Yet even MORE supporting evidence ...

[Jorge]

I'm YEC and I don't believe this to be the case.

Ever consider the possibility that you are wrong? Let's see what else you say ...

When you ask someone to be YEC as a part of their salvation you're asking them to have a perfect understanding of all of scripture all at once in order to be saved. You aren't allowing room for people to grow in their understanding since they have to have to nail it 100% correct right out of the box. If that is the case then if you are yourself wrong on any two chapters anywhere in the Bible then you are not a Christian either.

Your starting premise is wrong. It's all downhill after that.

Do you understand what I just wrote there?

I certainly do - I've heard it umpteen times before.
It is because I understand it that I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

If a person cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian - if a person cannot get two chapters out of the Bible wrong without being condemned then the same rule has to apply to your theology as well. That means if you misunderstood any two chapters in the Bible or a single obtuse concept then you, by using your own standard, are going to hell.

Good grief - you simply can't be serious, are you?

I understand that YEC is important to you.
I believe the issue is important.

However, Christ asked "Who do you say I am?" not "How old is the earth?"

I will take it on faith that you are being sincere. Being sincere, however, does not immunize you from wrong thinking and bad logic.

Can you not see the connection between one thing and the other?
"Who I AM" and "What I have said about this or that" must be taken hand-in-hand.
We cannot pick-n-choose ... it's all or nothing.

If you will not accept as true what Christ has said of the world (which you can see and touch), how will you accept what He has said about spiritual matters (which you can neither see or touch? [If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12]

As for "growing in spiritual things" (which you seem to think I do not allow), you've left me nearly speechless. It's one thing when a person is ignorant of the truth. I myself once bought into the Evolution story. But after the truth is known, after it has been presented to you time and time and time and time again, hundreds of times, then it is no longer a question of "ignorance". It is now a spiritual rebellion against Truth. Remind yourself of who is Truth.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Stung a bit, did it?

Pffffttt! Not the least bit. But if it inflates your ego then go ahead and believe that it did.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You can bet what you like, but you'll never get any takers, welcher.

With every post you write on this you do nothing but provide
FURTHER evidence of your complete lack of integrity.

So go ahead, Roy, keep 'em coming; show the world what you're truly made of.

Jorge

[One Bad Pig]

Pffffttt! Not the least bit. But if it inflates your ego then go ahead and believe that it did.

Jorge

You shouldn't project so much.

[Duragizer]

Ever consider the possibility that you are wrong?

Irony so thick, you could pour it on a stack of pancakes.

[rogue06]

Starlight provides a tremendous amount of information. I gives us information about when the star formed, where it is in its lifetime, whether there are planets orbiting it, the composition of intervening objects, etc. None of that information has an intelligent source.

If i'm wrong, explain how i'm wrong, given this information.

Keep in mind that for all sake and purposes Jorge essentially rejects stars forming naturally and extrasolar planets so you can figure he would reject the idea of starlight providing information concerning such things as you mentioned.

[oxmixmudd]

Ever consider the possibility that you are wrong? Let's see what else you say ...



Your starting premise is wrong. It's all downhill after that.




I certainly do - I've heard it umpteen times before.
It is because I understand it that I am 100% certain that you are wrong.




Good grief - you simply can't be serious, are you?




I will take it on faith that you are being sincere. Being sincere, however, does not immunize you from wrong thinking and bad logic.

Can you not see the connection between one thing and the other?
"Who I AM" and "What I have said about this or that" must be taken hand-in-hand.
We cannot pick-n-choose ... it's all or nothing.

If you will not accept as true what Christ has said of the world (which you can see and touch), how will you accept what He has said about spiritual matters (which you can neither see or touch? [If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12]

As for "growing in spiritual things" (which you seem to think I do not allow), you've left me nearly speechless. It's one thing when a person is ignorant of the truth. I myself once bought into the Evolution story. But after the truth is known, after it has been presented to you time and time and time and time again, hundreds of times, then it is no longer a question of "ignorance". It is now a spiritual rebellion against Truth. Remind yourself of who is Truth.

Jorge

The Gerbil has it right Jorge. How God made the world, and the timeframe in which He made it is a side issue, quite far from anything upon which salvation depends. And here is why you are wrong about it.

The only way YEC could be pivotal would be if it forced the denial of some actual, critical doctrine of the faith. And indeed, often that is your contention. But the truth is, I accept evolution, but I don't deny any critical doctrine of the faith. I profess belief in the fall, its effect on mankind, and the need for a redeemer, one who pays the penalty for sin. I confess the key confessions of the faith without so much as 1 'qualified' response.

