolution for years has much to say about it. If anyone would like a copy of his book, I can get it for you.

I do believe you evolved from a piece of schit. Does that make me a evolutionist?

Defining evolution is important also

WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
The word evolution comes to us from the Latin �evolution� and simply means an unrolling or change. Under this definition there are a great
many things which can be labeled evolution: a child growing into an adult, a seed developing into a tree, weather changing from summer to
autumn, or day turning into night. These simple illustrations of change are in harmony with the fundamental meaning of the term.
This work, however, does not deal with the fundamental definition of evolution. Rather, it deals with a special use of the term sometimes
known organic evolution or Darwinism. Evolution in this sense can be defined as: The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals,
including man.
This special use of evolution, then, involves more than mere change, for it attempts to explain the origin and development of all life, and that,
by purely natural means. It begins with the supposition that life began spontaneously or by accident! 1 It then endeavors to bridge the enormous
gaps separating the various species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.
Evolution is not a science, and to so classify it is a major mistake. Technically evolution is not even a theory, although this expression is commonly
used. According to the scientific method a theory is an inference supported, at least to some degree, by observed facts.2 Evolution, as
shall be pointed out in the following chapters, is not so supported. What, then, is its proper classification? The most accurate description of
evolution is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a broad assumption based on nothing more than subjective observation. It is an �educated guess.�3 And
this is precisely what is involved in the evolutionary concept of life.

WHY IS EVOLUTION BELIEVED?
It is sometimes asked: �Why do so many educated people believe in evolution?� Dr. Henry Morris, who was once an evolutionist himself, gives
this concise and revealing answer: The writer is convinced, from having discussed the subject with hundreds of people, that the main reason
most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution. Very rarely is
such a person able to do more than repeat a few stock �evidences for evolution,� and almost never has he given any really serious consideration
to the question of their real implication. 1
From all outward appearance it would appear that the majority of educated people tend to believe in some kind of evolution. However, as
Dr. Morris implies, this widespread acceptance is not altogether based on objective thinking. In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution,
Doctors R.T. Clark and James D. Bales say: �Evolution is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as by
laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained
their education.�2 Again, they note: �So widely accepted is the doctrine of evolution that it is received by each oncoming generation for the
simple reason that each generation finds that evolution is a part of the scientific world outlook in which it is reared.�3
There is a strong trend in most educated circles to lean toward evolution even if one does not actually believe it. Clark and Bales mention
further that �the tendency to conformity is so great that...there are many people who will call white black in order to be in step with the times.�4
Dr. Thomas Dwight observes: �How very few of the leaders in the field of science dare to tell the truth as to the state of their own minds! How
many feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in!�5 Also, belief in evolution has apparently come
about due to an anti-religious, anti-Biblical bias. This does not mean that all evolutionists hold to this bias; no doubt some have honestly endeavored
to discover answers to questions about life without reflecting on God or the Bible. And, yet, among the vast majority of evolutionists
there is an undertone of resentment toward the Bible, especially the Biblical account of creation.
As far back as the days of Darwin this trend was apparent. T.H. Huxley, Darwin�s peer, said Darwin�s The Origin of Species was �anti-genesis.�
6 The ardent evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith declared: �Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative
is special creation and that is unthinkable.�7 Again, Huxley says: �It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of
creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.�8 The third annual report of the American Association
for the Advancement of Atheism, strong backers of evolution, said: �Evolution is atheism.�9 Dr. L.T. More of the University of Cincinnati said:
�Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation.�10 Dr. Theodore Schwarze
of New York University, pointedly states that evolution is �accepted by scholars and scientists because it categorically denies the word of God,
which they hate.�11 In his work, Evolution and the New Inquisition, Bales states: �If one is acquainted with the background of Darwin and
other evolutionists in the nineteenth century, he will realize that they accepted evolution not because scientific evidence proved it, but because
they had rejected the idea of creation by God, and had determined that all must be explained naturally.�12
Creation is the only alternative to evolution, and since supporters of the theory view the Biblical narrative as untenable, they are compelled to
turn to evolution.

Good lord

send in the midget before we get old

GDit learn to copy&paste



Jezuz H, i hate retards

Relis Brown, PHD in Philosophy, 1938.
Only published paper on Google scholar I could find from his was his thesis. Not much of a scholar.

John W. Klotz, in his work Genes, Genesis and Evolution
Published 1955...

Eugene Guye: 1866-1942. Did most of his work around the turn of the century.... or a 100 years ago.

Theodore Schwarze, nice quote from an apologetics book from 1942.

I could go through your entire list like this, and as usual, the young flat earthers can't give any modern evidence from a reputable scientist to support their views. You did however, do better one creationist I debated, he couldn't come up with an sources after 1912.

Well, hate away and see if I care. You and DumbA$$ must be buddies.

Of course I copied and pasted, from a friend's book that is thoroughly researched. The best info I have found. I thought evolution was a crock when I first heard it and I am not stupid enough to believe it. Nothing can be proven in my opinion as far as how old or young the earth is. Nothing about the age of the earth or how it started can be a scientific fact or a law, but I sure do not have to believe in can of BS like evolution. Ir cracks me up how many say evolution is a fact. Anyone can see the multiple flaws and if you read about it, most EVERY day what was a fact the day or week before is no longer a fact and not true.

antelope, Can you give any evidence that evolution is real?

ME CAN! ME CAN!


your dad jacked off on a petunia and here you are

I bet you read all that schit from a book you checked out of the library of the mental hospital you been Locked up in.

evolution is a crock. not true.

George, thank you for the apology. Since I believe there was no ill will in your heart, I accept it.

It appears to me, from the nature of your arguments, you are used to having these discussion it a more highly Christian acculturated area such as Iowa. Let me take a moment to deconstruct the flow of your logic, and you will see why they are less effective in other environments.

When you assert someone is a "fool" of course this takes on the tone of a personal attack. This will typically cause all except the most vulnerable to put up a tough resistance to defend the attack against their psyche. By asserting "I didn't say it, the Bible did", you are switching to a combination of circular reasoning (you must believe the bible because the bible tells you to), and an appeal to authority (authority of the bible). It's also an interesting way to disclaim personal responsibility for the attack, after all, you were just quoting the Bible.

From here you move to a threat, it the form of Pascal's wager. To begin with, Pascal's wager is a False Dilemma, it ignores other religions, other heavens, and other hells, it claims that believing costs you nothing. It also assume you can choose to believe, and the all knowing God cannot see into the heart of a person who just claims to believe just to make it into heaven. If the correct answer is Mormons, where does that leave you?

But underneath it all, it's just a threat, and nothing more.

It interesting to me how such a well meaning person, such as yourself can become so acculturated to the Christian doctrine that you fail to see the threats and logical flaws for what they are.

I suggest you start with something simple:

College Text Book, Life on Earth.

That might be what you do, but please don't project your methods upon me. Some of us prefer to examine the evidence, and let the evidence form our world view, not the other way around.

You schittin me ?