₦airaland Forum

bawomolo:
the catholic has no problem with evolution.

some of the biggest proponents of evolution are theists.

The Roman Catholic Church has always been going with the popular culture.  When they persecuted Galileo they believed the erroneous doctrine of geocentricity now they have pitched their tents with evolutionism.  No wonder that a lot of Christians have been misled by this dangerous presupposition.

mazaje:
Who wrote the bible OLADEGBUU? Do you have any evidence for any god writing any part of the bible or do you accept the words of ancient jews who wrote down their thoughts, wishes, fantasies and aspirations and ascribed it to their god?. . . .

Does it matter anything to you who wrote the Bible?  Will it make any difference to you if I say that the Creator God inscribed the decalogue in tables of stone as a witness of His signature?  This is part of what He wrote with His own Finger "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."  Would that make any sense to you since you have made up your mind to swallow the lies and assumption of fallible man's philosophy as your own source of authority?

mazaje:
Did any god appear to your personally and tell you that he wrote any part of the bible?. . . .Did any god appear to you and tell you that the bible is his word or do you just accept what other men wrote and ascribe to their god as true JUST because they said so?

God does not need to appear to me personally for me to believe and have faith in His Word.  If I had been alive 2.000 years ago and living in Israel I would have seen God personally as He walked the face of this earth in the Person of Jesus Christ.  But thanks be to God that there is more blessing in believing His infallible Words than if I had seen Him then and not believed.  Believing is seeing and not the other way round.  Taste and see that the Lord is good.

The Missing Day

[flash=500,400]http://media.chick.com/tract_9.swf[/flash]

abuzola999:
'The messiah (jesus), son of mary was no more than a messenger, many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother (Mary) was truthful believer. They both use to eat food (as any other human being, while God does not eat). Look how we make the revealation clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away from the truth' Quran 5:75

We can at least start with common grounds that we share. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, that He was born through the virgin Mary, and that Jesus is alive, He is not dead. No other prophet remains alive they are all dead, including your Mohammed. None of them claimed to be the Messiah, neither did any of them benefit from a virgin birth and nor did they make the bold claims that Jesus made. If you believe that He was one of the prophets and you claim to believe Him then why don't you consider what He said that no other prophet claimed to have said: Jesus said that "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Henrygirl:
I pray that you all have a Happy Thanksgiving today! God bless us all, as we give thanks to Him who gives us richly all things to enjoy! Beloved I pray that you prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers. We thank our loving God for His love toward us through the gift of Jesus Christ!

"Give Thanks" by Don Moen

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBpv-ZzcQD8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1[/flash]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBpv-ZzcQD8

This is a befitting song for such an ocassion like this. Thanks for posting the url.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

-- James 1:17

Thanksgiving
November 26, 2009

"Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God." (2 Corinthians 9:11)

The themes of praise and thanksgiving are very prominent throughout Scripture.  The word "praise" and its derivatives occur over 330 times, and "thanks," with its derivatives, over 150 times.  When applied to our relation to God, "thanks" are given to Him for what He has done for us, and "praise" for who He is and what He has done for the whole creation.  If frequency of occurrence were an indicator, we might conclude that thanksgiving is important and praise-giving is twice as important!

In any case, every Christian believer has a tremendous amount to be thankful for.  As in our text, we have been "enriched in every thing to all bountifulness," and it is sad to hear so many complaints and laments coming from Christians who feel they deserve more and better than they have already received from God's good hand.

We are told that the Lord Jesus, instituting the Lord's supper, gave thanks, all the while knowing that the very elements He was blessing spoke of His body that would soon be broken and His blood that would soon be shed. No wonder, therefore, that the apostle Paul reminds us: "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you" (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

Whether in bountifulness of material blessing or in the invaluable school of suffering and discipline, we can please God by a thankful heart and life.  A key evidence that a Christian is truly "filled with the Spirit" is that he or she is habitually "giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 5:18, 20).  May God's Spirit "cause through us thanksgiving to God!" HMM

agathamari:
not all christians oppose evolution. nearly half believe in theistic evolution. god created the building blocks of life but then left life to evolve into all its presant forms
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Could God have used evolution?

