Kenneth Miller's Reconciliation of Evolution with His Catholic Faith

[Deadworm]

The Pentateuch is a composite of various sources. The Priestly Creation story from what is usually designated the P source (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) is spliced together with the Jahwist Creation story from the source usually designated J. According to most scholars, the Priestly creation story was poetically written to be responsively recited in the Temple liturgy. Hence, the liturgical repetition of the phrases, "And God said...and it was so...And God saw that it was good...Evening came, morning followed the first (second, third, etc.) day." The purpose was to celebrate the glory of God's creation and to justify Sabbath rest. Notice carefully that the narration never says, "Evening came, morning followed, the seventh day." The apparent reason for this is that the author believed we are still in the seventh day; and that in turn means that each "day" is not literally a 24 hour day, but a whole creation age. Indeed, the Hebrew "yom" for day does not always need to be translated a literal day.

Notice, too, that the first 3 verses of Genesis create a poetic image that is the equivalent of the Big Bang. Creation starts out with "a formless void." Then "the wind of God moves over the face of the waters," resulting in a divine decree that produces light. The "waters" is the ancient term for the void of deep space, and the wind movement represents the Spirit's expansive force that leads to an explosion of light. Of course, conventional modern cosmology teaches that the Big Bang does not move into time and space, but rather creates time and space. So the Big Bang produces movement from no movement and time from no time.

Notice, too, that the sequence for the creation of animal life in Genesis 1 parallels evolutionary theory with life beginning in the sea, and mammals coming later, and humans later still.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

I didn't say the Scriptures ever stated the age of the earth or that that information was repeated. What I said was that the six days of creation was repeated 3 times in the Scriptures. To arrive at the approximate age of the earth all you need to do is add some numbers, all of which are in the Scriptures.

Right. Just add up the numbers. Ussher got 4004 BC, the Venerable Bede 3952 BC, Johannes Kepler 3992, Isaac Newton 4000. That is surprising, as Kepler and Newton were renowned mathematicians. If all you have to do is add up some numbers you would think they would agree. The Jews, who worked on it longer than anyone else, got 3761. Who got it right, doing nothing more than adding a column of figures from a literal and inerrant Bible?

But be careful with this. From some of your comments one might almost draw the conclusion that you were flirting with the degenerate heresy of Dispensationalism.

 

[miamited]

Hi speedwell,

As I said, an approximation of the age of the earth. I'm perfectly satisfied with either of those numbers. I suppose your position is that since there is a discrepency of a few hundred years at most the whole work is flawed. Ok. Me? I'm perfectly satisfied with about 6,000 years. I've never been one to be dogmatic about the exact number of years. I'm just satisfied to know that no matter who adds up the numbers or how, the creation isn't hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years old. It's about 6,000 years since Adam lived and had a son named Seth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Hi speedwell,

As I said, an approximation of the age of the earth. I'm perfectly satisfied with either of those numbers. I suppose your position is that since there is a discrepency of a few hundred years at most the whole work is flawed. Ok. Me? I'm perfectly satisfied with about 6,000 years. I've never been one to be dogmatic about the exact number of years. I'm just satisfied to know that no matter who adds up the numbers or how, the creation isn't hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years old. It's about 6,000 years since Adam lived and had a son named Seth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well, if so, can you explain about c, about how we receive light from distant galaxies that took zillions of years to reach here?

 

[Hoghead1]

The Pentateuch is a composite of various sources. The Priestly Creation story from what is usually designated the P source (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) is spliced together with the Jahwist Creation story from the source usually designated J. According to most scholars, the Priestly creation story was poetically written to be responsively recited in the Temple liturgy. Hence, the liturgical repetition of the phrases, "And God said...and it was so...And God saw that it was good...Evening came, morning followed the first (second, third, etc.) day." The purpose was to celebrate the glory of God's creation and to justify Sabbath rest. Notice carefully that the narration never says, "Evening came, morning followed, the seventh day." The apparent reason for this is that the author believed we are still in the seventh day; and that in turn means that each "day" is not literally a 24 hour day, but a whole creation age. Indeed, the Hebrew "yom" for day does not always need to be translated a literal day.

Notice, too, that the first 3 verses of Genesis create a poetic image that is the equivalent of the Big Bang. Creation starts out with "a formless void." Then "the wind of God moves over the face of the waters," resulting in a divine decree that produces light. The "waters" is the ancient term for the void of deep space, and the wind movement represents the Spirit's expansive force that leads to an explosion of light. Of course, conventional modern cosmology teaches that the Big Bang does not move into time and space, but rather creates time and space. So the Big Bang produces movement from no movement and time from no time.

