The Earth is more than 6000 years old

Posted By Pamela on Sep 2, 2007 | 26 comments

georgeandfsm.jpgIt is the third and sleepiest day of Dragon*Con. At some point the adrenaline of my first two days went away and now the simple “I’m sleepy” feeling that comes from averaging a little under 6 hours of sleep per night for over a week has taken over my body. For that simple reason I decided today is the day to sit in talks and enjoy what people have to say. Currently I’m sitting in a session rudely blogging (because that’s what I do) while someone talks about debunking haunted houses. In addition to this session, I also walked around the vendor room, and I attended a session on proving the Earth is more than 6000 years old, presented by George Hrab (left with FSM) of Geologic. This morning’s “Age of the Planet Proving” session was very much a case of preaching to the choir, but there were some very powerful things that happened that I think also enlightened.

Perhaps my favorite two moments in the session both involved a woman dressed as a petite pirate in the back of the room. About 40 minutes into the talk this woman commented on the condition she faces as a science teacher in Florida. When she said she is a high school teach a spontaneous round of applause broke out.

How cool is that! This crowd of folks so respect education that they applauded this women they didn’t know for teaching. Favorite moment 1.

This woman talked about the struggles she faces in Florida: She talked about not being allowed to rock peoples faith, and asked rather pointedly if the under-emphasis of geology in our schools could be related to the daunting evidence for an old Earth and evolution that just may be too controversial for a conservative republican state. It was a powerful question. Could our science classes – geology, biology, astronomy and physics – be shrinking in emphasis because our education community if getting beaten down by the fundamentalist right? I don’t the answer to this question. I don’t know how to answer this question. I wish I did.

And the dialogue continued. People tried to turn the question to attacking good rather then attacking science. George Hrab earned my respect by advocating that we approach our dialogues with new Earth Creationists from a position of respect. While we may disagree with someone’s belief system, and in some cases think that the person we’re dealing with has a just loony belief system, we have to address strictly the problem at hand (for instance a belief the Earth is young), speak with evidence and not emotion (state the reasons the Earth is old rather than name calling) and address them as though they are someone whom could be our peers if the situation were only different.

One of the points that was brought up is the ability scientists have to take in new data and recognize the need to change their scientific schema when new discoveries are made. This is a very different view point to the one taken by most of the subset of Christian’s who see the Bible as immutable, and deny the possibility of new information to alter the meaning of the words (this is to say, if new archeological information comes up that implies reinterpretation/retranslation of some Biblical content is required, that reinterpretation/retranslation is unlikely to occur.) This discussion was initially highly vague, with general condemnation for anyone of any religious belief, and I have to admit my tummy wasn’t happy with the direction things were going. But then the petite pirate jumped in again, pointing out how the Jewish tradition has regularly reviewed Talmudic law and has been willing to evolve. This sparked the fascinating and explicit comment: “The jews aren’t f***ing with our schools.” Favorite moment 2.

And, as far as I know, it’s true. The new Earth Creationists (a group of Christians), the anti-evolution conservatives (a group of Christians), and anti-homosexual moralists (a group of mostly Christians) have all tried to limit the books in libraries, to limit the content in the classroom, and to limit the thinking of our students so it is tuned to their belief system. I have heard Mormons (technically a branch of Christianity) have worked against some schools, but I can’t identify in a 30 second google a time when people of Islamic faith, Jewish tradition, or Hinduism have fought to limit a schools content. I have found stories where both jews and muslims have fought to open schools to allow head coverings, but not to close schools to experiences other then pre-marital sex (and really, lets teach abstinence and birth control and scare kids to death with too much knowledge about viruses and the mention condoms help, but on condoms truly work [stepping back off soap box now].) Why have we allowed, in this nation of freedoms, for one really whiny set of sub-segments of one religion to have such an effect on our education system? The old saying, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” only goes so far.