YOU can't see how I can possibly do that. And yet, that is YOU. That is why you should remain YE and not accept evolution (though you need to face the facts as regards the scientific capacity to support that position). But I live my life, accepting evolution as true, and accepting almost all the doctrines of typical (non-reform or very lightly reformed) Gospel - with he exception of the age of the Earth and evolution.

Yet you judge Theistic Evolutionists quite clearly as barely saved if saved at all: regardless of any other belief they may have regarding Christian Faith.

And yet, there are much stronger disagreements among Christians of issues far more critical to faith. Take the issue of Baptism. There is a verse in Peter that says 'Baptism now saves you", and that one issue - is water baptism required for salvation (like can you get saved but die before being baptized) - runs a VERY wide range. The Church of Christ and Catholics would say yes. Most other protestants would say no. Or how about WHEN one should be baptized. Catholics and Many Protestants practice infant baptism, while others like the Baptists and most if not all Pentecostals will say such a Baptism is worthless and unless one is baptized fully aware of their acceptance of Christ, they've never really been Baptized at all (which the COC interprets to mean not really saved).

So - here is a far more central doctrine. Which one of these many views is the 'right' one in your book? And are you consistent in how you apply such things relative to YEC - are all these 'other' versions of doctrine about Baptism Damning or nearly so? Or do you arbitrarily/hypocritically allow for some grace on the issue of Baptism, but not the issue of Evolution? And if so - don't you have your priorities reversed. Jesus only left us a few commands Jorge. One was to Baptize. Are you saying that the proper way of Baptizing - something Jesus COMMANDS the Church to do, is less important than how old the Earth is, or the mechanisms God use to make the Earth.

It would seem that must be the case, based on how intolerant you are of any view other than YEC. And I've never once seen you try to get someone's head on straight about Baptism. You have certainly have never started a thread "Can one be Baptized by <method> and be a Christian?"


Jim

[rogue06]

The Gerbil has it right Jorge. How God made the world, and the timeframe in which He made it is a side issue, quite far from anything upon which salvation depends. And here is why you are wrong about it.

The only way YEC could be pivotal would be if it forced the denial of some actual, critical doctrine of the faith. And indeed, often that is your contention. But the truth is, I accept evolution, but I don't deny any critical doctrine of the faith. I profess belief in the fall, its effect on mankind, and the need for a redeemer, one who pays the penalty for sin. I confess the key confessions of the faith without so much as 1 'qualified' response.

YOU can't see how I can possibly do that. And yet, that is YOU. That is why you should remain YE and not accept evolution (though you need to face the facts as regards the scientific capacity to support that position). But I live my life, accepting evolution as true, and accepting almost all the doctrines of typical (non-reform or very lightly reformed) Gospel - with he exception of the age of the Earth and evolution.

Yet you judge Theistic Evolutionists quite clearly as barely saved if saved at all: regardless of any other belief they may have regarding Christian Faith.

And yet, there are much stronger disagreements among Christians of issues far more critical to faith. Take the issue of Baptism. There is a verse in Peter that says 'Baptism now saves you", and that one issue - is water baptism required for salvation (like can you get saved but die before being baptized) - runs a VERY wide range. The Church of Christ and Catholics would say yes. Most other protestants would say no. Or how about WHEN one should be baptized. Catholics and Many Protestants practice infant baptism, while others like the Baptists and most if not all Pentecostals will say such a Baptism is worthless and unless one is baptized fully aware of their acceptance of Christ, they've never really been Baptized at all (which the COC interprets to mean not really saved).

So - here is a far more central doctrine. Which one of these many views is the 'right' one in your book? And are you consistent in how you apply such things relative to YEC - are all these 'other' versions of doctrine about Baptism Damning or nearly so? Or do you arbitrarily/hypocritically allow for some grace on the issue of Baptism, but not the issue of Evolution? And if so - don't you have your priorities reversed. Jesus only left us a few commands Jorge. One was to Baptize. Are you saying that the proper way of Baptizing - something Jesus COMMANDS the Church to do, is less important than how old the Earth is, or the mechanisms God use to make the Earth.

It would seem that must be the case, based on how intolerant you are of any view other than YEC. And I've never once seen you try to get someone's head on straight about Baptism. You have certainly have never started a thread "Can one be Baptized by <method> and be a Christian?"


Jim

^[1]. Did Christ say that? No He did not and I have yet to find anything in the Bible that even suggests such a thing. Moreover at no time or place have these beliefs been considered anywhere near to being essential to the Christian faith.

