Why Do Other Christians Condemn Catholics?

Page 3:

(4)The Rocks
There are many layers of rock all over the world. These rock are separated into layers one on top of the other in what is called "rock strata". Can we tell how old the earth is by looking at this strata? The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on. Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. A layer may have been laid down over a hundred or even a few thousand years. Though it seems reasonable at first to think that you can look at the numerous layers of rock to estimate the age of the earth (estimating that each strata is hundreds or thousands of years old), those who do so will run into many problems.

First, we don't know how long it took for those layers to form. We weren't there. We can't assume a steady rate of accumulation based on how long it takes today. If there was a world wide flood (as described in Genesis) then many layers of soft sediments would stratify at one time. These soft sediments would later harden as the waters receded and form rock. If there was a flood, then you could have what appeared to be "millions of years" of strata formed in a period of a
few months.

(Continued)

Page 4:

QUESTION: "Rock does not form in thousands of years. this CAN be proven. Go to a body of water that existed long ago that has dried up and tell me if the entire thing is rock. If rock could form in thousands of years, then any area(after the "flood" receded) not covered by water would be rock. how would you explain this? and how would the soft
sediments produce many layers? Wouldn't there just be the one?"
RESPONSE: Like I said before we have different things happening today than happened at the time of the flood. The pressure of all these sediments would be enough to form rock. There would be many layers all formed at the same time. They are different layers (not just one layer) because the sediments were stratified while wet, based on their density. Take a jar, fill it with sand, and rock of different sizes. Then fill it with water, and shake it. As it settles the particles will separate based on their density, and will settle into layers. If the water receded (like in the flood) and a great deal of pressure was added (a million pounds of wet sediments laying on top of each other) then these would form rock in a very short period of time. We simply don't have the pressure exerted on the sediments today that existed at the flood.

Not all sediments would become rock.

(5)The Grand Canyon
If you look at the Grand Canyon you will see thousands of layers of sedimentary rock. The Creationist and the Evolutionist can both look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions. The evolutionist who believes in an ancient earth will look at these layers of rock and determine that these layers formed slowly over millions of years. The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistent with all the layers being laid down at the same time
(the flood). (Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation. But by simply studying the scriptures we can certainly get an idea of when this took place.

An impossibly short time ago.

(2)The present is not the key to the past
We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth...this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion. Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood.

Uh... that is not right. They can tell the age. And you do know they take things into the calculations like sediments and foreign matter and all that? That they have reached a point where they can with reasonable accuracy give a date without people being able to say "Floods!"

And you do know the Biblical story of the flood is impossible don't you? Impossible. And without proof?

The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the Bible, and claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" [2 Peter 3:3]. This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformatarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood.

Holy dodgy science Batman!

(3)No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible
Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible. In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all
Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this. The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young.

Ah huh. Were exactly are you getting this information? Because I can assure you it is way off.

A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating
methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years. Why are we not told of these? It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.

Holy Conspiracy Batman!

Care to explain which secret lab you snuck into in order to steal the piece of paper with the "secret age of the earth" on it from?

And you do realise that when evolution was first proposed it faced ignorant opposition from the well entrenched creation theory? Care to explain the logic behind evolution being politically correct when it was presented in a time of religious control where the Church defined what was correct and what wasn't? Maybe it has something to do with... dancing all over the claims of creationists with proof of its own claims?

Evolutionists believe that the universe slowly began to form 20 billion years ago. They believe the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. While many Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was Created instantaneously about 6 thousand years ago.

First - claim to explain how come we know about cultures that existed 20,000 years ago? 10,000? 6,001? Might it be because the earth is older then 6000 years?

Oh, and the universe it believed to be 13.7 billion years old. With a concession of 200 million either way?

Both of these are belief systems. Neither one can be proven because no one was there to witness the event, and it can not be repeated. But we can examine the evidence and decide which one is more plausible.

*coughfalsecough* One is science with proof. The other is belief with no proof. We don't need to have been at the beginning to know.

Page 5:

The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood. The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form. The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite...a lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.

