Its called theistic evolution and its just another way to get around Gods truth of Creation, and substituted it with mans ideas and theories. Here is a good explanation:

"Believing that God used evolution to create annuls numerous Bible teachings...

As some Christian scholars and leaders are increasingly advocating theistic evolution to explain creation, two scholars.. say Adventists cannot accept theistic evolution unless they annul many of their Bible-based fundamental beliefs. Theistic evolution, the belief that God used processes of evolution to create, implies at least believing “an account of origins at odds with the biblical record of history,” said Geoscience Research Institute scientist Timothy Standish. It also implies, he added, introducing the presence of death before sin, or at least defining death in different ways before sin and after sin.

Thus, “Seventh-day Adventists cannot embrace theistic evolution without exhibiting extraordinary duplicity and naiveté,” Standish said.

Southern Adventist University professor Greg A. King seconded the notion. “Because of the unresolvable contradictions between theistic evolution and Scripture … and because of the profound way in which theistic evolution would alter or modify key doctrines of the Bible, it seems clear that there is no middle ground between theistic evolution and biblical creation.”

The questions may be asked, why do many confessed Christians not see a conflict between the work of a Creator God and evolution? Why are they embracing evolution without a second thought? And why can Adventists not accept it?

..First, believing in theistic evolution affects our view of Scripture, King said. It undermines the authority of Scripture itself, which tells us a different story of origins than is portrayed by evolution. It also affects the doctrine of God; according to the Bible, He created by the power of His word. “The God of theistic evolution is a diminished divinity,” King said.

King also explained how theistic evolution affects the doctrine of salvation. “Why do humans need to be saved, if they are simply following God’s plan for how to get to higher forms of life?” he asked. And “from what do we need to be saved” in the first place?

In theistic evolution, said King, human beings are also diminished. They fall short of being God’s crown of creation and become mere beings emerging at the end of a long, slow process of development. “The biblical doctrine of man is severely altered in such a scenario,” he said.

Sabbath is also affected, he pointed out, because in theistic evolution there is no creation week. Sabbath stops being a memorial of creation and becomes a human invention. And theistic evolution affects marriage. As the marriage covenant loses God’s imprimatur, King believes “theistic evolution helps pave the road for some … unbiblical permutations of marriage.” https://www.adventistreview.org/church-n...ventists-cannot

So I thought you were going to suggest, "why".

I think it is supposed to be an intellectual thing. I know several folk are surprised when you tell them you believe in Creation.

I think it is folly to believe in macroevolution.I just cannot imagine the mathematical probability that life would occur, and not only that, many different forms of it, and further, a male AND a female for the higher forms?

At what point would God step in and say that this life form is evolved enough for the blood of Christ to save him? If Adam and Eve were the first true human parents, does that mean that their parent, grandparents, etc, aren't saved because they were not human enough? How sad for them!

Someone said of Gen 1:1 that God created time (in the beginning) space(heavens) and matter (earth) and that this had to have been simultaneous because (and I love this explanation!) if you had time and space, but no matter, what would you put? If you had matter and space but no time, when would you put it? If you had matter and time but no space, where would you put it?

Faith verses sight. Too often we believe what we think we see and don't take more than a superficial glance. When we dig a little deeper, there is so much more under the surface.

Well with everything that is coming with JWT evidence, Christians should not be coming up with evolution at any level.

Christian's should NOT be embracing evolution.

As to why it's sweeping the world ....
It's a crucial theory for Satan's counterfeit religion.

.