Notice, too, that the sequence for the creation of animal life in Genesis 1 parallels evolutionary theory with life beginning in the sea, and mammals coming later, and humans later still.

Good point. Also important to note is that there are two separate creation myths here. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. That is because there are two different authors here from two different time periods.

 

[miamited]

Well, if so, can you explain about c, about how we receive light from distant galaxies that took zillions of years to reach here?

Hi hoghead,

Sure, that's an easy one. God.

Do you know that God can make water stand up straight? Do you know that God can make the shadow of the sun go backwards? Do you know that God can make is so very pitch black in one city that people can't even see one another and yet in another city only a few miles away the sun is shining just as brightly as normal. Do you know that God can make a woman with child who has never had sperm to meet her egg? Do you know that God can take a human who has died and is not breathing and whose body has actually begun to break down inside and putrify to stand up and walk and talk and live again. I would imagine for one with that kind of awesome power over what He creates that making lights in the sky zillions of miles away to be seen upon the earth the very moment they are created is a fairly simple piece of cake.

We can't explain the mechanics of 'how' God did any of these things, but we know that He did! I can't explain to you the mechanics of 'how' God stretched or somehow caused the light of the newly created stars to travel great, great distances instantaneously, but we know that He did. We know that it was only about 2,000 years from the creation of this realm until God told Abraham to look up and count all the stars. I think that's the first time we have testimony that people could see the stars, although I'm assured that Adam could see the same stars.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Hi hoghead,

Sure, that's an easy one. God.

Do you know that God can make water stand up straight? Do you know that God can make the shadow of the sun go backwards? Do you know that God can make is so very pitch black in one city that people can't even see one another and yet in another city only a few miles away the sun is shining just as brightly as normal. Do you know that God can make a woman with child who has never had sperm to meet her egg? Do you know that God can take a human who has died and is not breathing and whose body has actually begun to break down inside and putrify to stand up and walk and talk and live again. I would imagine for one with that kind of awesome power over what He creates that making lights in the sky zillions of miles away to be seen upon the earth the very moment they are created is a fairly simple piece of cake.

We can't explain the mechanics of 'how' God did any of these things, but we know that He did! I can't explain to you the mechanics of 'how' God stretched or somehow caused the light of the newly created stars to travel great, great distances instantaneously, but we know that He did. We know that it was only about 2,000 years from the creation of this realm until God told Abraham to look up and count all the stars. I think that's the first time we have testimony that people could see the stars, although I'm assured that Adam could see the same stars.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

There is no hard evidence that God ever did anything with c. C is a constant, one of the few in the universe. You seem to be claiming that God caused c to be infinite at the beginning of creation and then had it continually slow down more and more ever since. At least that's what creation-"scientist" Setterfield proposed. However, there is absolutely no evidence anything like that ever happened. Even creation-science people admit that is an invalid argument.

 

[miamited]

There is no hard evidence that God ever did anything with c. C is a constant, one of the few in the universe. You seem to be claiming that God caused c to be infinite at the beginning of creation and then had it continually slow down more and more ever since. At least that's what creation-"scientist" Setterfield proposed. However, there is absolutely no evidence anything like that ever happened. Even creation-science people admit that is an invalid argument.

Hi hoghead,

Well, there's no hard evidence that God made water stand up straight. There's no hard evidence that God made the shadow of the sun to move backwards. There's no hard evidence that God impregnated Mary. There's no hard evidence that God made the land of Egypt pitch black for three whole days. Except, of course, the Scriptures tell us that He did these things. When God created the stars and lights in the heavens, He said that they would be for signs and seasons and so I'm proposing that they were to be such for Adam as much as for me or you even though the Scriptures tell us that they were only created a couple of days before Adam was created. I honestly can't even provide you with any hard evidence to tell you the 'how' that God took some earth from the ground and made it to be a living human body beyond the Scriptures telling me that God formed the man and blew into it the breath of life.