I think at least part of an answer was brought up. The fundamentalist Christian right is organized and indoctrinated by their church. They have one voice. They have (for evolution) a catch phrase (teach the controversy) and they have a full chain of command in place.

The rest of us, um, don’t. We have a bunch of slightly different moral foundations, belong to a bunch of fragmented communities, we launch into lists of evidence rather than catch phrases… yada yada yada. We don’t have one voice. We don’t have a catch phrase (“Science is my Authority?”) We don’t have a weekly time to meet with the local leader of a local pro-science movement. We need to figure out how to get organized. I don’t know how.

Wow – that passage is going to get me flamed in the comments I think. But that’s what I heard saw and thought.

And now I’m in the podcast room getting inspired to listen to podiobooks. I want to pay attention, so I think it is time to stop writing potentially inflammatory content.

Be skeptical. Think critically. Follow the facts. Build a well thought out moral foundation on what ever you choose, but leave room for factual observations to describe the physical world you live in.


  1. Flame, flame, blah, blah!
    Just kidding! ;-D

    “We don’t have a weekly time to meet with the local leader of a local pro-science movement.”
    But I respectfully disagree. We meet each Monday at Astronomy Cast! You & Fraser are our leaders, Phil too, but he’s getting on a boat with Randi…

    Just keep fighting the good fight and hold fast to reality and we’ll probably be allright.
    Do a little sidewalk astronomy this Haloween too, there’ll be wall-to-wall kids eager to look through your telescope! The fundies try to get them young, so we should too. Do you have a solar scope like a PST? Talk to your local elementary school’s science teachers and arrange to do a little solar astronomy with the kids. There are young minds out there eager as all heck for reality. Let’s give them a good dose of it!
    VP, CAS

  2. Flamed? I think not! I’m fortunate in that living in England we don’t have the full problem of fundamentalists messing up our education system – yet. Recently there has been a move towards it (with Public Private Partnership faith schools – and don’t get me started on PPP for schools!), but we’re just not as religious as America, so it will (hopefully) fizzle out before too many kids get effected. Unfortunately, America (and especially American science) are too important to the rest of the world for us to ignore the struggles you have with your fundamentalists.

    ( An image has just struck me – scientists wading into crowds of the ignorant, with blazing torches held aloft. Similar to Dark Ages religious fanatics preaching to the masses… 🙂 )

    And as Richard said, you and Fraser are leading the way for us!

  3. I’m with Rich. The Internet in general, and cool science content like Astronomy Cast in particular, are our weekly meeting and pep talk.

  4. On one science-oriented podcast about a year ago, I heard a pair of commentators decry the fact that 5% of the National Academy of Sciences and 15% of scientists overall believed in God. These commentators wanted them kicked out. The fundamentalism of these podcasters is as dangerous to liberty and reason and free inquiry as is that of any of the fundies who attack school boards. Why, these pro-science bigots would have eventually come after our dear own Dr. Pamela Gay.

    On the other hand, we have a THEOLOGICAL problem with the Young Earth Creationists who confuse one of the several possible literal exegeses with the very Word itself. Young earthers like to point how the New Testament refers to death coming through Adam: allegoricalize a chapter in Genesis, they say, and you’ve negated a need for salvation altogether. The problem comes with how you treat the words “death” and “day”.

    In Genesis, God says, “IN THE DAY you eat of it, you shall die.”
    In Romans (IIRC), Paul says, “Through one man came death.”

    Now Adam eats fruit and everyone suffers spiritual death because of it– that is widely agreed upon between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists. The problem is if you’re going to be a fundie literalist about use of “day” in Genesis, you have to choose a meaning for death other than an initiation of physical dying, because the text records that Adam lives for YEARS later. That therefore means that Paul is saying that Adam brings us spritual death and that Romans itself does not necessarily deny that dinosaurs could have been eating each other before Adam.

    that’s my 2 cents.

