Of course it is relevant Vade. Evolution is materialistic and if God is said to exist materialism is dead. If God exists there is no reason to believe that some mysterious random nonsense created all the species on Earth. If God exists there is no reason to believe that man descended from lower species. Further since you also believe in abiogenesis and random creation of the Universe this would also be totally discredited by the existence of God.
More important really is to consider the reasons for the existence of this axis of evil. The folk that support these theories do not do so for the sake of science, they do so for the sake of justifying their atheism. People do not hold to their views do to their great adherence to science. They do so because it justifies their irreligious views. That is why they claim that any other scientific explanation is a religious one in order to keep other views which allow for the possibility of a Creator out of the schools.
Neither I nor the Bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old. As usual, you and your friends are arguing against a strawman because you cannot argue the facts. It also shows that when people want to argue the science of your theory you turn the discussion to an attack on the religion which you hate so much that it affects all your other views.
This statement and the whole previous post are nothing but an indirect assault on every non-Christian. No wonder nobody misses you when you are not around. You are so arrogant as to believe you have it all figured out, when you simply spout ignorant statement after ignorant statement in an attempt to feel superior. You have absolutely no proof or evidence of your belief, and I do not hold that against you. But when you attack a scientific theory which has evidence (not proof) on scientific levels and demand that your theory is superior on scientific ground, it is mind boggling.
I support evolution to justify my atheism? How do you come up with this? Honestly, I think the idea of evolution is fascinating, but it really doesn't matter much to me. You make the assumption it does. That's like saying plate tectonics is my religion. It is foolish to even think that. It is science, and for those who find such things interesting, it is only science. It is not my livelihood. It doesn't affect my life (except when I spend hours a day reading this 4,000 post thread). I don't pray to Darwin. It doesn't even begin to make sense what you are implying.
To you, this debate fulfills your existence and makes you a good Christian. To me it's a hobby. I don't need it. I'm not defending my entire belief structure as you are. A new theory could come along and I'd be a reformed man if it made more sense. This is the difference between me and you. No matter what evidence or proof comes along, nothing will change your mind. Your mind is closed.
Neither I nor the Bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old.
4081 posted on 01/09/2003 9:00 AM EST by gore3000
Contrast that with the opinion of Ken Ham at the Institute for Creation Research: HERE.
Why do we at ICR believe in a young age for the earth? Firstly, if we take God at His Word, it is obvious from Scripture, that when one adds up all the dates from the first day of creation onwards, the world could only be in the order of thousands of years old. In many of our publications, we have also shown that the days of creation have to be ordinary days of 24 hours in length. From my experience, the major reason many Christians don't accept this is not because of what the Hebrew word for “day,” in its context in Genesis means, but because they believe scientists have proved that the earth is billions of years old; therefore they have to insist that the days of creation are long periods of time.Secondly, there is much overwhelming scientific evidence that fits with the earth being young. This cannot fit into an earth billions of years old. ICR books, such as Scientific Creationism [link in original], What is Creation Science? [link in original], and Science, Scripture and the Young Earth [link in original], document these evidences.
This is the type of bigoted remark that is typical of Creationists. Lacking the ability to do scientific research, they resort to attacking the motives of people who actually are doing science.
This is important. What you are saying then, is that if science says the earth is 4.2 billion years old (or so) it might be wrong, but at least it doesn't contradict the Bible.