Creation	...	Evolution
God created a perfect world		God created matter and set in motion the laws of natural selection and development
The noble, perfect humans, were given intelligent minds and free choice		Mankind developed with robotic, instinct minds
God warned them the enemy was lurking in the tree, they were not to eat of it, if they did they would surely die		The serpent claims he opened their eyes and gave mankind the fire of self conscious and independent individual selfhood. Liberating them from a controlling authoritarian. Awakening the divine faculties of the intellect for man.
Before the fall, there was no sin, no death, no violence or misery, all was love and harmony in a perfect beautiful world		Matter developed through survival of the fittest, death of the weaker means to bring forth the better and encourage change, there is no such thing as sin, It's all about ascension into higher realms mentally and spiritually.
Trouble and violence covered the earth because of sin. It's the result of casting off God's law, and provisions for repentance and forgiveness	...	God was accused of being unfair locking them out of Eden, and away from the tree of life.
Mankind degenerated, sickness, death came because God's laws were flaunted, and mankind cut himself off from the Life Giver.	...	mankind, it is claimed, was just advancing from very primitive ages to more intellectual and progressive
Jesus, the Son of God, who with God, is God, came to earth to redeem mankind from sin and offer them LIFE!	...	Jesus, it is claimed was just another ascending master, incarnated to help mankind ascend to a higher level. Jesus supposedly was incarnated several times during earth's history, and is one of the masters working to bring mankind to the next "age".
Jesus died to save the weak as well as the strong, all are precious in His sight	...	For mankind to ascend to the next level, the old, weak, decisive ways must be wiped out. Even human reproduction to be tailored to producing quality and intelligence in the offspring
The way to eternal life is through Jesus, His death and resurrection offers forgives, cleanses and empowers for holy living.		The bait is a promise to reach certain levels in the ascendency ladder, after which there is no more need for reincarnation, and they become masters. Remember, in this paradigm of thought, there is no such thing as sin, but to achieve this new level for humanity as a whole there must be a merging of spiritual consciousness which can only be achieved by chaos and tearing down of established civilization, through war and pain.
Jesus will give eternal life to all who overcome sin by the blood of the Lamb of God, through faith and commitment to Him. They receive glorious, new bodies. He will make a new heaven and a new earth. Peace and harmony, love and joy will reign forever. Sin will never again plague the inhabitants.		So many lives ruined, death reigns, misery, violence and despair the only fruit, till finally sin is wiped out forever.

Why do Christians accept evolution?
It is a legitimate question.

Though we can give many reasons why Christians should NOT accept evolution, the fact remains that many Christians are accepting evolution, WHY?

I would suggest that there is a psychological "mind changing" plan to undermine and change the thinking and resistance of people who believe in literal six day creation.
This is especially directed against people in the educational system, colleges and universities.

Here are just a couple steps suggested for teachers to take to break down resistance to evolution:
1. Acknowledge that evolution is hard to understand for it requires one to understand and integrate a variety of scientific fields. Thus some of the simplistic arguments against evolution don't take into account all these other disciplines.
2. Directly address and acknowledge the most common fears Christian students seem to have. First is the idea that accepting evolution means you can't believe in a creator. Assure them that this is not true. There is still a lot of room for a creator.
3. Assure them that those who believe God and the supernatural don't exist, are just expressing their own personal ideas and it has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
4. Assure them that this does not do away with the Bible, explain that for many Christian evolutionary creationists, studying evolution allows them to marvel at God's creative and majestic processes.
5. Assure them that it's not attacking God or creation to bridge what at first seems a contradictory way of interpretation between Genesis and science.

In other words -- break down resistance. Make it SEEM there is no problem to their Christian faith if they accept evolution. Get them to lower their guard and open up to ideas of evolution, and overcome "their phobia", get control of their fears and advance in their scientific educational growth.


Sounds to me a little like what happened in the garden of Eden.
Did God really say..... (you probably just misunderstood what He said)
Don't worry, you got it all wrong, it isn't a bad thing, it's actually a good thing.....
Get over your fear and advance in knowledge....

Also the whole concept of what constitutes a human being makes a big difference in a Christians susceptibility to accept evolution.

An Adventist usually believes body and soul are not two separate identities. Body, soul and breath (spirit) are all dependent on each other for life. Take any one away and the person is dead, his life ceases.
It's a very strong and important belief to shield one from accepting evolution.

Theophilus asked

Well, the Christian evolutionary might answer that question with :
the beings before Adam didn't have a "soul", God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. Jesus died to save people with souls. That's when humans with souls began.
Different understandings not only draw on different scientific fields, they also draw on very different theological concepts to bridge Genesis with evolution.

Evolution does NOT fit the Adventist understanding of Biblical doctrines.
But not all Christians hold to what Adventists have found to be true Biblical doctrines, thus they are more susceptible to accepting evolution.

