The plethora of galaxies, planets (I'll want to comment on this later too, don't let me forget), and stars? What set off the big bang as all the energy was at rest and we know according to Sir Isaac Newton that objects at rest will stay at rest until an external force acts on it. What then is the external force? Well I assert God. You might ask me to prove that, and I'll point back to prior statements of mine. You might also ask me who created, for your sake and the sake of argument I'll use quotation marks, "God". Well, if He was created, He wouldn't be "God" and whoever created Him would be "God". That is a slippery slope as long as Pi. The Christian stance is that God has always been and always will be and was not created. That makes him, as many have stated throughout history, the "uncaused first cause" necessary for the big bang and arguably evolution, which I will presently dive into.

To preface evolution, let us divide it into macro and micro and define both beginning with micro. Micro evolution, or adaptations to be the definition, is extremely well proven and I do accept so I will not spend time on it. Macro evolution, or the change in kinds/life from non life, I disagree with. To answer your burden of proof argument before we begin, I believe here the burden of proof is in you primarily seeing as evolution on the whole is called the Theory of evolution. Emphasis on theory meaning it is yet to be conclusively proven. You'll respond by saying I can't prove God created it, touche to a point, but that connects to the story I want to tell later. I also refer to my earlier comments on the burden of proof. But for your burden, I want you to show me a change in kinds, not species, but kinds. For instance, I don't want a German Shepherd to a golden retriever, but a cow to a cat. I'll spare you the effort as you can't do it seeing there is no such example.

For the sake of argument, let's presume that man came from apes, which I disagree with, and the evidence is their similarities. Are the "parents" of mankind apes and bananas as half of the human chromosomes match the banana. Of course we didn't come from a banana and you would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes that. Going further, what "created" or "evolved into" the ape or the banana? Going back to the beginning of the theory, all there was in existence was elements. I presume we also all agree elements are lifeless. How then did lifeless elements give rise to life filled single celled organisms much less complex life forms and multi celled organisms?

First there was nothing, then it became everything?

The Christian answer is that God created life when He brought the necessary pieces together and breathed life into it for God is life. We further see this in Ezekiel 37. For the sake of space and time, I won't quote it here, but I highly recommend reading it. I use the King James Version if you want to follow along exactly how I'm reading and interpreting it. Thus I think I've answered everything discussed, or at least the major points of it, so for that story. For ease, I'll provide the link to the video. You may accept it, though I doubt it.

https://youtu.be/tb4QWfXUvWk

How can all come from nothing?

@Peak Centrism Whenever you are available, also feel free to dm me.

I didn't claim that Son Dank. When addressing that, it was under the comment, "for the sake of argument." You should know my beliefs by this point decently well.

No, I didn't mean to fit that into the context of what you were saying

just another rebuttal to his argument

Ah, ok.

From what I read, meaning no disrespect, but y'all were just having a circular argument and that goes nowhere but two unhappy and truly argumentative people. That's not the point of a debate to go in circles. That and circulars aren't fun.

As a Christian, I find it interesting that so many people try to figure out how old the earth is, how God made it, what the science behind how God made it, while trying to make the Bible and science work together. While I do admit that I find the idea rather fascinating, I don't understand how people make it an aspect of their faith. Sure God created the world through His voice. He spoke it into existence. But He doesn't explain the exact scientific specifications, and so many people try to fill in the blanks with scientific and biblical evidence. But God never tells us exactly how. He expects us to believe that He made the earth, and saved man through His Son. To have faith. I personally believe that, no matter how fascinating the subject is, if we are meant to know, we would have known by now, but it's not essential information to the faith, and to the growing of your relationship with Jesus Christ. My question is why do Christian try to illegitimize other Christians for their beliefs regarding this subject and similar subjects if we aren't meant to know and it's not an essential aspect of our faith? Anyone have any thought on this? (sorry if my wording or flow is a bit janky, I'm thinking out loud)

Actually the Bible pretty much gives you the exact age of the earth through textual evidence.

it is essential information to the faith because it is written in the Bible. nowhere in the Bible did God say the earth was old

Please elaborate. Perhaps I have missed something in my studies that you have noticed?

I think that because people challenge Christianity with other theories like evolution, Christians turn to scientific reasoning to provide arguments against those theories. I personally don't think I'd be a Christian today if I hadn't started looking for physical evidence of God existing, but I agree that I should have more faith, it's something I need to work on

He never said that it was young either. There is a lot of grey area that allows for both arguments for both old and new earth, as well as scientific evidence supporting both

Glad that you found your way home

Thanks, so am I :)

@Eggy If it gives us the exact age, then why is this still an ongoing debate?

First of all we start out with the fact that creation is a literal 6 days plus a day of rest. He is clear that it is a literal six days due to the fact that it is mentioned several times throughout the Bible. Next we have the genealogies that specifically give ages and the names clarifying a certain amount of time. So from creation there is roughly about 2,000 years til the birth of Christ. Then we have (I believe if my math is correct) 6,000 years from the Birth of Christ to the present. Making the earth roughly 10,000 years old. There is way more evidence for a young earth throughout the Bible but I just thought i would give you the main evidence. I didn't say it specifically stated that the Bible said how many years exactly, but it gives us enough evidence to piece the information together.

6000 years from the birth of Christ til now?

ya

i think im a bit off but im in the ball park

wait sorry the total i believe is 6000 years... sorry my math is shoddy

What do you mean by "He is clear that it is a literal six days due to the fact that it is mentioned several times throughout the Bible?" How does it being repeated make it literal? Who says that 1 day to God is the same as a day to us? How long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall? These unanswered question provide us with the massive gray areas that make it difficult to determine the earth's age. Also 2000 years from the birth of Christ til now and at least 4-6000 years between creation and Jesus.

It's only been two thousand years since Christ was on the Earth. The Hebrew calendar I believe is in year 7,000 something so the young Earth estimate would roughly line up with that. I try to not pick a side or have an opinion on the age of the earth as I can see both sides for a young Earth and old earth. I can even debate both sides.

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.