  5. That last paragraph makes me want to send you one huge electronic InterTube High Five!
    Here’s a heart warming thought for you; Even down here in the belly-roll of the bible belt, I have a bunch of high school students who want to start a secularist society at school. I’m trying to gather as many resources as they can devour.

  6. I live in Scotland, and am a parent with four children who attend a Catholic school, although I a have no religious faith myself. If someone were to seriously propose teaching the children that the earth was only 6000 years old, they would simply be laughed at, even by the priests. Evolution is accepted, but they are also taught about Christianity, there is no contradiction.

    Firstly, how can I be expected to respect a belief that will not tolerate my viewpoint, and also seeks to supress the teaching or discussion of alternatives. Have these ‘Creationists’ been learning from the Taliban, and do you ‘respect’ the Taliban and their actions in Afghanistan?

    Secondly, why when an irrational view is put forward as part of religion is it immediately worthy of ‘respect’, but in any other context it would be considered absurd. For example if I stated the moon was made of green cheese and said the apollo missions were faked to cover it up you would say I was mad, however, if a major world religion said this was in their holy book, replace ‘mad’ with ‘devout’ or ‘person of faith’.

    Do the leaders of this ‘creationist’ movement truly believe it, or is it a tool of political control or a badge to show its members to be more devout than other Christians. I simply cannot believe that with the evidence available any rational person would deny evolution or try to put the earth at only 6000 years old!

  7. YEC and Fundies represent a minority of Christians and should not be considered representative of religion in general, though you aren’t saying otherwise, admittedly. Their views are so counter to objective evidence that they make themselves colorful targets for almost anyone that understands science. This is detrimental to the Christian faith, regrettably.

    It is surprising to see such little effort seem to go into finding an interpretation that would bring a concordance. Even more surprising, perhaps, is the thought that astronomers might be just the ones that bring forth new evidence that would assist in this endeavor. If the Sun’s natal accretion disk were surrounded by big, bright neighbors, could it not be described as appearing as “waters” (Rayleigh Scattering)? Could the Sun’s light burst forth from its shroud at the moment of “Let there be light”? These views are subjective and, therefore, not true science, but you can see how it could easily help those who might be trying to find a harmonious answer.

    We are not without example. Unfortunately for Galileo, unseating the Geocentric Theory did not come easy. The conflict was resolved after theologians and scholars – the Jesuits had quickly accepted Galileo’s arguments after the phases of Venus and other discoveries were verified; they adopted the Tychonian model — did some minor scriptural reinterpretation, which had not been done in their recent history.

  8. To hop on George’s comment, as a Christian (Catholic) married to a Christian (Lutheran) who go to a Christian church (Presbyterian [compromise, don’t ask. ;-)] ), I have to disagree when you say “most Christian’s who see the Bible as immutable.” Let’s face it, we’re talking about “born again”, fundamentalist Christians who are driving all this. Heck, being Catholic they don’t even consider me Christian, and I need to be “saved.” Just want to be specific, because I believe in Christ (define it as you want), and I believe in the big bang, the age of the planet as thought by scientists, and that Elvis lives (ok, 2 out of 3.)

  9. Just to make a quick clarification on what Ed said before rushing to prepare for another conference, when I said “most Christian’s who see the Bible as immutable” I mean “most Christian’s-who-see-the-Bible-as-immutable”, not “most Christian’s, who all see the Bible as immutable.” I was trying to refer to the sub-group.

    I too am actually a Christian of no denomination.

  10. thanks Pamela, I knew that’s what you meant (given previous discussions on your blog), but I made my comments more for everyone else reading. I love you and Fraser!

  11. I’m going to make a comment that will probably wind up long and rambling, because this article and some of the comments bring to my mind several inter-related things.

    First of all, I’m a “former” Christian. I say ‘former’ because I cannot reconcile what I find in the Bible with reality (that is not a comment on how or if other people reconcile those things, I’m speaking strictly for myself). I blame my highly analytical mind for that, by the way, because I tend to focus on and assign undue importance to details rather than the overall picture. It’s what makes me a good IT guru and a lousy manager. Although I don’t consider myself ‘Christian’ neither am I an atheist, and I allow my wife to take our children to Church.