(6)Polystrate fossils
There are many fossils that go through several layers of rock, these are called polystrate fossils (the name polystrate means "many strata", pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D.).

Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers? A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down
and hardened in a short period of time.

(Continued)

Biblical flood? Impossible.

Ark with two of every creature? Impossible.

The science in this? Imposssible.

Where it leaves the theory? Nowhere.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Biblical flood? Impossible.

Ark with two of every creature? Impossible.

The science in this? Imposssible.

Where it leaves the theory? Nowhere.

Eternal universe? Ridiculous, false, and impossible.

Evolution? Absurd, false, and impossible.

The plausibillity and logistics of this? Impossible.

Where it leaves the theory? Awaiting its death knell.

Page 6:

The rock encasing polystrate fossils is sedimentary rock. It is rock that was once soft sediment laid down by water, that later hardened. All the layers of rock around the tree would have had to have formed at the same time. It would take a lot of water and a lot of mud for this to happen. I believe that during the flood, as described in the Bible, several layers of soft sediments were washed into place around the tree. A short time later, as the flood waters receded the sediments
would turn to stone similar to the way cement hardens as it dries.

The Evolutionist who doesn't believe the Bible, and does not believe there ever was a flood can not allow himself to accept this interpretation. Because if there was a flood, then the Bible was right. And if the Bible is right, then there Is a God.. And if there is a God, then God has the right to make rules for us to follow.

So, the evolutionist tries to explain away or ignore polystrate fossils. I am aware that there have been some polystrate fossils formed in the time since the Genesis flood. These formed by small floods like we have today in very localized areas. What I am talking about here is entire forests encased in rock. This could only take place in a flood of Global proportions. Just like the one described in Genesis.

According to John Morris Ph.D. some polystrate trees intersect more than one coal layer. (pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).

(Continued)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Eternal universe? Ridiculous, false, and impossible.

Evolution? Absurd, false, and impossible.

The plausibillity and logistics of this? Impossible.

Where it leaves the theory? Awaiting its death knell.

First of all there is not the slightest bit of evidence of a global flood.

Second there is no way there would be enough water on earth for it to do as it did, and technically there would be nowhere to go once the flood was over. Which means we would still be under water today bar a few of the tallest mountains - which scientists no didn't evolve through a biblical flood.

Third there is no ship in history capable of doing what the ark did - that is holding "two of every creature" and enough food for them.

If such a ship did exist in ancient times it would have sunk. Care to read these words slowly "THE ARK IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" - EITHER THE BIBLE IS EXAGGERATING or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL!

Oh, did I mention no proof of a global flood? Where as there is enough proof to support how old the earth is scientifically? Oh, and archaeological evidence that shows there were human cultures about more then 6000 years ago? And that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a world drawing flood? Fancy.

And the theory waiting its death knell? Strange that is seems to be going from strength to strength while the Christianities numbers are actually falling - death knell indeed.

And funny - evolution absurd and impossible? So what is it that the greater scientific community is talking about when they say it is accurate? Tell me, tell us here and now JIA:

Is the scientific community wrong? All those experts who feel they have a ton of proof, tell us, are they wrong?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
First of all there is not the slightest bit of evidence of a global flood.

Second there is no way there would be enough water on earth for it to do as it did, and technically there would be nowhere to go once the flood was over.

Third there is no ship in history capable of doing what the ark did - that is holding "two of every creature" and enough food for them.

If such a ship did exist in ancient times it would have sunk. Care to read these words slowly "THE ARK IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" - EITHER THE BIBLE IS EXAGGERATING or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL!

Oh, did I mention no proof of a global flood? Where as there is enough proof to support how old the earth is scientifically? Oh, and archaeological evidence that shows there were human cultures about more then 6000 years ago? And that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a world drawing flood? Fancy.

And the theory waiting its death knell? Strange that is seems to be going from strength to strength while the Christianities numbers are actually falling - death knell indeed.

You forgot to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the point about an eternal universe.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You forgot to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the point about an eternal universe.

