Biblical Basis for an Old Earth
  • AndyR March 2012


    Again, thank you.

    My problem with what you are saying is that I do not understand on what you base your statement that you are a christian. Consequently I find I don't follow the reasoning that underlies your arguments.

    From various readings you appear to believe that the Trinity is not as traditionally understood, i.e. not definitively 3 separate persons in one.

    That the bible is not the authorative word of God, but can be open to various interpretations.

    The atonement is also subject to possible varieties in interpretation.


    So, could you let me know what your faith is based on and then hopefully I can see how it underlies your reasoning.

    At the moment you seem more to be attacking traditional christianity rather than proclaiming it

  • SimonSimon March 2012
    I believe in God, the Father almighty, 
    creator of heaven and earth.
    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried;
    he descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again;
    he ascended into heaven,
    he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
    and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting.
  • SimonSimon March 2012
    In addition to the Apostle's creed, I think I try to take a more nuanced approach to my Christian faith by trying to understand the wider factors that influence what I believe. I read a lot, question a lot and try to make sense of traditional Christianity in light of contemporary discoveries. I don't think any aspect of belief should be beyond questioning or examination.

    In light of my approach, I see certain things that you say as being based upon a very narrow interpretation of certain doctrine. As I have previously held similar beliefs to the ones you seem to be defending I have been trying to prod you into directions that in the past I found helpful.

    Christianity is not about what we do or don't believe, it is about a journey through life in companionship with God.
  • Michael March 2012



    You are very traditionalist and biblical!

  • SimonSimon March 2012
    I've just changed my mind about the comment I made above:

    Christianity is not about what we do or don't believe, it is about a journey through life in companionship with God.

    I think I would like to caveat this by saying that to be at all useful as a label the word "Christianity" has to identify some sort of common belief - perhaps as outlined in the apostles creed above. So maybe what I meant to say was:

    "Christianity is only partly about what we do or don't believe, the more important part is a journey through life in companionship with God"
  • AndyR March 2012

    Simon, You quote the Apostles Creed as your basis of faith but then add caveats. It appears to me that you are seeking proofs regarding God from sources which cannot give them;

    by that I mean - you acknowledge God as the creator but then expect that creation (man) to somehow explain God. This cannot be as man cannot fully comprehend Him or understand him in this life.

    Sadly I note that you do not include a personal faith and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ in your explanation. To me, that is what makes one a christian, when He enters our life and forgives us for our sin.

    Iread an article in a magazine over the weekend. The gentleman expresses the view I hold better than I could, maybe ou would like to read it at


  • SimonSimon March 2012
    Hi Andy - what will really blow your mind is that I quite often lead worship in evangelical/charismatic settings with a very strong emphasis on personal relationships with God and experiencing the movement of the Holy Spirit - so you can't quite write me off as a liberal agnostic who only attends some sort of stuffy high Anglican congregation ;-) ! Believe it or not there are a lot of us with "personal relationships with God" who are quite happy to accept evolution and modern science/academic thought!

  • Michael March 2012

    I get rather fed up with comments like that Andy. As Simon said may of us who accept evolution have personal relationships with Christ.


    However what you read in creation.com is that we are churchians and compromisers which is offensive and a false accusation


    BTW what is wrong with this forum. I keep getting mnessages that there is a curvyobject error making lreading posts slow. Further as I type the letters do not appear on screen but appear very slowly one by one . I have waited  2 mins 50 secs for all the type to appear for these three lines.I will not post again until it is altered

  • AndyR March 2012

    I didn't realise I had categorised you Simon!!

    My intention is not to cause offence but to point out that, I assume unintentionally,  the emphases you (plural) have, appear to prioritise science before God. As I said previously that which was created cannot make understandable that which created us as he is way beyond our comprehension

    Ultimately God will judge us all, so I do not wish to do that, but I do think I have the right to disagree and to express why I do so.