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution; the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture ("according to the Scriptures".

And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture ("In six days the Lord made,".

The real issue is one of authority; is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No.  A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also damages the character of God.  He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: "Then God said," His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.

@abuzola999,

Allah as described in the qur'an does not have a son and so is not the same God that is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the only begotten Son of the Father. You have chosen to worship the arabian god, If you believe that your qur'an is eternal why do you find it difficult to believe that God can become a man?

There is only one gate.  Jesus is that Gate (door).  After you have entered that gate you then have to walk in the narrow way.  Jesus is that Way and any other way is the way that leads to eternal damnation.  Your decision determines your destiny.

grace5:
The church must declare,

“Babylon is fallen,” according to
Jeremiah 50:2 ( Declare ye among the Gentiles, and publish, and set up a banner; publish, [and] do not conceal: say,Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces)

The Lord wants the intercessors and prayer warriors to declare among the nations the edict written by proclaiming,
“ Babylon is fallen: Islam is fallen!”
“Islam is a sham that has enslaved millions of people.
Believe Me when I say it is coming down.

Amen to that sister!!!

Where was God?  Of cause He was where you left Him.  It is amazing how atheists who claim the non existence of God to be now blaming God for the Rwandan genocide.  They credit the creations of God to mother nature and when calamity strikes they then say it is an Act of God.

muhsin:
Can't watch the clips.

Why not?

The Big Debate (4 of 6)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUd7-tha_w

Even the Atheists are represented by their apostle Richard Dawkins.

The Big Debate


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjnL4HVoMU

Watch if you can and guage the spirirtual temperature in the UK

m_nwankwo:
To accuse a person or persons of demon influence, spirit possesion etc, one must really know in detail the origin of demons, its development as well as the cure. That simply means that such a person is specially called by God in these matters. But those who really have this ability will never make wild accusations, not to talk of making a public show of it. To talk flipantly in these matters have enomous consequences both in this life and beyound this life. It is better to remain silent when one does not have personal knowlege of these things than to talk about things one does not understand, such a one bears false witness against the accused and the spiritual consequences of false witness against another person is dire. The first step in spiritual development is to say things which we have personal knowlege of. To hear something, to read something and to know of something is not knowlege. Knowlege comes from personal experience using the faculties of the spirit.

And what tells you that your spiritual experience is not demonically influenced?

The narrow way leads to eternal life

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_hGBFVzYZ4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

The Gospel of Jesus -- Enter through the strait Gate and walk in the narrow Way

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_hGBFVzYZ4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Hi Alex0026,

Thanks for taking the time to watch the big debate on how the religious folks put their cases forward. We can see that man made religion has its own good intentions but are they enough to reconcile us with the Creator God? What about the bad intentions of religion when they use it to achieve their diabolic ends, i.e. wars, wealth and powers. The best religion can achieve is good works which can only impress his fellow man but the Creator God requires more than these and that is why Jesus had to come and die to pay the penalty of our sins and to reconcile us back to the living God it is only after this can we have true lasting peace and unity.

mazaje:
You wish. . .It seems you really have an over inflated opinion of the delusions you subscribe to and propagate all the time. . . .I was just mocking the sheer inanity of the video. . .

Are you saying that you are not a hip hop fan?

mazaje:
OLADEGBUU and his conspiracy theories. . . . . .

I am sure these revelations have rattled the idols that you worship.

olabowale:
@Modupe01: #11 on: Today at 02:10:12 AM » So that I show you how naive the above statement is; the baptism of Jesus claims that the gate of heaven opens and two things occurred:

1. the dovelike thing flew down.
2. the voice was heard all the way from there.

The above 2 conditions along with the gate of heaven opening makes it a common thing, since, Elijah or was it Elisha and of course Jesus were lifted to heaven. None of them is reported to have entered Paradise, yet, even though we read that the christians postulate that Jesus wrestled death or satan or both in Hell. We see that Hell is not on earth. So while you hope for heaven, the door(s) of Paradise may not be opened for people except those who are mulsims. Hence, is heaven, a generic place that contains many things what a person wishes to go, or is it Paradise, a specific place?

