I agree

Thank you. As you said though, details such as that doesn't matter in the grand scheme as God created it and one day we'll go home to Heaven.

Exodus 20:11 mentions and confirms six days yet again in Exodus 31:17 the week is literally based off of the six days of creation plus the day of rest the jews follow the sabbath where they believe that they should not do anything one the seventh day out of respect for God.

To play devil's advocate, creation is six days, yes. But is that God's days or man's days? We've applied to man's day. But a day to God is as a thousand years. He's outside of time so it was in six days, but that's still above our understanding. Another support for my comment is when Christ was about to ascend, He said He would be back soon and that generation would not pass away. Here we are two thousand years later. Again, God is external to time so soon is soon for Him but maybe a long time for us bound by time. I'm a staunch Christian, but food for thought and evidence that this debate on the minor subject of the age of the earth doesn't matter in the end.

Exactly there is always questions that is why there is still a debate over young/old earth.

That I agree with.

Wells another point to bring into this discussion is time didn't exist before the creation. @Southernpatriot01

God created day and night during the creation hence creating time.

Indeed.

Could I just point out this one thing.
2 Peter Chapter 3 verses 8-9
“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day.”
Then there are more areas where “in thy court a day is like a thousand of years”....
Sooooooo if in God’s 6 days of creation and 1 day of resting. That could have been 7,000 years of the earth and everything being made, then God resting. So, to that verse and some other’s...we could say. The Earth is way older than just 6,000 years. Because of that, then, we could assume God made it in 6,000 years, but scaled it down to the time of Man

True i think there a verse that Says he existed before time for he is the beginning and the end

Correct to both of you. That's why I try to stay out of the debate on the age of the earth. It ultimately doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Because I support the Southern Confederacy. I don't support everything she was built on, but I support her all the same. Slavery was an issue, that's undeniable and neither do I support it, but there were other reasons everyone discards and always unjustly imposes a modern sense of opinion and morality if you will on to the past.

Again, that was an issue, but there were others. However, here is not the appropriate chat for this fun conversation. Feel free to dm me as I greatly enjoy this topic and even wrote a 15pg paper on it for fun.

What are your thoughts on what I said appertaining yesterday's debate?

Just my essay in general I reckon.

Ok. But yes, the massive one before I pinged you.

I am a Creationist, yes. I'm also a staunch Christian.

Theories are high, yes, but not fully proven as laws are so there is still room for flaws in a theory no matter how narrow.

Yes. That's why I said still has room for flaws no matter how narrow. That means not necessarily likely, but possible.

Shoot. I may not be able to respond in depth immediately as I'm about ready to take a test for school.

peer-reviewed is not a perfect system and should always be taken with a grain of salt -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html

ya very small though. It's more of things adapting in order to survive. It doesn't happen subconsciously.

well depends how would you define the word adapt

ya they believe that the monkey became a person over millions of years. They believe that it slowly adapted into a new creature.

ok but that brings us back to what I was saying earlier last night
about adaptation the odds of it actually occurring are 1/364...followed by 1,625 zeros. You are more likely to win the poweraball lottery 200 times in a row than for adaptation to happen once. How is it possible for creatures to have adapted so "fast" (millions of years) with those odds. It's impossible. (The odds of winning the powerball lottery are 1 in 292,201,338

ya well even in multiple generations it would take so long then the earth wouldn't even be millions of years old it would be older than fathomable.

the odds would still be against it

Ok so (just clarifying) you believe that people evolved slowly over time? Like it happened in stages?

no i mean from monkeys

ok well what about this arguement

The human body systems prove evolution wrong There are 10 interdependent systems that exist. All of which cannot work unless the other 9 are already functioning. So which ones evolved first and why and in what order? And how would any of them function or even exist until the others evolved?

the skeletal system, cardio vascular system, nervous system, reproductive system, endocrine system, respiratory system, lymphatic system, muscular system... etc.

but one small change in the system can compromise it. The whole system wouldnt change all at once

ok but changes in the nervous system or cardiovascular system would have to be tiny in order to not fail. It would take so long. Longer than millions of years.

with the odds presented and the fact that the changes would have to be so small it would take longer than millions of years

it would take longer than that. Tiny minuscule changes that would not occur every generation. Maybe not in several generations. Then you have the case where the change would fail or be problematic and the creature would die. Then you'd be back to waiting for another generation with a change. The odds are against it.

What happens when all those minuscule changes build on top of each other? How do you think evolution happens over small scales? It's weird - you believe in the prerequisite to evolution (the fact that changes *do* happen over generations) but then are unable to conclude that this could result in long-term change over *many* generations.

Also, simply saying that "there is no probable chance that evolution succeeded over and over again to bring us humans, etc." is not a good argument. Many thousands of species died as a result of natural selection, but many others stemmed from those species to create variations, etc.

That's the thing, humans are not special, you're talking about humanity and going backwards saying "it makes no sense that humans came out of all of this", but humanity was random

I'm not looking at it from a creationist perspective I'm looking at it from a logical perspective

(notice that the two are mutually exclusive)