    Re creation.com - they take a position which you can disagree with as is your prerogative   PROVIDED you can show their arguments are wrong.

    How did life begin?

    How does new genetic information appear?

    I've never heard a convincing argument or seen proof for either from evolution.

  • SimonSimon March 2012
    "the emphases you (plural) have, appear to prioritise science before God."

    No, the emphasis is on respecting both the book of scripture and the book of nature. God reveals himself to us in many different ways, and one of those ways is through science. My contention is that your theology/understanding of God is not particularly well developed if you cannot understand this.

    "How did new life begin"
    - this isn't a question about evolution.

    "How does new genetic information appear?" - look up polyploidy or indeed even chromosomal cross-over. The problem here is not accepting mechanisms, it's the naivety of the YEC/ID community when it comes to basic genetics.
  • Michael March 2012

    Creation.com aka  CMI makes it very clear that they believe the earth is only 6000 years old and all geology is wrong.

    Having read many of their articles I have found them consistently wrong.

    Also do you agree with their nastiness to people like Simon and me calling us compromisers and churchians?Also they have said I am a secular humanist!

  • AndyR March 2012

    "How did new life begin" - this isn't a question about evolution.

    Sorry Simon

    But every evolutionist I've read includes life coming into being as being part of the evolutionary process!


    I did look it up, part of the reproductive process.

    Still does not explain how life began and nor does it explain how the alleged single cell 'life' that started managed to become two and more cells or develop a reproductive process.

    Nor does it explain how a flower became an animal.

    So, how did life begin? How did it go from 1 to 2 cells


    You think they are consistently wrong because you believe differently to them and presumably you have examined the evidence they present and reject it as being true. That is your prerogative.

    For myself, yes I do believe that the views you express are compromising of biblical teaching.

    As  I said in my last post we all have to face God and explain ourselves, so while I strongly disagree with your views I respect your right to have them, and leave God to deal with you as He will - as He also will deal with me as He will.

    As I don't understand the word 'churchian' I pass on that.


  • GavinM March 2012
    I don't understand the word 'evolutionist' so I will pass on that too. :o)

    And also flowers becoming animals as flowers didn't arrive on the scene until well after animals.

    Andy, evolution isn't about the origin of life, but it is about the development of life once it has got going. There are many ideas for how life itself emerged from non-living components and it is an active area of investigation. If scientists are conflating the two in there writings then they are just as mistaken.

    I think Simon's point about polyploidy is basically that the creation of any new life through a natural mechanism (such as reproduction) is the origination of new genetic information. When you are in church on Sunday take a look around you. Its why we all look different to each other. The evidence that new genetic information can arise is literally staring you in the face every day! It is an amazing thing! And we don't need the latest in genetic technologies or arguments to see it happening. It is God at His creative best.

    Genuine question, I don't see how the discovery of a scientific theory for the natural origin of life would invalidate Christian theology? Nor why the lack of one (currently) should support it?
  • SimonSimon March 2012

    I actually laughed out loud when I saw your comment about flowers turning into animals! If you are so naive about biology and evolutionary theory you do not really have a right to try and tell others - with PhD's in the subject - that they are wrong. Or perhaps you do have a right to voice an opinion, but should not expect anyone to take it seriously.

  • AndyR March 2012


    A bit patronising of you. I actually do not know the word churchian so cannot comment on it's usage.


    Thank you, very revealing answers

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20393495/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-life-earth-began/<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

    The earliest evidence for life on Earth
    comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria


    OK, so I got it the wrong way round, how did plants come from animals, as we all came from the same source - allegedly


    Not only patronising but arrogant I'm afraid. Not one of the virtues I'm aware of.

    The truly revealing thing is that you both fail to answer in any way my statements of faith or identify with them. If anything you demonstrate that your trust is in your own intellectual abilities to find the 'right' answers and adjust God and His word to suit. I find that very sad in any person who describes themselves as a christian.

    God bless and farewell