Let us just say that our object of worship and destination are different. Muslim's goal is not heaven and the Christian's hope is not Al jannah.

olabowale:
The speaker(s) is/are not Jesus, yet thet counted it as saying of Jesus; its difficult to know the truth of who said what.

All Scriptures are inspired by God. The Words spoken by Jesus I usually colour them red and the ones spoken by the Apostles and prophets I colour code them blue. Nevertheless, whether coloured red or blue I don't think you are a believer in any of them because if you truly believed in the words of Jesus you would have taken John 14:6 serious when He said "I am the Way, the truth and the Life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me" Does that make any sense to you?

olabowale:
Neither of the verses was revealed or spoken by Jesus.

What have you done with the ones Jesus said directly?

olabowale:
OT which no Christian pays any attntion except lip service.

That may be true of some but not all. Genuine Christians know that the truths in the OT is revealed in the NT and that you cannot fully understand the NT without the OT. Jesus is the OT revealed in the New Testament.

Pastor AIO:
Abi o! They're worrying about Demons in Music. What about demons in churchs, behind altars, speaking through revered pastors. etc

They have also infilterated most of the seminary institutions that produce these pastors and musicians and that is the reason you have doctrines of devils and ungodly worldly music on their alters. But God has still reserved for Himself a remnant that have not compromised the truth.

mazaje:
I laugh in greek. . .so it is now about political correctness eh? The truth does not need political correctness. . . .If your theory is true why is it not thought in schools world wide?

The age of the earth, as determined by sinful man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billion of years old.  This unproven age is being used by this your so called "conventional scientific study" to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible and because of this these dodgy fallible theories are allowed to interprete the Bible which ultimately undermines the use of language to communicate.

Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth's surface date back hundreds of millions of years.  As soon as one allows millions or billions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before Adam's sin.  This is the consequence of our children being taught in these secular institutions and they end up inventing reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid intellectual conflicts with popular scientific ideas which has become disastrous for their faiths.

mazaje:
Why are the teachings of these "real scientist" not accepted and taught in schools all over the world? The conventional scientific study says that the earth and the universe are billions of years old and that is what is taught in schools all over the world, why are the teachings of your "real scientist" discarded OLADEGBUU?

viaro has rightly put you in your place and if I were you I would listen and watch the video and dialogue and learn a thing or two and see why Christians do not have to accept your assumption of billions of years even though it is now politically correct to teach such in our institutions today.

The Big Debate (2 of 6)


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

See how the religious folks debate their worldviews in the UK.

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP_U60KuVtU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Reward According to Work
November 25, 2009

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Revelation 22:12)

Although the Scriptures teach clearly that it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us" (Titus 3:5), they do teach that we are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Good works will never produce salvation, but they will produce heavenly rewards.  "The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide . . . he shall receive a reward" (1 Corinthians 3:13-14).  Note that the criterion is not how much a man's work may accomplish, but what sort it is.

The greatest reward could well be the joy of hearing the Lord Jesus say to us at His judgment seat: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: . . . enter thou into the joy of thy lord" (Matthew 25:21).

But if we wonder just what the particular reward will be, perhaps our text may give us a clue.  Remember that, in the ages to come, His servants shall serve Him (Revelation 22:3).  There will be work to do! Not drudgery or sweaty labour, but glorious work, enjoying God's great creation and helping in the accomplishment of His holy purpose in creation.  In an infinite universe, with endless time, we can never run out of useful, rewarding work to do, as we serve Him.

He says He will "give every man according as his work shall be." Perhaps this suggests that our work here, with the interests and abilities God has given us, will have some relation to our work there, using those same interests and abilities.  In any case, we can be confident that our "labour is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58). HMM

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

-- James 1:12-15

viaro:
Hi modupe01,

It is interesting that you're missing something essential here. In none of those texts does it appear that those words (bara and asha) are used interchangeably to refer to the very same thing. I'm glad that you quoted Genesis 1:26-27, and perhaps it is one of the best texts I like to use for people who argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based upon the age of Adam. I'm sorry, but you will notice that such an idea is self-refuting; because the first verse there (verse 26) speaks of God saying that He would MAKE man before saying in the next verse 27 that He CREATED Adam in His own image!

