Where did the idea of “millions of years” come from?

Granite formation: catastrophic in its suddenness

You still have not explained the deposition and metamorphism of the Vishnu. And if the granite intrustion had caused the metamorpism, you would have contact metamorphism of a very different nature than what is observed in the Vishnu.

Keep trying.

There are several species of fish existing today, such as halibut and cods that can easily swallow a human.

In antiquity no distinction was made between marine mammalians like whales and dolphins and fish like sharks or halibuts or cods. Many Christians refer to it as a “whale” but that doesn’t really matter. As for fish existing today, perhaps you are thinking of sturgeons, they can get pretty big, or a whale shark. There have been some huge catfish in Thailand. But halibuts and cods just don’t get big enough to swallow a person whole.

But regardless of the genus or species, just for the halibut, tell me if you think the story of Jonah is allegorical or that a person could spend three days and three nights in the belly of a fish and that fish would just vomit Jonah out unscathed. I’m not saying that such a thing could not happen in the realm of faith and miracles, but it not scientifically reproducible, testable or verifiable – unless you want to volunteer to take a trip to Thailand and test the hypothesis out for yourself.

The story of Jonah is a beautiful story about the lesson of repentance and forgiveness. It should be taught in Bible School and discussed in Bible Study but it has no place in a science classroom.

Sturgeon have very small mouths.

We’ve caught halibut large enough to swallow a human.

This is not to assert that it was a halibut that got Jonah, but we can rest assured that it was not a whale, since none are capable of swallowing a human whole.

I don’t see any way that the Jonah account could be allegory, since The Lord himself affirmed it. What kind of fish it was will have to remain a mystery for now. I cannot imagine what kind of discussion this subject might warrant in a biology class, but if anyone wishes to test it, I would suggest looking for the halibut near the mouth of the Puget Sound. They get really big there.

" You are the one that said a single fracture formed the Sea of Cortez and the Grand Canyon."

Yes, I did, but I also said that it did it through washing a large quantity of water through, which is the only possible way that they could have been formed. Slow erosion like occurs today would have resulted in a narrow gorge where the canyon is, and a narrow river valley where the gulf now is, and a massive gravel bar or delta at the mouth of the river near Cabo.

LOL!

In Contra Celsus in the passage you cited, Origen is arguing against Celsus' Biblical literalism, not the age of the earth. Celsus argument is that the OT is obviously false and that Christians ignore the meanings of the words to gloss over errors. Have you abandoned literalism?

In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse, "Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error?"

Contra Celsus 1.17

I'll repeat my previous post since it's clear you didn't read it.

Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the Biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he(Origen) conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process, affording also an explanation of the diversity of human fortunes, rewards, and punishments.

I never said Origin didn’t allegorize scripture, he did. I was merely pointing out the Origin held that the “Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that...”.

In other words, even someone as prone to mix Greek philosophy with Christianity as Origin knows that the Mosaic account teaches Young Earth Creation.

Then there's Philo Judaeus(20 BC-40 AD) who wrote,

It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make.

From Yonge's translation, Allegorical Interpretation I, II-2.

Not exactly a Darwinist I think you'll agree.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.