Because at this time we don't have a coherent, dominant theory on what occurred prior to the Big Bang - was there just a cycle of universes contracting/expanding? Does it have to do with quantum physics? Black holes? They are theories, and eventually it seems one will find the necessary evidence to set itself apart from the rest (most likely being the quantum one since it suggests that it is indeed possible for new matter to... well, we will wait and see.)

This is opposed to the Biblical theory that God spoke the universe into being - once again - no proof for this. There is proof to support everything theorised about the age and evolution of the universe from Big Bang onwards - no sign of that to support God creating it in seven days.

Page 7:

The fossilized bodies of animals have also been found intersecting more than one layer of rock. (pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).

(7)The oldest living trees are only a few thousand years old
QUESTION: "According to the Bible the Earth is only about 6,500 years old. How can that be if there are trees that have growth rings that are older than that?"
RESPONSE: Bristle cone pines are the oldest living things in the world. However they should not be used to determine the age of the earth, as they have been known to produce more than one tree ring per year. Using Bristle cone pines to determine the age of the earth would then be erroneous. ("Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest" by
John Woodmorappe TJ 17(3), 2003)

("The Oldest Tree in the World" by Carl Kerby, Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27). The oldest living tree then dates to about the time after the flood, when the first tree's would start to grow again.
Here's what Carl Kerby has to say: "If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with treering dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer ("The Oldest Tree in the World" by Carl Kerby, Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27).

There has been recent research on the seasonal effects of tree ring growth. The plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that as many as five rings per year can be produced. Interestingly enough the extra rings are often indistinguishable (even under the microscope) from annual growth rings (Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) by Don Batten, Ph.D.).

(Continued)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
First of all there is not the slightest bit of evidence of a global flood.

Second there is no way there would be enough water on earth for it to do as it did, and technically there would be nowhere to go once the flood was over. Which means we would still be under water today bar a few of the tallest mountains - which scientists no didn't evolve through a biblical flood.

Third there is no ship in history capable of doing what the ark did - that is holding "two of every creature" and enough food for them.

If such a ship did exist in ancient times it would have sunk. Care to read these words slowly "THE ARK IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" - EITHER THE BIBLE IS EXAGGERATING or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL!

Oh, did I mention no proof of a global flood? Where as there is enough proof to support how old the earth is scientifically? Oh, and archaeological evidence that shows there were human cultures about more then 6000 years ago? And that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a world drawing flood? Fancy.

And the theory waiting its death knell? Strange that is seems to be going from strength to strength while the Christianities numbers are actually falling - death knell indeed.

And funny - evolution absurd and impossible? So what is it that the greater scientific community is talking about when they say it is accurate? Tell me, tell us here and now JIA:

Is the scientific community wrong? All those experts who feel they have a ton of proof, tell us, are they wrong?

However, neither position can be confirmed as of now, so the debate is pointless.
Evolution is known to have many fundamental and irreconcillable flaws, and I do not see it as a logical explanation. Many atheist biologists agree with this and, therefore, evolution cannot be claimed as the solution to the creation of life. If you do so, you are being close minded. I personally do not believe in evolution on a scientific basis, but if it could be proved I could believe it without losing faith as I would see it as the mode of creation.

Page 8:

(8)Mount St. Helens
Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 1980. Several hundred feet of sediment was laid down in a few days..not millions of years. These layers were stratified in the same way that the Grand Canyon is.

An examination of the trees at Spirit Lake show that waterlogged trees often sank in an upright position and could be fossilized in much the same way (pg 102 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).

(9)Pangaea
Would it take millions of years for the continents to separate? - No. This could all happen very quickly during the flood.

(10)Mountain formation
QUESTION: "You claim that the earth is only 10, 000 years old but it takes millions of years to erode or build mountains."
RESPONSE: This is not true. At today’s rate, yes. It might take a million years for a mountain to erode. But that is based on the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of erosion have always remained constant. Before the flood, we don't hear of any high mountains in the bible. There were some hills yes, but there may not have been any mountains. If there were no large mountains when God created the world (a few thousand years ago) they could still form in a very short time during the flood (see Genesis). A flood as large as the one described in the Bible could cause a big chain reaction of upheavals post-flood. As the flood waters receded and tectonic forces pushed them up. This is how the Bible says mountains were formed. It says the valleys sank down, and the mountains arose - all from the weight, pressures etc of the flood.