I'm not claiming anything about c. I don't even know what that is. I don't know who Setterfield is. It is my claim that when God commanded the stars to be created in the heavens, that at the very moment of their creation, their light was visible upon the 0earth. I can't tell you how God did that, but then, neither can I tell you how God made water stand up straight or the shadow of the sun to move backwards or the land of Egypt to be pitch black for three days or how God actually made Mary pregnant. I can't tell you how God raised a human body that had been dead for three days. All I know is that He did all these things. He's God! He can even make an ass speak in an understood human language, although there's no hard evidence to prove that. I'm fairly confident that the ass isn't going to give us any testimony.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Hi hoghead,

Well, there's no hard evidence that God made water stand up straight. There's no hard evidence that God made the shadow of the sun to move backwards. There's no hard evidence that God impregnated Mary. There's no hard evidence that God made the land of Egypt pitch black for three whole days. Except, of course, the Scriptures tell us that He did these things. When God created the stars and lights in the heavens, He said that they would be for signs and seasons and so I'm proposing that they were to be such for Adam as much as for me or you even though the Scriptures tell us that they were only created a couple of days before Adam was created. I honestly can't even provide you with any hard evidence to tell you the 'how' that God took some earth from the ground and made it to be a living human body beyond the Scriptures telling me that God formed the man and blew into it the breath of life.

I'm not claiming anything about c. I don't even know what that is. I don't know who Setterfield is. It is my claim that when God commanded the stars to be created in the heavens, that at the very moment of their creation, their light was visible upon the 0earth. I can't tell you how God did that, but then, neither can I tell you how God made water stand up straight or the shadow of the sun to move backwards or the land of Egypt to be pitch black for three days or how God actually made Mary pregnant. I can't tell you how God raised a human body that had been dead for three days. All I know is that He did all these things. He's God! He can even make an ass speak in an understood human language, although there's no hard evidence to prove that. I'm fairly confident that the ass isn't going to give us any testimony.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That's why I remain skeptical about some of teh biblical claims for miracles. C stands for the speed of light. We know the universe is way, way older that 6000 years, since we receive the light coming from stars millions and millions of light years away from us and therefore tool millions and millions of years to reach us. Barry Setterfiled is an Australian geologist who is also into creation-science. He is a YEC. He know he had a serious problem because c proves the universe is way older than 6000 years. He did some pencil pushing and decided to argue that if c was infinite at the beginning of creation, then light from distant stars wouldn't take that long to reach us. Problem is, he could provide no evidence that c varies like that. C has been measured many, many times, and is one of the few constants in the universe. It does not vary. Also, Scripture never said anything about God changing c around.

 

[miamited]

That's why I remain skeptical about some of teh biblical claims for miracles. C stands for the speed of light. We know the universe is way, way older that 6000 years, since we receive the light coming from stars millions and millions of light years away from us and therefore tool millions and millions of years to reach us. Barry Setterfiled is an Australian geologist who is also into creation-science. He is a YEC. He know he had a serious problem because c proves the universe is way older than 6000 years. He did some pencil pushing and decided to argue that if c was infinite at the beginning of creation, then light from distant stars wouldn't take that long to reach us. Problem is, he could provide no evidence that c varies like that. C has been measured many, many times, and is one of the few constants in the universe. It does not vary. Also, Scripture never said anything about God changing c around.

Morning hoghead,

I'm curious what other things that God claims to have done that you're in doubt about. That would explain a lot about the difference between your faith and mine.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Morning hoghead,

I'm curious what other things that God claims to have done that you're in doubt about. That would explain a lot about the difference between your faith and mine.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

As I have explained several times already, I do not hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. Divinely inspired as it may be, it is still the work of fallible humans who could be very prejudicial in what they said. I do not hold that God dictated Scripture word or for word. So I am not addressing what God claims he has done. I am addressing issues surrounding what humans have claimed God has done. What God actually did and what humans claim God did are two very different things.

 

[miamited]

As I have explained several times already, I do not hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. Divinely inspired as it may be, it is still the work of fallible humans who could be very prejudicial in what they said. I do not hold that God dictated Scripture word or for word. So I am not addressing what God claims he has done. I am addressing issues surrounding what humans have claimed God has done. What God actually did and what humans claim God did are two very different things.

Hi hoghead,

Right! And that's exactly what I'm saying. You and I have a different faith. Although I would like to hear from you as to 'what' things you believe humans have given God credit for that He didn't actually do that is found in the Scriptures. I'm just curious.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Hi hoghead,

Right! And that's exactly what I'm saying. You and I have a different faith. Although I would like to hear from you as to 'what' things you believe humans have given God credit for that He didn't actually do that is found in the Scriptures. I'm just curious.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I hold the biblical cosmology is obsolete and has been so since the 16th century. I hold Genesis provides two contradictory accounts of creation, neither of which is true if taken literally. I do not believe God dictated Scripture , as there are too many contradictions.