Have you ever stopped to think of this? Why would God mention "make" [עשׂה - ‛aśah] before "create" [בּרא - bara']? It is not a coincidence, no; and I believe it is deliberate! Since you have hinted somewhere that 'the Jews should know better', then here is my answer: the Jews actually know better - and guess what? The same Jews do not believe that Adam is the very first human being to be created. Somewhere in this thread (if I remember), I noted that the Jews hold that there are 974 generations before the creation of Adam and Eve. The specie of homos sapiens did not start with Adam - which was why God spoke first of "make" before going on to speak about "create".

Just to show you this by illustration: we turn to Genesis 2:4 - 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. Please note the following:

(a) the first part states the creation of the heavens and the earth -
which tessellates with Genesis 1:1

(b) the second part states that God made the earth and the heavens -
which brings in the order of the 6 days from Genesis 1:2

(c) in the first part, the "heavens" were mentioned first before earth;
in the second part, the "earth" was mentioned first before the heavens

These are not confused as to be mistaken for interchangeable usage - no: they are rather deliberate, because the emphasis in such verses are striking at something we often take for granted. God created the heavens and the earth - how long, when, etc? We don't know, because the Bible does not tell us about such things. We gather from other books of the Bible that there was an age that preceded the existence of the earth, though we are not told for how long that age lasted before the earth was created.

But should we examine the other references: Exodus 34:10 interestingly enough does not make use of those key words interchangeably. The key words there are:

* כּרת - karath

* עשׂה - ‛aśah

* בּרא - bara'

In the verse, they appear like this in our English translation:

'And he said, Behold, I make [karath] a covenant:
before all thy people I will do [‛aśah] marvels,
such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth, nor in any nation:
and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD:
for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee'

Was God using these words interchangeably? I doubt it: for He did not say He would "create" a covenant as if He was about to bring a "covenant" into existence in the sense of His creating the heavens and the earth. A legal agreement is simply a contract binding upon agreed parties - and yes, even MEN can make (karath) covenants as well, just as the one Abraham and Abimelech made (karath) in Genesis 21:32.

What about "marvels" in that verse - that God said He would "do [‛aśah] marvels such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth"? Certainly, God did not mean again that He was going to "create" marvels as if He was going to bring 'marvels' into creation such as was the case of the heavens and the earth. In almost every other place where we read of the same connotations, the word 'marvels' has the same idea as the word translated as 'wonders' (פּלא - pele). In Exodus 15:11, we read that God is in the business of "doing (עשׂה - ‛aśah) wonders", not "creating" them as if they were part of the 6 days creation.

The same point is made in Isaiah 41:20 and 43:7 - God was not making use of those words interchangeably within the same verses; for that would be odd indeed especially here the statements are connected by a conjunction ("and".

I believe that I have addressed these objections of yours in my post below, if you missed it here is another opportunity to read what I said:

modupe01:
It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word as you said, bara, used with "God" as its subject, which means to create like in the production of things which did not exist before.

However, according to Exodus 20:11, God "made" (asah) the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days. If God made everything in six days, then there is clearly no room for a gap. I know that you allege that asah does not mean to "create," but "to form" or even "re-form" and that you believe that it refers to reforming a ruined world. But is there such a difference between bara and asah in biblical usage? I don't think so. It (asah) can also mean "to create," which is the same as bara. For example, Nehemiah 9:6 states that God made (asah) "heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them." This reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, but the word asah is used. Do you want to tell me that Nehemiah 9:6 refers to the supposed reconstruction? if you do then you will have to include the geological strata in the reconstruction which will invariably deprive the whole theory of any power to explain away the fossil record.

The fact is that the words bara and asah are often used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7). Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11; 31:17; and Nehemiah 9:6 we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.

The most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses, that is, 3 statements that further describe the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1.  The grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 rules out a time gap between the events in verse 1 and the events in verse 2.  Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth: "And the earth was without form and void" (Genesis 1:2).

I know that many gappists argue that God created some things like the heaven and the earth as recorded in Gen.1:1 and the marine and flying creatures as recorded in Gen.1:21 and argue that God made other things by evolution from pre-existing materials such as the sun, moon and stars, beasts and cattle(Gen.1:16,25).  What you have to realise is that they are often used interchangeably as I explained in the quote above.  The words asah (to make) and bara (to create) are used in reference to the same act (i.e. the creation of man, Gen.1:25).  Nothing in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that God used evolutionary process to produce His creation.