It is not part of any creed nor has it even been discussed by a Council or Synod. And none of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter of the nature of creation. Not the French Confession (1559), the Scots'Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571) or any of the others. They may stress the sovereign action of God in creating all things but the universal absence of any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation or the processes involved establishes that it was not a confessional issue in the slightest.

And the reason that it wasn't a matter of definition is because it was not a matter of controversy or even a point for discussion, despite the varying views in exegetical history. There have always been widely divergent views regarding the nature of the Creation and not once has it been thought necessary to form a single orthodox view.

The closest this ever even came to taking place was during the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy where the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was crafted by a group of largely very conservative evangelicals. There the father of the modern creationist movement, Henry Morris, sought to include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy. It was rejected by every other member including John C. Whitcomb, the co-author along with Morris of The Genesis Flood, which kick started the modern YEC movement.

By insisting that one must accept YEC dogma is shifting the foundation of our faith from Christ and onto the age of the earth... the foundation of my faith is built upon Christ and his finished work on the cross, not upon the age of the earth or whether life has evolved.

Perhaps Jorge should pay close attention to what Jesus says about those who base their faith on something other than Christ:

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." --Matthew 7:24-27

Essentially what Jorge is doing is adding to Scripture -- something we're repeatedly and explicitly told not to do (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; cf. Revelation 22:18-19).

For instance, in I Corinthians 15:14, Paul informs us that

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

But folks like Jorge who insist that we should follow YEC tenets in order to be real Christians seem to think that Paul got it wrong and seek to "correct" him by adding to it essentially changing what Paul wrote to

And if Christ has not been raised and if life changes over time and the creation is more than a few thousand years old, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Likewise, when Paul informs us in Romans 10:9 that

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Jorge again seeks to "correct" Paul by adding

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and disagree that the creation is more than a few thousand years old and that life changes and adapts over time, you will be saved.

Similarly when Luke tells us in Acts 16:31 that Paul and Silas told their jailer that...

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

...they "really" meant to say

and that life does not change and adapt over time and that the creation is only a few thousand years old

Moreover Jorge appears to think that Christ Himself got it all wrong or misspoke when he said in John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

And seeks to change it to

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, and believes that the earth is but a few thousand years old and that life does not change or adapt over time he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Likewise a little further on at verse 16 where Jesus tells us

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Jorge and those like him again want to correct Christ by adding what He must have forgot to include

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him and that the earth is only a few thousand years old and rejects the idea that life changes and adapts over time should not perish but have eternal life.

Finally, did Peter say anything about a young earth or denying evolution in his confession recorded in Matthew 16:16? No, he said that "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" and did Jesus rebuke him and say, "No Peter, thou must first believe in a young earth before you can be my servant"?

And speaking of Peter, look at the reaction to his sermon recorded in Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit visited him and the other apostles as they were staying in Jerusalem. The listeners asked him how they could be saved to which Peter replied in verses 38-39

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

But once again Jorge seems to think that Peter, like Paul screwed it up and its up to them to correct his supposed error and find it necessary to add to the message.

By continuing to demand that one must also comply with YEC dogma Jorge and those of a similar mind are essentially putting "an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).











1. On the pre-crash Tweb Jorge even had a thread called "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" in which he answered with a resounding "no!" and quickly added everyone who wasn't a YEC into that category. Later he would somewhat modify that position and concede that it was possible to accept evolution and still be saved -- but only if the person really had no idea what he was doing.

[Jorge]

You shouldn't project so much.

You seem to have and endless supply of idiotic one-liners. Bad piggy!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Irony so thick, you could pour it on a stack of pancakes.

Right back at you, dimwit.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Keep in mind that for all sake and purposes Jorge essentially rejects stars forming naturally and extrasolar planets so you can figure he would reject the idea of starlight providing information concerning such things as you mentioned.

In keeping with your near-spotless record, you are wrong once again.
What tickles me is the arrogant self-assurance with which you people
open your mouth to say things that aren't so. Not knowing
the facts doesn't seem to faze you people in the least. WOW!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

The Gerbil has it right Jorge. How God made the world, and the timeframe in which He made it is a side issue, quite far from anything upon which salvation depends. And here is why you are wrong about it.

The only way YEC could be pivotal would be if it forced the denial of some actual, critical doctrine of the faith. And indeed, often that is your contention. But the truth is, I accept evolution, but I don't deny any critical doctrine of the faith. I profess belief in the fall, its effect on mankind, and the need for a redeemer, one who pays the penalty for sin. I confess the key confessions of the faith without so much as 1 'qualified' response.