(11)The Sun: Evidence for a Young Earth
One of the best ways to show that the earth is not "billions of years old" is to look at the sun.

(Continued)

Originally posted by Nellinator
The ark presents an interesting scenario. The original Hebrew leaves room for the flood to refer to a small part of the world such as the Middle East where there is definite evidence of a large flood. Also, if you believe in the existence of Atlantis, as I do, you would see the flood as destroying it. And that would have been a massive area as evidence of Atlantis can be from the coast of Spain to the Bermuda Triangle. Cultures around the entire world have legends of a massive flood that destroyed almost all life. This provides strong evidence for the occurence of a global flood.
Evidence of the ark has been found several times on Mount Arafat, which gives credit to the Biblical account. Whether the interpretation of the story blows it out of proportion is the question I would ask.

Which is a problem with the claim - claim something outrageous, that gets proven impossible, go back and find some way to claim that it could still have happened, just not quite like that. Of course the Hebrews left room for the flood to refer to something lightyears away from being a world killer - because such a thing never happened.

And no conclusive evidence of the ark has been found at Mount Arafat, at least none that come even closer to being historically indicative of Biblical claims.

As to Atlantis - cities have fallen into the ocean before, but they have been perfectly normal, and fell for perfectly normal reasons. The most likely explanation for the flood myth is that the Jews merely appropriated an actual event from Sumerian history and exaggerated it. That flood happened - there is proof. But it was just a normal, serious flood - like the ones that occur all over the world.

However, neither position can be confirmed as of now, so the debate is pointless.
Evolution is known to have many fundamental and irreconcillable flaws, and I do not see it as a logical explanation. Many atheist biologists agree with this and, therefore, evolution cannot be claimed as the solution to the creation of life. If you do so, you are being close minded. I personally do not believe in evolution on a scientific basis, but if it could be proved I could believe it without losing faith as I would see it as the mode of creation.

So you don't believe things on "scientific basis" - do you believe a cancer can be removed or oil distilled? Or gravity? Or is it simply those theories that don't support the religious ones?

As for the flaws - few scientists consider them fundamental or irreconcilable. Hole exist - but I have said it before; a hole does not disprove a theory when everything else seems to support it. And you would be wrong if you assume that there are not well supported theories about how life began. Technically they are two different theories. Evolution is not so much about how life started, but how it evolved. Others deal with the start of life, and there are valid theories with it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So you don't believe things on "scientific basis" - do you believe a cancer can be removed or oil distilled? Or gravity? Or is it simply those theories that don't support the religious ones?

Page 9:

We are all aware that the sun is burning. What you may not have thought of though, is that it can not burn forever. Though the sun does oscillate, it is also rapidly decreasing in size and mass.

For the last 300 years Boyal (sp) Observatory in England has been keeping records of the suns diameter (K. Hovind debate at the University of West Florida). They have carefully recorded the rate the sun is shrinking. They have determined that the sun is shrinking at a rate
of 5 feet per hour. At this rate, the sun would have been twice its present radius only one million years ago. The farther you go back in time, the larger the sun would have been. This is true even though the rate of shrinkage may not have always been the same. In fact in the past, the sun would have burned faster than it does today. "The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of the solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now". (Dr. Russel Akridge, ICR impact article #82 )

This means that today’s rate of shrinkage (5 feet per hour) was faster years ago. Perhaps at the rate of 10 or 20 feet per hour.

The sun would have been big enough to touch the earth only 20 million years ago. Evolutionists claim the earth is 4 BILLION years old. You can see why this is impossible. If the earth was Billions of years old, then the earth would have been destroyed by the sun.

The Evolutionists idea that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago is absurd. This is far too long ago for the sun to have allowed life on earth.

The earth can not be millions of years old.