    As far as the ‘feeling’ of anti-religion that swirls around the defense of science education, it’s absolutely real. There’s a real and vocal subset of science educators that believe that religion equals irrationality, and if you’re religious, you belong in the loony bin along with the paranoid schizophrenics. Read Pharyngula, or EvolutionBlog, and I don’t even really need to bring up Richard Dawkins, do I? Even Phil Plait goes off on the “reich” wing on a regular basis. These people in particular go beyond saying that science should not be subject to religious control, and either say that science should, in essence, replace religion, or that religion should be discarded. I happen to disagree with them on that point, but I hear clearly what they are saying, I deeply respect them and their opinions, and I understand (I think) why they are saying it… and here’s the deal. It’s our fault.

    “Our” in this case means the religious moderates… those that are not atheists or agnostics who accept the body of knowledge that we have acquired through the application of science. The current battle between science and religion has resulted in large part because we have let the religious right take the stage. We have stood by while they attacked biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, physics, and essentially all of science. We have in large part let them do this because it’s not polite or “PC” for someone to attack the beliefs of another. But it’s clear that something is going to have to change. If we want to continue to live in a country with our current religious freedoms, we are going to have to take back the debate, and frame it in terms of the continuum of beliefs, rather than the end-points of left-wing atheism vs right-wing theocrats.

    I was raised in the American (i.e., liberal Yankee) Baptist tradition, which is several degrees more liberal than the majority of Baptists. Even so, I remember hearing arguments against evolution and an old Earth in Sunday School and at summer camp. These views were not challenged publicly by the church pastor, even though I know from conversations with him that he did not believe that way. The ideas went unchallenged because he felt that it might alienate some of the members and would be “bad for the church”. I left that church soon after. There are entire Baptist conventions that have abandoned the bottom-up model of the traditional Baptist church and instead are authoritarian anti-science if-you-don’t-agree-with-us-you-are-an-atheist churches.

    So there are the two ‘sides’ in this debate… at least the two most vocal and visible sides. I disagree with them both, but I identify more with the atheists than I do with the religious right. They just make more sense to me. I read Pharyngula daily and confess to a certain discomfort when Myers says that the religious moderates are enabling the religious right to gain so much power, because he’s right. Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog goes even farther, denying that there is such a thing as a religious moderate, or, if they do exist, that they have anything worthwhile to contribute to the struggle for science education.

    That has to change. That has to change big time, and it has to change soon. Otherwise we will wind up with the prospect of the constitutional separation between church and state being eroded away to the point of meaninglessness. If you think Iraq is a bloodbath with just two major factions, what about America with it’s dozens of major factions of Christians, all perfectly willing to listen to their more extreme members advocating the forced conversion of the other religious groups. Think of Mormons, Jehova’s Witnesses, and Southern Baptists all fighting for control of a small town. How about the ICR and AIG, with guns, in front of the museum of natural history, making sure that people are not ‘led to sin’ by the displays inside.

    So, in order to prevent being rendered irrelevant, the moderate religious *must* begin to take a place at the table.

    I know I’m ranting, and painting a gloomy picture, but it’s been with me for a while. I had first-hand experience with what happens when a local public entity is simply *afraid of a lawsuit* because they *might* offend someone’s beliefs. In 1999, here in the town where I live, a planned high school senior level ELECTIVE was shelved by the administration, simply because it was an advanced course in evolution, and they didn’t want to give anyone reason to sue them.

    That brings up my last point: all too often the encroachments on science education come from within the science education establishment itself, out of fear that someone, somewhere might not like the facts and take exception to the contents of their course, or textbook. A book by the former director of Americans United detailed several examples of where the content of a book was changed, and certain facts were “de-emphasized” in an effort to make the book more appealing to certain religious segments (which happened to have their own private schools and bought lots of textbooks).