YOU can't see how I can possibly do that. And yet, that is YOU. That is why you should remain YE and not accept evolution (though you need to face the facts as regards the scientific capacity to support that position). But I live my life, accepting evolution as true, and accepting almost all the doctrines of typical (non-reform or very lightly reformed) Gospel - with he exception of the age of the Earth and evolution.

Yet you judge Theistic Evolutionists quite clearly as barely saved if saved at all: regardless of any other belief they may have regarding Christian Faith.

And yet, there are much stronger disagreements among Christians of issues far more critical to faith. Take the issue of Baptism. There is a verse in Peter that says 'Baptism now saves you", and that one issue - is water baptism required for salvation (like can you get saved but die before being baptized) - runs a VERY wide range. The Church of Christ and Catholics would say yes. Most other protestants would say no. Or how about WHEN one should be baptized. Catholics and Many Protestants practice infant baptism, while others like the Baptists and most if not all Pentecostals will say such a Baptism is worthless and unless one is baptized fully aware of their acceptance of Christ, they've never really been Baptized at all (which the COC interprets to mean not really saved).

So - here is a far more central doctrine. Which one of these many views is the 'right' one in your book? And are you consistent in how you apply such things relative to YEC - are all these 'other' versions of doctrine about Baptism Damning or nearly so? Or do you arbitrarily/hypocritically allow for some grace on the issue of Baptism, but not the issue of Evolution? And if so - don't you have your priorities reversed. Jesus only left us a few commands Jorge. One was to Baptize. Are you saying that the proper way of Baptizing - something Jesus COMMANDS the Church to do, is less important than how old the Earth is, or the mechanisms God use to make the Earth.

It would seem that must be the case, based on how intolerant you are of any view other than YEC. And I've never once seen you try to get someone's head on straight about Baptism. You have certainly have never started a thread "Can one be Baptized by <method> and be a Christian?"

Jim

You've been trying for years to get me to accept your falsehoods and heresies. It didn't work years ago and it won't work now so save your breath, O-Mudd. Of course, I am well aware that you are not targeting me alone - you are tossing the snare seeking any prey that happens to fall into it. The young and ignorant are your preferred victims.

On Evolution, Dawkins wasn't just blowing smoke when he said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Yes indeed, Evolution and the Bible are incompatible and believing otherwise is delusional. For crying out loud, when even an Atheist tells you this to your face you should listen. But, of course, you won't listen, will you. THAT is what proves that you are in a rebellious state against God/Truth.

On the Age of the Earth, there are profound, deadly theological consequences to Christianity if mega/giga years did in fact occur. That you cannot see this or, if you do see it, that you refuse to accept it is a fault of yours that you should strive very hard to remedy. I shan't be holding my breath.

Finally, as to me "judging Theistic Evolutionists as barely saved if saved at all", ONCE AGAIN you are practicing what you wish to project on me. I judge NO ONE. I always allow God and His Word to do any judging because I have no authority to judge.

Now, what does God/His Word say on the matter?

There is a ton of material in Scripture on this. Concisely, if a man calls God a liar then that man has blasphemed against God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). If God's account of history is A and men (e.g., Theistic Evolutionists) say, "It's not A, it's B" then those men are in essence calling God a liar. [And please don't roll out the "it's your interpretation" stupidity!]

It is THAT blasphemous act (calling God a liar) that will judge those men, not me.

Oh, I almost forgot: regarding your rant on Baptism (a childishly-obvious attempt to distract from the main issue), this is a SCIENCE forum and so I was addressing EVOLUTION, not Baptism. Just as I do not address here the views of some "Pastors" that marrying same-sex people is okay with God (which, of course, it is not okay with God and so those "Pastors" will end up in Hell unless they repent -- so says GOD, not me!).

I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler. You are quite dense, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[One Bad Pig]

You seem to have and endless supply of idiotic one-liners. Bad piggy!!!

Jorge

You're not worth two.

[rogue06]

On Evolution, Dawkins wasn't just blowing smoke when he said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Yes indeed, Evolution and the Bible are incompatible and believing otherwise is delusional. For crying out loud, when even an Atheist tells you this to your face you should listen. But, of course, you won't listen, will you. THAT is what proves that you are in a rebellious state against God/Truth.

Once again Jorge sees nothing hypocritical in agreeing with a militant atheist like Dawkins over how the Bible ought to be understood but starts accusing other Christians of being closet atheists if they agree with an atheist about a scientific point.

[oxmixmudd]

You've been trying for years to get me to accept your falsehoods and heresies. It didn't work years ago and it won't work now so save your breath, O-Mudd. Of course, I am well aware that you are not targeting me alone - you are tossing the snare seeking any prey that happens to fall into it. The young and ignorant are your preferred victims.

