Evolution

Whatever. Perhaps you are more interested in made-up stories than truth. I have better ways to spend my time.

LOL, the irony meter is showing danger levels!

I can't work out if it's dramatic or tragic though. Both probably.

I just wish you could see that you've trapped yourself by your own thinking processes.

On one hand, you demand evidence whenever your interpretation of scripture is challenged, and yet on the other you don't accept evidence when it demonstrates something that conflicts with your world-view.

Then to top it off, when somebody makes a point or asks a question that seeks to highlight this, you side-step the question and reply with a spiteful message.

You have no idea what spite is. As for the rest of your diatribe, it’s yawn-inducing.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

1 day = 1000 years therefore creation takes 6000 years
Day 1: let there be light. Adam was the light.
Day 2: water. The flood killed all of Adam's descendants.
Day 3: dry land. The Mosaic law.
Day 4: sun and moon. Jesus and disciples.
Day 5: sea creatures. The church age.
Day 6: land animals and man in God's image. The second coming of Christ.
Sabbath = millennial reign.
Jesus is coming soon!

There are wide arrays of articles that you've pointed to, but I can't find any in those links that are relevant to and critical of evolution guided by God. Is there an article in question that makes a compelling argument in favour of young earth creationism?

I don't see anything in those sections of Job that necessarily speaks in favour of young earth creationism either. Is there a specific passage that you feel makes this is the case?

When the above started, humanity already existed. God took a liking to them and decided to "make them in His image".
The fall was an essential part of His plan, it somehow meant that Eve became the mother of all.
Any questions? I expect there may be a few, I have some myself so I can't promise anything except to do my best.
I want to be challenged.

Your premise is on very shaky ground. One day is as a thousand years, or a watch in the night. Well, which is it? Is it 24 hours, or three hours, or four hours?

I request evidence when someone makes a claim. I don't accept fantasies as evidence. When someone directly questions me on something relevant, I respond. When someone wants to deal with side issues, I reserve the right to ignore it.

But there is evidence, hard evidence. It is just a few feet beneath us. All man's existence is there from stone age through to bronze and iron age to the present time. Hard evidence in the form of all human remains. It can be dated to less than 10, 000 years of man's existence on earth. All the tools he has developed, his weaponry, it's all there.

Evolutionists just choose to ignore it.

They have bored MILES down into the earth desperately seeking to find evidence that goes beyond the stone age but they can find none, they spend trillions of tax dollars.

They behave like the detective who finds a body in a room with a dagger in it's back and immediately rules out murder. Now he has to develop some fantastic theory as to how the body got there with a dagger in it's back, by ruling out murder the possibilities are endless and fantastic.

There is also soft evidence.

In the 17th century there were just 5 million people living in Great Britain, in 1066 at the time of the conquest there were less than 1 million. This is the same in every other nation. Today there are nearly 80 million living in Britain. So by a process of reverse multiplication it is plain to see that mankind has descended from just 2 people and spread out all over the world from one central place ... they say Africa, I believe the Middle East.

These are hard facts.

I'm not young earth creationist. I'm old earth, pre-Adamic creation.

God states categorically that he created things "after their kind". That precludes evolution. There are horses from tiny to massive, but they are still horses. God, as far as I can tell, placed the genetic code for every variation of the horse into the initial horse. So we see variation within a "kind" but that is NOT evolution.

I believe that the earth was completely flooded as God's judgement when Lucifer was cast down to the earth and became Satan. So Noah's universal flood was not the first. If that is so, then it explains the fossil record. It is just as acceptable to translate "was" formless, "became" formless. The Hebrew word "was" is the same word used to describe Lot's wife when she was turned into a pillar of salt. Plainly she did not start out that way. "Was" is used because it fits the conventional view. The old earth/young present creation concept has been around since about AD200 at least.

If God guided evolution, why does He not say so? He states categorically that He created man and Behemoth. And everything else. Creation is God's word in nature. He speaks to a deaf world using "sign language". Before I was saved, I saw the stars on a black night. I was miles from anywhere and there was little background light. I said to myself, "There must be a God". No one had told me that the heavens declare God's glory.

Do you believe the creation took longer than seven 24 hour periods? How do you define "day" in the creation story?

The method of creation is not defined. The term "creation" does not preclude evolution. Are there steps that lead up to these kinds?

We run into the dilemma of how to define kinds. Are tigers and lions different kinds? What is a liger or tigon in that case? A new kind? Evolution theory basically states that from a "kind" can eventually specialise into "sub-kinds" that can't interbreed with each other (without medical intervention). If sub-kinds can form, how can we be so sure that the current "kinds" we see aren't also "sub-kinds" of common ancestral kinds? What are the fundamental kinds that all life comes from?

When Noah took two of each kind on the ark, were giants counted as their own kind as a type of beast that creepeth the earth? Or did giants (such as King Og) descent from Noah's family? Where did the giants come from after the flood? Either this is an example of sub-kinds forming, or there were two giants on Noah's ark (which in itself is fascinating if that were the case).

Are we talking about Genesis or Jeremiah?

Evolution can be a method of creation. In Genesis 1, God could have snapped everything into existence in an instant, but instead there is a pattern, form, and method that is described. When I make bread, the yeast is doing the job I intended for it. The recipe that I set in motion becomes the desired product. A similar consideration is present for how God might create things: put the ingredients into position and reap at the predetermined time (and adjust or intervene at His leisure). There is nothing to say that evolution was not the creation method. From dust (and whatever microscopic life was present in that dust), to a form, to the breath of the Spirit, Adam was brought to life.

Consider the passage you selected from Job:

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." - Job 40:15 KJV

This passage says that Job was created.

"After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth." - Job 3:1

This passage says that Job was born.

Job was born, but he was also created. The natural birth was the method of creation. God didn't say to Job "I made your kind", He said to Job "I made you". And what a beautiful message that is. The loving will of God works through the natural world to create, right down to person by person.

Evolution guided by God is internally consistent with scripture, it only requires a figurative interpretation of Genesis. The book of Job support the idea of naturalistic methods being used by God as a tool for creation.

The wisdom of man is foolishness.
God created DNA, chromosomes and all the other things necessary to life, by His word. We can understand life today after 6000 years so we need to come to a place where we admit that God is able the do the uncomprehendable. We can still seek understanding but never forget that God is the almighty. We have a habit of trying to be god and we always end up with mud on our face.

If God said He made the world and everything in it in a literal week i am going to trust Him, and believe Him.

The perspective that Genesis 1 is speaking of literal days is internally consistent. The perspective that Genesis 1 is speaking of figurative days is also internally consistent. You are relying on the wisdom of man to choose one over the other.

It is a prophecy of the seven generation's of the heavens and the earth https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-4.htm see https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8435.htm there are seven ages ...

The theory of evolution has the exact same problem... It also starts off with two humans

There is no evidence that we evolved from apes... The so called missing links are fraudulent...

Just to be clear, the theory of evolution does not state that life on Earth started with two humans.

As regards the missing links, what do you mean?