    (oh look, I seem to have worn a hole in the soapbox).

  12. Hi Pamela! Long time, no comment. I’ve been busy organizing my own counter-culture gathering (see link). Anyhoo, I see pretty obvious parallels between creationist leaders and corporate CEOs/bigwigs. Both power-hungry and greedy..the currency is the only real difference. Even so, Fundamentalists market for your devotion, knowing full-well money will follow. Big Business markets for your money, knowing devotion to their brand will follow…along with more money of course!

    Then here we are, these secular scattered flocks of birds hanging out up on the power lines…observing all this going on below, and chirping to passers by, “THINK FOR YOURSELF!” Only the observant and curious will even look up, and fewer still will climb a telephone pole to see for themselves. Ultimately, an individual chooses to seek fact, to be spoon-fed truth, or somewhere inbetween.

    I am not worried that they will start teaching my kids young earth theory in school. It is obviously disputed by numerous facts. I worry that, in a general sense, facts will become blurred in their classroom if there are constant accommodations for religious beliefs. Might it affect their cognitive reasoning, and in turn weaken their ability to deflect mainstream media or purporters of “truth” effectively? It’s different from going to a school that teaches you literal bible interpretation as fact…I see how steadfast and self-assured some of these kids tend to be, and others choose not to believe it…they seek fact instead. At least they have decisiveness going for them!

  13. Pam:
    Have a good time at the EPO conference! Are you presenting?
    Take lots of notes & photos. Then pass on the outreach ideas to us.
    OK, I’m an outreach junkie! 😀

  14. Look under events and you can get my whole schedule 🙂

  15. @Autumn:

    “I am not worried that they will start teaching my kids young earth theory in school. It is obviously disputed by numerous facts.”

    I *am* worried. I think that the religious right considers smuggling their beliefs into science classes to be one of their major goals. Look at Dover. Look at the book the DI just published as a ‘textbook’ for biology classes. Consider that there are communities where just about everyone thinks the same way, and nobody would raise a fuss if a teacher gave them a little gospel along with the petri dish.

    As I said in my long post (which is awaiting moderation) I’ve seen school districts bend over backwards in order to avoid ‘offending’ someone’s religious beliefs, even if that means gutting important parts of the curriculum.

  16. I am with you all the way Pamela, any fundamentalist view for me always seems to limit thinking and create hatred for this reason alone it must be wrong. I am Catholic and in England anyway we are encouraged to learn. The Bible is the word of God but it was written by the hand of man.

  17. I think this points out the essential task that we as teachers have to clearly and accurately communicate the nature and process of science.

    I spend significant time and energy in *all* my intro level courses in defining terms like “theory” and helping students understand what science is all about as well as how it is limited.

    It’s also important to do this in a way which communicates respect for other positions and to point out that science is not “out to get” religious people.

  18. Wow, no pulling the punches with this one eh Dr. G? Lemme preface my comments by saying I am a student at SIUE currently in the Pharmacy program and also someone that is only a summer removed from having Dr. G as my physics prof (2 wonderful semesters!).

    I will say that my personal opinion is that the earth is not billions of years old and I am hard pressed to believe in any sort of evolution. Although, 6,000 also seems like a rather small number for the age of the earth as well.

    I believe the issues here are mainly that both sides of the argument believe without a doubt they are the correct view. Science “knows without a doubt” that evolution takes place and the earth is billions of years old. Creationists “know without a doubt” that the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution did not and does not take place. Extremists on any side of an argument are dangerous.

    I do advocate a class in schools that deals with teaching of both viewpoints. Some type of dialogue that allows younger adults to weigh the facts for themselves. I bet that is what most people here have done on their own as well. They have weighed the facts they see and decided that the earth is or is not that old or that evolution did or did not take place.