Look at yourself Jorge. Look at how you demonize me - my motives. That is 'judgement' as Jesus defined it one human on another Jorge. You have passed judgement on my motives, you are saying that I am evil, seeking purposefully to ensnare people with falsehoods and heresies. And yet you will deny you are 'judging' me. What language do you speak Jorge? What twisted definition of 'judge' do you use? I think it is more related to the sentencing phase as you use it. And that is NOT what Jesus is talking about. He's talking about EXACTLY what you have done (incorrectly I might add) here Jorge.



The context here is assessing what you think is wrong in other people Jorge.

Or what of Paul, right after talking about a whole host of sins and evil in Romans 1, turns right around and sends this out to the audience:

Source: Romans 2:1

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

© Copyright Original Source

He gets the reader all ready to condemn the sins he has just listed, and then fires that right back at them!


Judgement is an attitude Jorge, and attitude that lifts up in ones own mind ones own sense of holiness, and looks down at the others around them that don't quite live up to that same standard - as perceived by the one doing the judging.

On Evolution, Dawkins wasn't just blowing smoke when he said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

Yes indeed, Evolution and the Bible are incompatible and believing otherwise is delusional. For crying out loud, when even an Atheist tells you this to your face you should listen. But, of course, you won't listen, will you. THAT is what proves that you are in a rebellious state against God/Truth.

Proves my 'rebellious state'! Because I won't listen to a fellow's opinion about how to interpret Genesis 1 that is rabidly against all religion and considers the scripture nothing more than a delusion?

On the Age of the Earth, there are profound, deadly theological consequences to Christianity if mega/giga years did in fact occur. That you cannot see this or, if you do see it, that you refuse to accept it is a fault of yours that you should strive very hard to remedy. I shan't be holding my breath.

Only if one denies the Resurrection, the fall of mankind and the need for salvation. Seriously, the Earth being more that 6000 years old wipes Christian faith off the map!!! Not in a million years Jorge.

Finally, as to me "judging Theistic Evolutionists as barely saved if saved at all", ONCE AGAIN you are practicing what you wish to project on me. I judge NO ONE. I always allow God and His Word to do any judging because I have no authority to judge.

Jorge - you judge EVERYONE!

Now, what does God/His Word say on the matter?

There is a ton of material in Scripture on this. Concisely, if a man calls God a liar then that man has blasphemed against God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). If God's account of history is A and men (e.g., Theistic Evolutionists) say, "It's not A, it's B" then those men are in essence calling God a liar. [And please don't roll out the "it's your interpretation" stupidity!]

It is THAT blasphemous act (calling God a liar) that will judge those men, not me.

I've never called God a liar Jorge. But your same logic could be used to say that by adding the Age of the Earth to the list of things required for Salvation, YOU are the one calling God a liar, because God says quite clearly it is faith in Christ that is the key to salvation. Not one time does the idea that it has anything at all to do with belief in the age of the Earth come up. So why do you call God a liar by adding all this stuff He does not add to his Call to Salvation?

Source: John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

© Copyright Original Source

Why do you add to that Jorge?

Oh, I almost forgot: regarding your rant on Baptism (a childishly-obvious attempt to distract from the main issue), this is a SCIENCE forum and so I was addressing EVOLUTION, not Baptism. Just as I do not address here the views of some "Pastors" that marrying same-sex people is okay with God (which, of course, it is not okay with God and so those "Pastors" will end up in Hell unless they repent -- so says GOD, not me!).

I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler. You are quite dense, O-Mudd.

Jorge

Oh no Jorge. That example was absolutely to the point. You think that if I happen to be wrong about Evolution, my soul is in danger. You think that if I continue not to listen to your opinion on this, I'm not listening to God. And you say exactly that in the text I've quoted above. You have said in no uncertain terms that I am purposefully, rebelliously, ignoring God. And that is evidenced by the fact I think life evolved and the Genesis 1-11 should not be read as literal * history. And yet, when it comes to Baptism, a CORE ELEMENT OF THE FAITH (unlike how old the world is), You hypocritically take a completely different approach. So you've swatted at gnats while swallowing whole camels - based on how you approach the YEC issue. To be consistent, you must condemn any practice of Baptism not in line with how you interpret the Bible, and you must label those that practice such forms of Baptism 'barely Christians if Christians at all' unless they are just new Christians that are totally ignorant of what the Bible says about it.

Jim

ETA:* I added 'literal' because I do believe Genesis 1-11 is a kind of history, just not the kind that can be used to deduce science.