(12)Moon dust argument not valid
A measurement of the dust on the moon published in 1960 was the basis for the now discredited moon dust argument. A thin layer of dust was said to indicate a young age for the moon. However in a recent article: "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush (Published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7(1):2-42, 1993) the authors advised against using this data because the original measurements given in 1960 are not accurate. More research should be done on this before estimates of the moons age can be determined. We must also remember that the rate of dust accumulation may not have always been the same, causing any age result to be questioned.

(13)Coral reef
There are those who say that based on the size of the Great Barrier Reef the earth must be millions of years old. They say it would take millions of years for the coral to grow to this size. This simply is not true.

(Continued)

Page 10:

The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) is the longest in the world, and Eniwetok Atoll (Marshall Islands) is the thickest. The rate of coral growth can be greatly increased by simply increasing the water temperature a few degrees, or increasing the carbonate content of the water.
Keeping these factors in mind, even the largest coral reef could form in only a few thousand years ("How long does a coral reef take to grow?" Creation Ex Nihilo 14(1):15, Dec.–Feb., 1991–1992)

(14)The Magnetic Field
When we examine the earths magnetic field we realize that the earth can Not be millions of years old. Here's what Dr. John Morris has to say about this: "Observations have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying over the last century and a half. Precise measurements of the field's intensity, or strength, have been made on a
worldwide basis since 1829 that determine the state of the field at any point in time."

He then goes on to say: "From these measurements , we can ascertain that the fields overall strength has declined by about 7% since 1829.
These measured data-points plot along a curved line, which best fits that of exponential decay, as do many natural processes. From this, it can be
calculated that the half-life of the magnetic field’s strength is
approximately 1,400 years. If this halflife doesn't change with time, the field must have been much larger in the past, and will be much smaller in the future." ("The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. pg.74-75)

(Continued)

I believe that evolution and God are diametrically opposed. They do not coexist. God has declared by His Word how He created the Heavens (i.e. outer space, atmosphere around earth,) and the earth: by His words.

As far as mechanics here is how God did it:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

That is pretty plain.

So God speaks and things "be," "exist," or "come into being." That explains why there are no transitional fossil forms. All life came into being suddenly or instantaneously.

More examples of God speaking things into existence:

Genesis 1:3
Then God said,“Let there be light”; and there was light.

Genesis 1:6
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

Genesis 1:9
Then God said , “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.

Genesis 1:14
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Genesis 1:20
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

So based on the Bible God creates certain things (if not all things) by speaking. It is clear that God did not want to use an inferior method like evolution. Evolution is a protracted process that supposedly occurs over eons of years. But everything that God does has a spiritual import and significance. For example, human beings are the only creatures that are made in God's image. No other creature has this claim to fame. Evolution presupposes that all organisms evolved from lower life forms into higher life forms. This process runs counter to God's process of creating creatures that are in His image. God's image is not that of a lower life form that evolved into a higher life form. So right off of the bat this methodology will not work. God wanted creatures that were made in His image and that were made fully mature and ready to reproduce from inception.

*Sigh*

I don't believe in gravity or that the world is round. That would be heresy...
No, as I already stated, evolution seems far to improbable to be logical. If I was shown otherwise, it would not shake my faith. Many Christians believe in evolution, but I don't based on scientific evidence. Evolution does not necessarily disagree with the Bible.

What would you consider great enough proof to make you think "otherwise"?

Page 11:

What does all this mean? Well, just 20 thousand years ago the earths magnetic field would have been too strong to support life on earth.

Here's what Jonathan Sarfati has to say: "In the 1970s, the late creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that
measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s
metallic core.

Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that." ("The earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the earth is young" by Jonathan Sarfati First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 20(2):15-17,
March-May 1998)

(15)Written records only go back 6 thousand years
The oldest known written records are only about 6 thousand years old. The Bible itself is only a few thousand years old.

I know that there are some people who think God made man millions of years ago. But if man has been here living in sin for millions of years, then why would God wait so long to send a Savior? Why did he let them live so long without the scriptures?

The idea that God made man, and that man has been here for millions of years...is to me incompatible. The Bible seems to indicate that man was created about 6 thousand years ago.