    I am not sure I had a groundbreaking point to make here, but I did want to express my opinion on this subject.

    Oh, and just to lighten this a bit, I am not getting fatter, I am just evolving for the next ice age =).

  19. Hmmm…
    “…(A) class in schools that deals with teaching of both viewpoints.”
    This would be a fair and just thing to do if science was a democracy. But it isn’t, it’s a meritocracy. Only ideas of merit are able to survive the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. That’s the fun of science. Here’s how it works:
    1. You have an idea, you polish it up and you have a hypothesis, then…
    2. You keep on polishing it and refining it untill you have a theory. You can tell it’s a theory if it makes accurate predictions of observations you have made and explains observations others have made in the past.
    3. Then your peers attack your theory from all sides and try to poke holes in it. If your theory survives this…
    4. It makes you famous and you get grant money for life! If not…
    5. You go back to work and refine it further and resubmit it to scrutiny.
    Zat make sense?
    As for scientists being “without a doubt” well… we’re FULL of doubt, it took Darwin absolutely forever (like 20 years) to release his “Origin of Species”. He only did so because he was about to be skunked by Wallace.
    I hope I have been courteous and respectful in every way in my response.
    I fully intend to shamelessly borrow your ice age quip! Great stuff! 😀

  20. First let me say again it was an honor to meet you this past weekend. Your awesome.

    I am also pleased to see that there are still some folks calling for civility in the discussion. To often of late I have seen Atheists and skeptics turn to attacking language and name calling when talking about the creationists. A person is not delusional, stupid, or retarded for believing in god and trying to reconcile that faith with the world. Argue the facts but keep it civil has always been my motto on such discussions and I am glad to see I am not the only one to say so.

    Just because you may believe someone is wrong doesn’t mean we should be rude about.

    Anyway sounds like a lovely panel.

  21. To Chris B.

    You’re incorrect in saying that science “‘knows without a doubt’ that evolution takes place”. That said, I’ll allow that some scientists use that language, and you’re right that this issues has been polarized because of the actions of both sides.

    In reality, the whole purpose of science is to doubt. We constantly doubt and test our models. Creationism is exactly the opposite of this – founded on a “revealed” statement which is not open to question (in their view). When science does say an idea is “true”, it’s because that idea has been through so much testing and held up so well that it’s not reasonable to say it’s not true. And that is the case for evolution, as well as many other areas of our knowledge about the world, including the Earth’s age.

  22. I deal with these discussions a lot and have trouble keeping my cool. I mean, how can you deal with a person who denies logic? Like people who think Dinosaurs died out in the flood, or subcribe to Inteligent Design because they, “have a feeling”. What do you say, “your feeling is wrong” ?

    I live in a part of the Country where this is not an issue in the school systems, but I’m shocked when I see on TV that this discussion is still going on. There’s a wonderful documentary called “A Flock of Dodos” about the battle between evolution and Inteligent Design.

    I simply don’t get how people can oppose something totally backed up with science, but favor something with nothing to back it up whatsoever. I guess that’s why they call it “faith”.

    I also want to say I love AstronomyCast!

  23. Rather late for a comment perhaps, but…
    “God created it with its history included” I’ve found to be a sentence that short-circuits a lot of pointless argument. And, demanding a “literal” interpretation of scripture is impossible without reading the words with the cultural milieu in which they were reading; all nuance has been lost.
    None of this should be a problem, however. In my experience fundamentalists have lost their Faith.

  24. “None so blind as those who will not see”

    It seems the last post here was over 20 days ago. Perhaps this topic has lost it’s legs but better late than never to voice an opinion I say!

    I am impressed by the overall civility of the posts here. I should like to point out there is a difference (albeit a subtle one) between fundamentalists and fanaticisim. Many religions and I dare say, many theorists have a fringe element that are fanatics. In this case we are discussing christianity and evolution. Fanatical christians reject science and conversely fanatical evolutionists reject religion.

