well what would you call it then if it has not evolved. maybe it just saw the light, and came to relise that things dont just happen, one moment nothing! the next pow, the next oceans, mountains, rivers that to make the lakes, the sun, the moon, millions of stars. the big bang?

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

Here: http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php
Nuclear physicist, Dr Russell Humphreys, explains that the earth's magnetic field suggests a young earth.

who am I to argue? seems they are to busy arguing amongst them selves, but nobody ever proved it was all creation. some say the planet is 4 million years old, some say even more, now we have 10,000 so its obvious at least two out of three have it all wrong. thats life as we know it.

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

Here is a paper by Dr. Russell Humphrey, strongly suggesting a very young earth:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... GeoMag.htm

Note: The evolutionist geologist, Brent Dalrymple, was offered the opportunity to review Dr Humprhrey's paper, AND have his review published. The evolutionist did not take up the opportunity to defend his case. This action makes him look like a loser to me.

so what are you saying God created a substandard planet ?

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

Sorry Jim, I don't understand where you get the “substandard planet” from.

I am saying; there is evidence worthy of serious consideration that raises a lot of huge questions over the dogma of evolution, and its associated requirement of an earth of billions of years old.

I am also pointing out that when a serious scientist produces a series of papers powerfully suggesting that the earth is not as old as the evolutionist require it to be, then the young earth possibility is blatantly ignored by the evolutionists. This behaviour on the part of evolutionists is nothing short of blind faith in an evolutionary dogma, where they refuses to look at any evidence that contradicts or threatens their Godless theory.

The truth is, evolution is a crutch that many hang on to in a desperate act of blind faith in order that they can refuse to accept there is a Creator, and all the associated implications.

A court jury is instructed to weigh the evidence carefully before coming to a judgement. Sadly, people will not look hard at the evidence against the theory of evolution, neither will they take sufficient time and trouble to truly investigate and understand the claims of Scripture and the historical and verifiable evidence that backs it up. The response goes something like; 'I don't like what the evidence says, therefore it must be wrong'. The evidence is casually written off as 'old wives tales', or 'the imaginations of the weak and deluded'.

The walls of Jericho that tumbled down on command, the flooded planet for 40 days and 40 nights, the Ark, climbing the mountain then re appearing with tablets of stone with the ten commandments scribed that nobody else has seen, where are they? so many things that are word of mouth, the pyramids at least can be seen and round about that time, garden of Eden, the serpent all must have been in somebodies imagination, sorry I just don't buy it, but I don't set about others to suggest it is all pie in the sky, its free choice, and I have chosen mine, you are free to choose whatever, what strikes me in the lengths the believers go to prove the unprovable, at least it makes sense, rather from absolute nothing, overnight one fully grown man, and one fully grown woman, and a serpent.

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

Well put Jim I agree with you.

I would respectfuly suggest that the above is the grasping of straws, ignoring the evolutionary facts to which are proven, and that statement fits better and nearer the truth (as I see it) with both sides reversed. we did not arrive with the knowledge and understanding we have now, that has evolved from whatever the starting point was, be it ape, or a ready constructed male and female homo sapien

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. There still isn't one shred of hard evidence for Darwin's silly theories, in fact, the more fossils they find, the more Darwin is disproved. People should be told.