Biblical literalism is a modernist interpretation of the bible.

I am a theistic evolutionist so I take the author of Genesis to simply describe that fact that God created the universe, but not in as literally described.

Evolution and Darwinian evolution are two differetn subjects.

One is science, one is not.

Micro evolution.. the ability for a species to adapt to it's environment, yet remain within teh same species. is a science.

Macro-evolution..( The Darwinian form of Evolution), which is the ability for one species to evolve into a completely new species.. is science fiction.. and there is no science to back it up and never has been.

So are you a Theistic Macroevolutionist or a Theistic Microevolutionist, Olias?

If you are a Theistic Macroevolutionist, I would challenge you to show ome one piece of science that supports that view. Becasue after havin g studied the subject in depth , I can tell you how the science over hte years has shown the opposite.

^those pics pretty much demolish the idea of evolution

the most famous picture in this category woufl be these of the plesiosaur carcass caught by a japanese fishing troller off the coast of new zealand some years back.. they took tissue samples before dropping it back in the ocean.. the japanese scientists declares it was a plesiosaur,.. the american scientists declared it must have been the carcass of a basking shark. hmm.. I wonder which scientists are more biased?









A plesiosaur skull-

seen it before. More likely then not...not what you think.

And then we hace the mummified "dinosaur" foudn in montana.. that still had it's organs in decent shape..it's skin..etc. But fo course, it has to be 67 millions of years old.. .riiight. Cause , modern science has ANY clue what happens to things over that amount of time.

and it can't be...why?

The probability of this earth being only thousands of years old is likewise as unlikely.

BTW, where are you getting these pics?

just google mummified dinosaur. It is pretty famous.. they have done ct scans on it and x rays and such.


Also, what is your point of the earth being thousand of years old..? I've never said I supported that view.

I don't believe it's millions of years old.. but alot more than 6,000 as well.

Yeah, the young earth stuff is really far fetched.

I was working under the assumption you were a young earther. I am highly skeptical, however will to be more open in that sense. Though I do believe the earth is quite ancient, as is the universe.

Oh and that mummified dino pic...it was dated back 77 million years.

BTW, MetL, you do know that the Big Band theory was formulated by a Christian, right?

67 million years.

Again.. you know that there is no way to actual date that amoutn of time right..? And it is being dated based on Dawrwinian prehistoric history, not on scientific measuring, right?

C14 ( carbon 14 dating) is considered semi accurate up to 75,000 years of age. But it is only accurate within 5730 years.. becasue that is the half life of carbon 14.

The other tests they use is too measure thigns that are older than this are POtassium Argon ( which is not only not accurate, but measures based on radioactive decay.. which is not full understood in science.) Let alone it is typically used on volcanic rock.. and not "supposed to be used on fossils.

THey also use Uranium hal life measurments .. strontium... all of these are theoretical in understanding of their half lifes and are used to measure particles. Again.. using these methods for fossils is about as scientific as voodoo.


Did you know that the margin of error with radioactive half life dating is anywhere from 10 to 100 million years.. give or take? Humanity as we know has been around for 5 thousand.. and we 're dating stuff with a margin of error of millions of years...

Anything that gets dated over 75,000 years old.. is being dated on faith, my friend. Anything older than 5700 years old is being dating without accuracy.

i honestly dont know how old the earth is, i do know though that just bcoz the bible was written 6000 years ago has nothing to do with the age of the earth, it has to do with the history accounts being recorded, a large portion of the book of genesis, if im correct, was recorded long after, long long after they happened. do i beleive in a simple form of evolution? yes, i beleive creatures can slightly change but not into radically different and more complex species, things just dont work that way.