    To quote a scripture from Isaiah: “Come now, let us REASON together,” says the LORD.”

    Concerning Genesis, we have to understand that Moses was trying to describe the begining in the terms he and his audience could understand in their time and if we use reason we can understand it also in our time.

    As an example, the first three verses of Genesis:
    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    If we use reason we find that this observation is exactly correct.

    Indulge me for just a minute. These verses DO NOT describe the creation of our planet. That occurs in verses 9-13 (on the third day.) What the first 3 verses describe is the account of the Big Bang!
    God Created:
    1.) Heavens – Space IE the Universe. A place to put everything
    2.) Earth – Matter (formless and empty)- Not our planet! Elements!
    3.) Water – Created with matter but mentioned because it is fundemental for life. God’s spirit hovered because of it’s life giving properties.
    4.) Light – Energy

    Science proves by mathematics that the Big Bang occured and Moses described this the best he knew how.

    I agree with Chris B. above when he stated… “I will say that my personal opinion is that the earth is not billions of years old and I am hard pressed to believe in any sort of evolution. Although, 6,000 also seems like a rather small number for the age of the earth as well.”

    Our dating process makes an assumption of the original state of the test material at it’s time of creation. There is also a presumption that the test material has not been modified in any way from it’s creation point therfore the decay rates must be correct. These are assumptions and presumptions that in fact can not be supported with accuracy because we do not have a constant to verify our assumptions. Is the earth only 6000 years old? Doubtful… Is the earth 4.5 billion years old? Doubtful…

    As to evolution its self… I have a hard time as a reasonable thinker to postulate (As a recent show on the Science Channel purposed) that the mammals that competed for food with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were rodents that evolved in to humans. Reason and evolutionary theory part ways at this point because 65 million years later we still have mice,rats and now humans.

    In theory if all animal life started as an ameba type organism then the extrapolation of the evolution theory should bring us to one “Super Species” not the diversity of species we see today.

    One last point on evolution… Why do animals only get to evolve? Why do the plants get left out? Again… come let us reason together… why don’t trees behave like Treebeard and the Ents? (ancient walking trees from the Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers)If I was a tree I’d think it would be pretty handy to pull up roots and walk to the next water source. Yes, we can possibly say that we have DIFFERENT species of plant life than what was here long ago but lets be honest… they have not done a whole lot of evolving. They still live in dirt, soak up the sun, take in carbon dioxide and let off oxegen.

    In each case in the Genesis account God created the species “according to their kind”. Plant life, birds, land animals and marine life. “Survival of the Fittest” to a reasonable mind simply means that a cow will be a cow but it will be the better cow because the sick and weak ones die off!

    Genesis also speaks to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Many assume that the serpent described in the garden was a snake. However if you look at it’s punishment you will see that it was a dinosaur:

    14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will CRAWL ON YOUR BELLY and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

    The “serpent” in the garden had legs and stood upright (Dinosaurs). If you look at the reptiles left on earth today (snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, tortoises, etc…) THEY ALL CRAWL ON THEIR BELLIES!

    Science actually proves the Bible, Fanatical Evolution Theorists want to describe a world without God.

  25. –ö–∞–∫ –æ–±—ã—á–Ω–æ –ø—Ä–æ—Å—Ç–æ —Å—É–ø–µ—Ä –æ–±—å—ë–º–Ω–∞—è —Å—Ç–∞—Ç—å—è –∏ –∫–∞–∫ –≤—Å–µ–≥–¥–∞ –¥–æ—á–∏—Ç–∞–ª –¥–æ –∫–æ–Ω—Ü–∞ 🙂

  26. Hmm it seems like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I
    guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new
    to everything. Do you have any points for novice blog writers?
    I’d really appreciate it.


  1. A Ler…-- Rastos de Luz - [...] The Earth is more than 6000 years old no Star Stryder [...]
  2. The Earth is more than 6000 years old - [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.