Diamonds may be a girl’s best friend but their geological history is no friend of the literal creationist. Many literalists decry those who read Genesis 1-4 differently to them. Most of the same individuals (for they are usually men) at one time purchased a diamond ring for their wives. But diamonds demonstrate our planet has operated for billions of years. For a basic overview of diamond ages and formation see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#Ages
Essentially most diamonds formed 1 to 3 billion years ago deep below the earth’s surface and in a few rare cases a number of them are brought to the surface.
These sparkling gems have been formed through long geological process. They witness to the wonder of God’s creative power. However they also witness to a long continuous process quite different to the young earth, or even old earth, readings of Genesis. Can you insist Genesis 1 is literal in all its details and buy your wife a diamond – who provenance and age contradicts your assertions? Should we ban geologists or diamond rings (or both?) for contradicting a favoured traditional interpretation of God’s word? Or do we listen to the evidence of God’s creation?
(PS banning diamond rings would save a lot of money which could be better used elsewhere)
One of our team was little surprised to get an email from a national wine merchant offering a selection of Georgian wines with the headline “8,000 years in every bottle”. A little research and it becomes obvious that once again a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 as favoured by most creationists doesn’t match reality. Georgia has been making wine for some 8,000 years.
The December 2017 Tidings Magazine caused a small stir with an article that referenced at least 10,000 years of human activity. The comments were challenged and responded to in the February 2018 issue. It is great to see our community’s old (but often neglected?) view of God’s word and works being applied and the facts of God’s creation being accepted rather than brushed aside. Increasingly people are coming to positions not dissimilar to COD’s, because of the God’s facts. Continue reading
Creationists claim to read Genesis literally. This indeed is one of the proclamations made in the IEAC Reaffirmation Statement which says in its background that the various signatories “accept the creation record as literal in its details”. This is a fine sounding declaration. We thought we would align Genesis 1 in the KJV with the old earth creation model promoted by The Lampstand Magazine (a promoter of the Reaffirmation Statement). Lots of words had to be deleted or added. Be warned you might be upset. The intention is not to upset but rather demonstrate the old earth creation view is NOT a literal reading. Neither is the young earth creationist view, as should also be evidence from the below. Continue reading
Young man in denial is caught out by paternity test; argues that the scientists are mistaken, that conception was a special act of God, and that physical similarities are merely the result of common design.
Sorry…not very convincing.
Don’t be a fool. Don’t deny the genetic evidence. Face the facts. We were wrong about evolution, we were wrong about Adam. Admit the truth and move on.