Macro Evolution is a direct virulent attack on Christians. If accepted in faith, the 4th Commandment immunizes believers against it.
This is yet another reason for the devil?s hatred of the Law of God.

There is much that I do not have an answer for on this topic, but I believe that one reason is how creation has been welded to the 6,000 year old theory. The conservative branch of the Seventh-day Adventist church has an "about" 6,000 year statement, which in reality has most believing that the world is about 10,000 to 12,000 or younger, but willing to accept up to a 21,000 year. Then there are moderates who are even more flexible. But even with our "about" 6,000 year view, I've noticed that many of our laymen take the evangelical view which puts more emphases on the 6,000 than the "about". Especially with trying to date set with the cosmic week theory.

That said, I fear that when too many run into problems with the strict 6,000 year view they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You may have a point, Kevin.
I know when I studied some of the chronology it was hard to fit some of things into the short time generally accepted -- especially in the period from the flood to Abraham.

The Masoretic text has all the patriarch's after the flood starting their families while in their 30's
While the Samaritan text and the Septuagint list these same patriarch's as being in their 130's when they started their families. The Samaritan and Septuagint list of ages makes more sense. Especially since Terah (Abraham's father) is stated as having been 131 when Abraham was born.

But I would be cautious about pushing it too far back.

I tend to be more moderate then the more conservatives, but don't have the background to make up my own mind. I trust the conservative compromise with Elder Pierson's "'about' 6,000 years" that goes up to 21,000 years. I've heard a little about the more moderate view which seems to go back to around 60,000. Some professors I respect saw creation week being sometime with in the last ice age.

I understand that creation week was sometime within human memory, that Adam and Eve and the genealogies in the Bible are real people.

Some of the issues pointed out in class includes that the passages of the ancient genealogies are so old and has obviously been updated as languages grew and changed, so that they are some of the most difficult passages to translate. Apparently the different options can go back to 10,000 or 12.000 years. Additional difficulties include that we use the classical Greek genealogies which include everyone. However, ancient genealogies do not do this and we are wrong trying to put a Greek idea from many centuries later on to our older genealogies. Ancient Genealogies tended to pick out the most important people within the family line, skipping less important people. Also, at times in history there are several generations where the first born son is named after the paternal grandfather. Thus, there were two names repeated over several generations, but in a genealogical list the two names are only mentioned once.

These three things gives us more flexibility in our "about" 6,000 years. I agree that we don't want to go back too far. We need to be fair to the Biblical record, and the Biblical record would allow for these three issues: The difficulty in translating the ages, that genealogies prior to classical Greece skipped generations, and that we don't know how often there were first born sons named after their paternal grandfather and thus the two names listed only once.

While in our schools these are pointed out, there are too many lay members who are not aware of our Adventist flexibility in the "about". And I fear that we have people who run into trouble with the strict 6,000 years that when they can't fit the strict 6,000 years they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Some Christians are embracing evolution, because they are not embracing the Word of God.

To embrace Creation as it is written in Genesis 1-2 means acknowledging God as our Maker.
Acknowledging that He is worthy of our obedience and worship.
Acknowledging that He knows what is best for us.

The big thrust to steer away from a literal creation is done to supposedly free people so that they are indebted to no one, they need not worry about a higher power they need to answer to, what they do is up to them, what they think is important to prioritize is up them.

Bible tells us God created the world in six literal day and night "days".
Without God there is only chaos and hopelessness. Without God people do not advance, they sink.

As to how old the earth is?

The Bible doesn't tell us that. It only gives a lot of genealogies which we can calculate and get an idea as to how many years have gone by since man's fall. Those genealogies come up with approximately 6000 years. But even those genealogies raise questions and leave us only with an "about" idea as to the age of the world.

What about Ellen White's comments on the 6000 years.
At least twenty-five such statements can be found. Another sixteen times she refers to the time lapse between creation and Christ as about 4000 years.'

Interestingly she makes statements like:


EGW Research Documentary comments on the 6000 years.
When Ellen White gave careful review to The Great Controversy in 1910, preparatory to some revision, she did not change the seven 6000 year statements or the three 4000 year statements in that book. Other points were carefully studied and adjusted so that, as she noted, the ?truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages? (Letter 56, 1911). What an opportune time to eliminate or modify the ten statements so out of line with the thinking of many of ?those not of our faith.? But there was no change!