 

[miamited]

I hold the biblical cosmology is obsolete and has been so since the 16th century. I hold Genesis provides two contradictory accounts of creation, neither of which is true if taken literally. I do not believe God dictated Scripture , as there are too many contradictions.

Right, well that's one. Your statement was that you had problems with 'some of the biblical claims of miracles.' I took from that there was more than one.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dcalling]

I recently watched this YouTube video of cell biologist Kenneth Miller's lecture at Yale. It is the most stimulating lecture I have ever heard online. It has the potential to elevate the level of dialogue created by the God and evolution thread. Among other things, it has prompted me to rethink (not reject) Behe's argument for irreducible complexity/ Against Behe, Miller cites on 20 published studies on the possible evolution of the flagellum :"machine." I say "rethink" because I'd need to know more about the detailed arguments of theses studies (which Behe rejects) before finalizing my conclusion.

Cell biologist, Kenneth Miller, is considered by many the poster boy for evolution theory on the lecture circuit, the key witness against Intelligent Design in courts cases about the place of evolution theory in public education, and an author of standard high school and college text books on biology and evolution. I'd be very interested to ponder reader reactions to the way Miller's (for me, surprising) Catholicism is reconciled with this secular role. I'd also be interested in what readers think of his characterization of the agenda of Intelligent Design proponents like the Discovery Institute, which Miller thinks is decisively discredited by the Dover trial, at which he was a star pro-evolution witness. When you watch this, please be sure also to watch the Q & A session afterwards. This is Yale and the questioners are very perceptive and knowledgeable. Here then is the video:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6A296628430FF65FA2C96A296628430FF65&FORM=VIRE

I watch the video, it is certainly an interesting one. However what I think is the ID guys made too many bad assumptions about God's design (i.e. xxx is too complex and is impossible), and when it turned out to be possible, they got a slap on the face

If we look at this int he other way, and use real scientific methods, it will show that TOE is only a hypothesis, not a theory. For example, in the video on the evolution path of dolphin, Dr. Ken only said we have found several mission links of how the land mammal migrated, but it is not really the right way of making a theory, it can only lead to hypothesis that dolphin are evolved from some land mammal. science theories has to be testable, verifiable and repeatable, and the land mammal to dolphin mutation has none of that.

Of course his point that God should not have designed all those intermediate animals does make sense, but who can say affirmatively that God didn't do that for fun? Who can prove that God didn't fused the genes to make humans?

 

[Deadworm]

For me, the basic issue is this: How improbable do coincidences have to get before we insist on a paranormal causal explanation?

(1) Consider my thread, "The Spirituality of Premonitions" in the Spiritual Gifts section. I contend that it is absurd to ascribe my many paranormal coincidences to chance alone. They collectively imply the mind's ability to operate without the limitations of time. And I have even more impressive premonitions to report. So stay tuned.

(2) Or consider my thread, "The Right Prayer Partner" in the "Praise Reports" section. It is absurd to claim that the intervention of these unexpected prayer partners is just a coincidence, and the sick people would have been inexplicably cured in that instant regardless. Stay tuned for more similar astounding testimonies.

(3) Consider Michael Behe's analysis of the incredible molecular machine, the flagellum, a microscopic analogue to an outboard motor with seemingly irreducibly complex parts. Can the fLagellum's evolution adequately be explained in terms of the random (chance) variations of interlocking complexity? This imagined cellular reengineering from proteins and parts of other molecular machines seems to involve more than coincidence reinforced by dubious claims of adaptive value for each slow micro-alteration; it presumes a kind of "magic," whether performed by an Intelligent Designer or performed by an otherwise unknown catalyst (consciousness? Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields?). Nor will it do to insist that consciousness is simply a brain function. Many replicated studies now support the contention of many neuroscientists that mind exists in some non-spatial, timeless realm and uses the brain like a radio receiver or transformer. And the fact that my many premonitions are more than mere coincidence lends strong support to this contention.

