Replies

I do not find it incompatible to accept evolution and at the same time accept and believe in the Holy Bible.

Billions of years is not compatible with six days
Evolutionary uniformitarianism is not compatible with the global cataclysm of the Great Deluge
Millions of years of death and suffering as evolutionary history is blood red in tooth and claw is not compatible with death introduced to the world via Adam's sin.
To believe Evolution, you must say that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, poetry or myth. When reviewing the lineage of Jesus Christ in Luke 3:23-38, at what point does the lineage turn from actual people into allegory, poetry or myth?
Evolution says that light came first as a result of the Big Bang, Genesis says that light followed after the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Evolutionists say that land formed before oceans. The Bible says that the global ocean existed before dry land.
Evolutionists say the sun evolved several billion years before plant life. The Bible says that the Sun was made one day after plant life.
Evolution says that Man evolved from animals. The Bible says that man is a special creation made from the dust.

I can list hundreds of incompatibilities, you are better believing either all of Evolution or all of Creation because the syncretism of the two defies reason, science and the evidence.

James 1:8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

2 Pet 3:5-6 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Nor do I, never really have. I wouldn't presume to rule out various possibilities of how G*d goes and has gone about His business.

However, regarding this particular "find", there is a strong tendency among archaeologists and other "experts" to say such and such article is so many years old with little or no real evidence. Stone cannot be carbon dated. It's not an organic material. They can only date organic material which may happen to be at the same strata and confirmed to be directly associated with the piece of rock in question.

I don't see in this article exactly how they came up with the 7,000 BCE (9,000 year old) figure. Basing it on the way it was made being similar to other "verified" artifacts is one trick they use but this layman finds that logic shaky at best.