Our observation (white estate's comments) is that her mention so many times of the age of the earth as about 6000 years is more than a casual one. Throughout her life Ellen White wrote about this time period consistently. The same is true for her 4000 year statements regarding the time from creation to Christ. If it was grossly in error, why did not the Lord correct her position? We believe it was because it was a right one. The age of the earth from creation week to the present is only understood correctly in light of the Bible record.

About 6000, nearly 6000, well nigh 6000, over 6000, for 6000.
But always around 6000.

I really don't think we should join the infidel geologists who claim the world has existed tens of thousands of years.

Now it seems the planet itself in its "without form and void" state may be older.
But the earth created is "about 6000" years old.

We may be in the "tarrying time" --
As in 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack in His promises as men call slackness, but is longsuffering, not wishing that any should perish.

It could have been 6000 years old already in 1888, but the call went out to hold back the final time of trouble because God's people were not yet sealed (See Rev. 7:2-3)
We could very well be living on borrowed time!
People have been calculating the 6000 years as long as I can remember. No one knows when the count hit 6000.
Seems the 4000 years keep getting shorter, while the 2000 years get pushed further into the future (because obviously we are still here)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ICE AGE AND ALL THAT?

There's no denying there was an ice age. But probably just one.
https://www.icr.org/article/ice-age-volcanism/
Suggests this ice age took place as an after result of the flood and lasted for several hundred years.
Is our so called "global warming" just a last remnant of the receding ice age???

Reminds me again of 2Peter 3:4-7
Where it says the scoffers main argument against Biblical prophecy is: "all things continue as they always have" they are willingly ignorant that the world was overflowed with water. And studiously avoid any connection with their geological findings as happening rapidly due to the enormous cataclysmic flood and its after effects.

I think what adds to the confusion is not the distinction between the age of the earth and the age since creation. At creation, the earth was already in existence.

As pointed out most of Mrs. White's quotes were "About 6000, nearly 6000, well nigh 6000, over 6000, for 6000" and same for the 4000 quotes. Most of these were what became a general term for her for the scope of the great controversy. Now, it has been pointed out that the original manuscript was more flexible in the numbers and that her editors changed the numbers to make a consistent either 6000 or 4000 depending on the context. It has also been pointed out that when she was updating her writing into the book Patriarchs and Prophets, there was a manuscript that was stronger towards the idea of a 6000 year old world, but as she was revising, she simply drew a line through this quote and initialed her cross-out.

A well known quote is where she raises that the critics say that there is too much to fit into 6000 years. However, a careful reading of her answer is not a strong endorsement of the 6000 years, but a simple statement that we do not know enough about science or the Bible.

Then when I was at the Seminary, and please forgive me for forgetting the reference, but we were required to go into the White Estate office on campus and actually hold in our hands a manuscript she wrote that was to be discussed in the next class. This statement down plays a strict 6000 years and says that what ever we pick for the age of the earth to just make sure that it is fair to the Biblical record.

In addition to the above, Mrs. White also tried to teach us was visions do and don't do for her, and how she wanted her writings to be used. Part of this was that she is making applications for our day. When she was asked any question about exegesis, her tendency was to either ignore them, say that those questions are not her job but our job that the Holy Spirit would show them just as soon as He would show her; and she seems to me to have been baffled that we want to simply ask her for "THE ANSWER," She loved visiting a museum in Europe with a Seventh-day Baptist friend, and she records her excitement to look at all the archeological discoveries and how she wished that she could have just stayed and continue to study them, but she needed to go to do her ministry in helping with the publishing and other tasks in Europe.. Another response would be to simply say things such as "My writings are not to be used to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of the Daily" Could her responses to not changing those 4000 and 6000 year quotes be that she wanted us to take her guidance as a whole in how she wanted and how she did not want her writings to be used?