Yet sometimes, amazing coincidences occur that really are best attributed to blind, improbable chance. In my premonition thread, I will post some premonitions which, though impressive, are not obviously paranormal. So where in the elusive line between blind chance and hidden paranormal cause? That is the question that this thread prompts me to ponder. The mere fact that Kenneth Miller finds it necessary to postulate God suggests that God plays a hidden role in ensuring that random selection and genetic mutation can pull off the evolution of life in all its complexity.

 

[Colter]

There is a reason for the chronologies in the writings of the Hebrew holy men of Babylon, authority! The Israelites and their occupation of the lands typically called Israel had been predicted, foretold. But after the loss of their nationalism, the scattering and subsequent bondage in Babylon, the Hebrew priest overreacted to their ego deflation and went to the other extreme, they recast their entire history, converting a secular into a miraculous history.

The story of Adam and Eve and much of the intervening Genesis material was of origin in Mesopotamian culture among the oral histories and traditions loooooooong before the development of the Israelites. But the Hebrew redactors of the priest class sought to establish their authority by creating and unbroken bloodline all the way back to Adam and Eve who they assumed were the first humans. Unable to do so they adopted a local flood legend of Noah in order to fill the gap. They made no claims of divine inspiration, that came later after the return.

 

[dcalling]

There is a reason for the chronologies in the writings of the Hebrew holy men of Babylon, authority! The Israelites and their occupation of the lands typically called Israel had been predicted, foretold. But after the loss of their nationalism, the scattering and subsequent bondage in Babylon, the Hebrew priest overreacted to their ego deflation and went to the other extreme, they recast their entire history, converting a secular into a miraculous history.

The problem with your assertion is, the Bible writings won't give the priests much authority. As anyone can see, the Bible ridiculed most of the Israel leaders, priests (save a few good ones), showed pretty much all of them specifically the later ones in bad light, showed much of the priest class as false prophets (The Jews test prophets by check out if what they said indeed happens). Given this, combined with how the Jews teach and study (the Jews follow rabbies and study for a long time, very good at debating and deriving from the book, check out the long list of Rabies), it is very unlikely they can change their book (the oral Torah is a good example as they will keep debating and deriving from the book instead of changing it).

And if a nation is worshiping some idol, once they got conquered the idol will go away, most of the time their nationality will go away too, not the Jews, not even after all those years of scattering and persecution, they come back, revived their language which has been lost for thousands of years, it is rather amazing.

 

[JacksBratt]

HI deadworm,

You wrote:


But it isn't my job or responsibility to offer up what someone else might consider a 'comprehensive alternative theory'. My one and only job, as regards the things I do with the knowledge, grace and mercy that God has offered me through the Scriptures is to believe them. I further know, by testimony of the Scriptures, that spiritual things can only be discerned by using the resource of the Holy Spirit. So, the first thing I am cautioned to do is to test the spirit. Is the knowledge this person proclaiming, knowledge that comes from the Spirit of God or some other spirit. The revelation tells us that after his fight against Israel and losing, that Satan has turned his full attention on those who trust and believe God. Now, in my understanding, what better way could Satan cause believers to question their faith in the truth, than by making the whole world believe something that isn't true and working their darndest to make sure that everyone is given ample evidence, by their own measure, to make it seem plausible to question that faith? What a brilliant plan! Satan encourages by his spirit many, many people to throw into doubt that we should believe the simple truth of the Scriptures as written. It's exactly what he did with Eve. He prompted her to question the truth of what God said. She fell. I think the Scriptures are also clear on the point that the evidence against God will be so overwhelming that even the elect are subject to such falling.

So, the question for me is always what am I to believe? The wisdom of man '666' or the wisdom of God? What evidence should I consider to be the truth? The evidence that comes from man '666' or the evidence that comes from God? Speaking only for myself, God has made it clear to me that He created this realm in 6 real days of approximately 24 hours as we count days today. That each one of them consisted of a day with an evening and morning just like each day consists of today. He then repeated that claim in other places of the Scriptures. God has also made it clear that He made the first man, Adam, from mere dirt and then created Eve beginning with a rib from Adam's side to show that the woman was fashioned from the man.

Now, each one is free to follow whatever they believe to be the truth, but for me, I'm going with God's testimony. Despite the great and supposedly wise testimony of the scientific minds of men - I'm going with God. Despite all seemingly good evidence offered up by men with far greater minds than my own - I'm going with God. I know that man's heart is wicked. Who can know it? I know that man's understanding of the things of God, without the indwelling Spirit of God, is empty understanding. I know that Satan is trying his very, very best to try and cause the faith of even the most righteous to stumble. Knowing all of this, why would I believe the new and improved scientific understandings and 'truths' of men to necessarily lead to the truth? Mankind is so easily turned away. Eve did it in a moment. The Scriptures call for a steadfast and firm faith. I'm seeking after that. Everyone else will just have to follow what they believe in their heart to be the truth supported by what they believe in their heart to be good evidence. I'm going with God's testimony.