There is a further problem with believing that the Genesis account of creation should be interpreted as an evolutionary account.  The Bible teaches quite clearly that death was introduced into the perfect world as a result of Adam's sin.  Neither human nor animal death existed until this event, both humans and animals were originally vegetarian.  The original world that God created was death free, and so evolution could not have occurred before Adam was created.

Tohu (formless) and bohu (void) appear together only in the three places in the Old Testament(Isa.34:11; Jer.4:11 and Gen.1:2). However, tohu appears alone in a number of other places and in all cases simply means “formless.” The word itself does not tell us about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isaiah 45:18 (quoted by you earlier on this thread) is rendered in the KJV “he created it not in vain [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited.” In the context, Isaiah is speaking about Israel, God’s people, and His grace in restoring them. He did not choose His people in order to destroy them, but to be their God and for them to be His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God’s purpose in creation: He did not create the world for it to be empty. No, He created it to be formed and filled, a suitable abode for His creation. You and other Gappists miss the point altogether when you argue that because Isaiah says God did not create the world tohu, it must have become tohu at some later time. Isaiah 45:18 is about God’s purpose in creating, not about the original state of the creation.

viaro:
I said earlier: I am not a fan of Darwinism.

That is a red herring.  There are many types of evolutionary theories of which Darwinism is one.

modupe01:
'Literal', yes; but 'global', no.

For you to believe that Noah's Flood was only a local flood shows to me the outside ideologies that has affected your interpretation of the Bible, hence your forcing eons in between Gen.1:2.  You have accepted the widely evolutionary history of the earth, which interpretes fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

This compromise of accepting the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation has its own dangerous consequence.  It robs the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences.  You put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering and death before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world.  In doing this, you also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ.  Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God's description of His finished creation as "very good."  You can also see the point of the opening post of this thread.

This is what the book of Genesis said regarding the global cataclystic flood:

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19-20).

In addition, Jesus believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark.  What else do think Christ meant when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (see Matthew 24:37-39)?

In 2 Peter 3, that you quoted earlier, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah's Flood.  A partial judgment in Noah's day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)?  Water finds its own level, it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Even what is now Mt. Everest which is more than 5 miles high was once covered with water and uplifted afterward.  If the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.  God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event.

"For this they willingly forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (2 Peter 3:5-6).

modupe01:
Please understand. I did not assert that you made the earth the same size as the universe; rather, I pointed out that the argument of the position of 'Y[/b]oung [b]EARTH C[/b]reationism' (YEC) is often based on nothing more than mere calculations of the supposed age of Adam, dating back from the present. As long as the YEC wants to push the idea that Adam was created in day number 6 [b]therefore the heavens and earth must be 6,000 years old, that idea would continue to be self-defeating! Adam is a late comer to the scene; the earth and the universe are a creation that date back to eons which we are not exactly told how long or how old. The "heavens" is much more than the sky we look over our heads in an open field - that term includes the deepest of galaxies, most of which we know nothing about. How come the YEC has been trying ever so hard and yet so failingly to argue for the earth as young as 6,000 years old and forget the "heavens" (which includes the galaxies)? Are the galaxies 6,000 years old as well?

Hehe, I doubt you have asked the Jews what they beleive about the 974 generations before Adam - they are not as simplistic as you are arguing for only a minute part of creation. Please consult them again and let's know if they argue for the same thing that the YEC argue.

Your other posts I shall find time to come back and reply. Cheers.

Can you recollect posting the quote below? and if so what do you mean by this sentence?

viaro:
Please note carefully that the "universe" is much bigger than the earth. . because it seems to me that many times this is taken for granted in your posts.

Watch the videos posted and see how real scientists proved that the earth is young and when the Bible says heaven and earth it is a figure of speech that refers to the cosmos and everything thing within it, Time; Space; Matter/Energy and Information.

Creation in the 21st Century -- Creationist scientists prove the age of the earth (1 of 3)

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdr7p0ri5lc&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]