A couple of you posted above about the time in which the world was "without form and void" and was already here before creation week. This also must be kept in mind. Neither the Bible nor Mrs. White saw it important to spend much time on this beyond the fact that there is that period, In the new Bible Commentary on Genesis, Dr. Doukhan points out that while focused on the 7 days of the creation of this world, that the poem itself has at least three layers: First is the idea that God was the creator of the entire universe. Second, the creation of living in a universe dealing with the issues of the great controversy, and third, of course the creation of our earth. The Bible and Mrs. White give hints that what ever was here was playing a role for Lucifer, the other angels and the rest of the universe to deal with Lucifer's questions, placing the issues of God working with the great controversy being a universal issue before we showed up. We think why does not God do something that would undoubtedly know that He is real. But God wants our decisions to be based on faith, not force. The angels saw God, but still questioned what God's nature is. We are told that God worked long with Lucifer. We are in our time to evaluate the evidence and make choices based on faith. Over the time the earth was without form and void, the rest of the universe needed to deal with the same questions we are dealing with. Eventually, two things happened: First, the two sides of the great controversy formed (they did not close their probation until the cross, but they made a choice to side with God). The second, what ever was here ended up being total chaos. It was not until these two events took place that God moved beyond a staying in the background, by saying "Let there be light" and Doukhan points out that the light was not only the brightness, but that the universe was entering into a new phase of light being revealed about this being called "God". Th angels and unfallen did not have it any easier than we do.

There are feast keepers who view that lucifer created the failed chaos, then God stepped in to show how to do it right. Is that what you are suggesting? Kind of like multiple creation events?

A fairly common theory amongst creationists (not flat earthers) is that Lucifer was so jealous that God would not allow him into the inner council to help plan creation, that when God started to create the earth, Lucifer started the war in heaven and during that war, he and his angels destroyed whatever was already created on this earth.
Genesis takes up the story after that initial outbreak of war was finished, the earth was void and without form, Satan is restricted (cast down), and God creates this world in six days and all the sons of God rejoice!

That can easily fit into Ellen White's depiction of things before creation as well!

Also may explain why there is an asteroid belt circulating the sun between Jupiter and Mars.
Was there once a planet there that was destroyed in that war? Speculation of course.
It's obvious we do NOT know what happened in the eternity before God created this earth and what this "war in heaven" all entailed.

Yet EGW never refuted or changed ANY of her twenty-five references to the earth being "about" 6000 years old statements.
However, we also need to take note that she never endorsed or taught the "week of time (6000+1000=1 prophetic week)" theory of J.N.Andrews (and other Adventist writers) either.
That theory has led to much time setting, and was never taught by Ellen White.

She frequently warned against attempts to calculate the time for Jesus' coming.
So she never endorsed or taught using the 6000 year idea as a prophetic time line to calculate Christ's coming.



I think this is the statement -- is it her answer.




To me that statement confirms she was not convinced by the critics to reject the idea the earth is ABOUT 6000 years old. She obviously was not buying the critics statements even though she herself didn't have the scientific knowledge to refute them.



She warned against so called science when it led away from the Bible.

So the mistake people make is thinking she taught the 6000 + 1000 years as a prophetic timeline and that Christ would come when the year 6000 was reached, which would be followed by the millennium. No, she did not teach "the week of seven thousand years". Though she did not correct those who did, either.


While I see room for reasons to believe earth since it's creation is a bit older that 6000 years, I personal would keep that in a flexibility of several 100 years not tens of thousand of years. To me, those teachers who try to extent earth's time to 10,000 or even 21,000 is to soften students up and open the door to theistic evolution, trying to push the time apart to squeeze theistic evolution into the picture. Which is not where I wish to go.

Indeed scientists even today do NOT know enough about science or the Bible to cast away the about 6000 year statements.

Things can happen rapidly, which scientist say take thousands or even millions of years. Mt St Helen gave remarkable evidence that of geological formations happening in days, that scientists thought take millions of years.