I understand that we live in a created realm. An existence that was merely spoken by God to exist in a beginning form as we see it today. I understand that God created a planet that He called earth and formed it and filled it with all that would be necessary for a creature that He would soon make called man. I understand that God merely spoke the universe surrounding that singular planet earth, to be filled with a myriad of stars and asteroids and comets and on the day that God commanded them to exist they all came forth pretty much just as they are today. I also understand that a day is coming when God is going to bring this existence that we know today to an end and will judge all mankind and then begins the eternal life for which God first created man. I believe and fully understand that God is working out a very, very great plan in which His ultimate goal is to live eternally with those whom He has created in a loving and trusting relationship forever and ever and ever. That this ultimate goal includes not only this realm in which we live, but also the angelic realm.

So, I'm willing to listen to all the great and mighty theories supported by the great and mighty scientific minds of man. But ultimately, I'm sticking with what God has said. For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Every rock, every tree. Every planet, every star. All that is in both heaven and earth God created in six days. I fully understand and appreciate that Satan is prowling like a lion seeing whom he may devour. I fully understand and appreciate that the days of Satan's struggle against Israel is now over and that he is doing his very, very best now to deceive those who believe the testimony of God and Jesus. I fully understand and appreciate, based on how he coerced Eve, that his greatest weapon is to cause all of us to question what God has really said. That's exactly what our perceived great and wise understanding of the natural properties of things through science helps Satan to do.

Let's face it. The bottom line of all these scientific understandings and findings is causing men to say to themselves, "The simple truth of what God has written cannot possibly be the truth. We now know better than those foolish, uneducated ancient peoples. We're so much smarter than them." And Satan laughs all the way to the bank.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

All your posts are Very very well written. I agree 100%. Believe the word of God or the ramblings and self proclaimed wisdom of men.
Build your house on the rock, the word of God. Or build it on the sand, the pompous "wisdom" of men.

Could this be the very "falling away" that is mentioned in the Bible. Even the elect are being deceived?

It is very possible. Self proclaimed Christians saying things like "well, when they wrote the Bible they didn't know science".

Really? Men did not write the Bible. It was inspired by the creator Himself.

God breathed and inspired into the minds of righteous men. This was not some display of the technology and knowledge of the scientific community of the day. This was and is the Holy scripture. It was God using men as His hand to write His word. Remember:

2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And further more:
2 Timothy 3:17King James Version (KJV)

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Like I said before, God's word says it happened and God had full well the power to do it.

Occam's razor wins.

I would rather be persecuted in this world for believing that God did it the way He told us, than to be the one pointing and laughing, all the while perpetuating Satan's lie.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's why I remain skeptical about some of teh biblical claims for miracles. C stands for the speed of light. We know the universe is way, way older that 6000 years, since we receive the light coming from stars millions and millions of light years away from us and therefore tool millions and millions of years to reach us. Barry Setterfiled is an Australian geologist who is also into creation-science. He is a YEC. He know he had a serious problem because c proves the universe is way older than 6000 years. He did some pencil pushing and decided to argue that if c was infinite at the beginning of creation, then light from distant stars wouldn't take that long to reach us. Problem is, he could provide no evidence that c varies like that. C has been measured many, many times, and is one of the few constants in the universe. It does not vary. Also, Scripture never said anything about God changing c around.

So, you are basing your denial of the six literal days, due to the fact that the light from the stars is shining on the earth while the stars are millions of light years away?

When God created Adam, was Adam created as an infant, teenager or mature man?

If God had the power to "speak" the universe into existence, do you not think that He had the power and the foresight to create it with the light from the stars already here?

Do you actually think that He created all His luminaries with the light they emit leaving them at the time of their creation and having the earth and man having to wait for it to get here?

Do you think that it was outside His capabilities to create the stars with their light forming a continuous stream and already stretching from the surface of the stars to the earth?

All of this is child's play for our creator. To base your belief or disbelief on such a trivial and insignificant feat for God to undertake is a grand error in my opinion.