Excellent post dedication, however with one line ". To me, those teachers who try to extent earth's time to 10,000 or even 21,000 is to soften students up and open the door to theistic evolution." we have to remember that is was done by our most conservative scholars trying to implement the conservativism of Elder Pierson and what evolved into the Adventist Theological Society. Elder Pierson wanted a church that was just getting members by way of very short evangelistic meetings and wanting to purge all "liberalism" in any way, shape or form from the church. He believed that the SDABC was too full of liberal ideas. That Bible study should consist of things such as Uriah Smith, Stephen Haskell's Bible Handbook and to take what ever Mrs. White said about the text as the last word on the subject. If Pierson and those around him are too liberal with their "we really need to be able to go back to 10,000 or even 21,000 to fit the 'about' 6,000" then who is conservative enough to trust?

Kevin,
What troubles me is your reports of what is being taught in our universities. I know when I sent my own daughter to our Adventist college she was taught theistic evolution as fact and made fun of right in class for believing God created the earth in six days. She would phone me in the evenings, in tears and confusion.
Yes, undermining the inspired account of origins was taking place in several of our collages and there was quite an uproar, as parents and students raised the issue and several "conferences" back in 2002- 2004 were held to try to settle things down. Though there was much talk and many papers written, I'm not sure the actual problem in the educational system was ever really addressed. To me it was a lot of double talk. A "yes we believe in creation BUT... not enough to really teach it as anything other than a faith option."
Are our universities really teaching our young people to doubt scripture, to push away EGW writings, to elevate human higher critical scholarship above the bible and EGW and follow the compromises of the world?

Now this referencing to past president of the Adventist World Church, Robert Pierson, as wanting to get rid of the "about 6000" and moving to accept some 21,000 year age for the earth just does NOT sound right.

At this point I think something was twisted from whatever he said, and used by the liberal scholars to support their move into "higher critical" Bible interpretation. I can't help but believe his words are twisted and presented to do the exact opposite of what Elder Pierson was saying.

I read his last message as president of the world church: Given at the Annual Council 1978



Don't let it happen!!!
Those were his words.

But sadly it is happening.

And again, I think there is confusion with the age of the earth and the age of creation. When Ellen White talks about this earth being about 6000 years old, I have agreed and said similar things. However, is there something in her writings that indicate she intends to be talking about terra firma, the earth as the third rock from the sun rather than life on earth? The Bible was written for us for our time frame. I believe Ellen White is of the same mindset. Consider those who say the genealogy of the Bible indicates the earth is about 6000-10000 years old. They can only mean referring to life.

When you talk about earth, that implies earth as from when the Bible says, in the beginning. In the beginning of our timeframe. Not eons past of what God and the angels did or didn't do, or the worlds made or not made. We just don't know what happened in the past. That is not of our concern. All we have, is in the beginning, of our time frame. So when I say, and I've been trying to limit such saying, the earth is about 6000 years old, I mean exactly referring to life on the earth is about 6000 years old. Nothing more. The earth itself is older. The Bible says so. How much older, it doesn't say. So when people talk about rocks and halos and etc., creationists don't really have much to talk about here. As creationists are talking about life on the earth. Yes, they do talk about creation of other worlds, the universe, but "creationists" usually refers to creation of life on our planet.

Fully agree Kland,

It's obvious we do NOT know what happened in the eternity before God created this earth and what this "war in heaven" all entailed, or why the earth was dark, without form and void before the six day creation began.
It has been speculated that Lucifer was so jealous that God would not allow him into the inner council to help plan creation, Lucifer went into full rebellion initiating the war in heaven and during that war, he and his angels destroyed things, including whatever this earth, prepared for creation, was like before that war. leaving the earth void and without form.
Thus yes, the Bible does not deny the rocks and material of the planet were here before the six days of creation, but it was all without form and void. The age of that material we are not told.
That may also explain why there is an asteroid belt circulating the sun between Jupiter and Mars.
Was there once an uninhabited planet there that was destroyed in that war? Speculation of course.
Again, it's obvious we do NOT know what happened in the eternity before God created this earth and what this "war in heaven" all entailed.
But even then we know death is the result of sin. And God would never allow Satan to destroy a world with sinless inhabitants.


However, the issue that threatens trust in the reliability in what we DO know of the Biblical account, and false theories that threatens the gospel message concerning the whole sin and salvation issue as presented in the Bible is an important responsibility.

That concerns how people understand and teach what happened when God created life and form on this planet.

1. Did He create in six days as Genesis indicates? Perfect life forms fully developed?

2. Is the chronology of life on earth, basically correct as given in scripture, taking about 6000 years, or are their a few 1000's of years of evolution in between for which no Biblical records are given?

3. Is E.G.White lying when, even after given so called "scientific reasons" she did not change, but she continued to say the earth is about 6000 years old. Not just once, not just in vague references, but 25 times, plus another 16 times stating about 4000 years elapsed between Creation and Christ's life on earth.

4. Why do we take the studies of those who studious deny the biblical cataclysm world wide flood?
That flood can scientifically explain a lot of things that obviously happened after the earth was created, but with the denial of the flood are thrown into speculations that they took multi-thousands(millions) of years to develop, but which could fairly easily be explained as fitting into the "about 6000 years" time when the magnitude and power released during the flood is understood.

5. Even when creationists concede that rocks were probably already present in an earth without form and void before the six day creation, the evolutionist still persist in their evolutionary theory. Why?

According to Hebrew scholars, the genealogies that we use in trying to figure out the age of the world show that they are authentic by being some of the most difficult to translate. Languages are dynamic, and these passages show evidence of having tried to keep up with the dynamics of change.

In the first century there were three textual families. There was the Palestinian family: Most complete and well known are the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was the Bible used in Judah/Israel around these centuries. Then there was the Egyptian family: Most complete and well known is the Septuagint . This was how the Bible was preserved by those who went to Egypt as Babylon was coming, and used by the dispersion into western Asia and Europe. And there was the Babylonian family. for those who stayed in Babylon.

From what has been pieced together, the books with the names of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc. to Malachi are almost identical. Fundamentalists like to point to this near identicality. The few differences are usually easily identified, such as spelling errors, copying errors and scribal notes that got mixed into the text. However, (and please forgive me for forgetting the exact passage) but there is a passage in the dead sea's Isaiah which sounds much more like Matthew 5-7 than our translations of Isaiah, and we now know that Jesus' sermon on the mount was based on this Palestinian version of the Isaiah text that we don't have.

While these books are nearly identical, there are less identicalities between the rest of the Bible books. Nothing theologically major. But the parts with the most dissimilarities are in the translations of the ages of the patriarchs. Tradition has tended to look at the shortest possible ages to give, but apparently all three textual families can be translated with conclusions around ten to twelve or so thousands. But the popular minimum ages: The Palestinian texts would come out to 9,000 today. Thus, it would have come out to about 7,000 years in Jesus' day. Rabbis from a little before Jesus day calculated this and formed the "Cosmic Week" theory, saying that the 7,000th year would be the age of the Messiah. They expected the 7,000th year to start in the year what we now understand as the year 31 AD. While in the apostolic writings we don't find this as an argument for Jesus, among Jews that rejected Jesus did not like how this fit. Using the same method for the Egyptian family, they had the world as 5,000 years old then. (Maybe one reason for the Apostolic writings for not using the cosmic week is that Paul and the churches in the west used the Egyptian family of texts). But using this same method on the Babylonian family, one possible translation would be that the world was only 4,000 years old when Jesus was here, and thus the Babylonian text was embraced as it placed the 7.000th year the farthest into the future. It if from this Babylonian textual family that the Masoretic text came from.

So which Bible is the REAL Bible? The Bible Jesus used (the Palestinian family) where the year AD 31 starts the 7.000 year and today it is about 9,000 years since creation? the Bible Paul used,(the Egyptian family) which has Jesus coming around 5,000 years after creation, and thus the world now about 7,000 years old? Or the Bible we use (the Babylon family) which has Jesus coming around 4,000 years after creation and is now about 6,000 years old?

And again, these are only possible ways to interpret these numbers, with other possible readings do go back to 10,000 years and more. And these ages insists that we impost upon the text that the Bible's genealogies not what was done with other ancient genealogies but the methods of classical Greece.

All of these are based on the Bible's genealogies to be basically correct and not thousands of years of evolution that the Bible does not include, but being realistic about the difficulties in the reading and translation of the ancient texts. We want to be as fair as we can to the Biblical text, and that includes being honest about these points.
. .