Scripture attributes a morning and an evening to every single of the six days. I am no friend of arguing linguistically what "yom" means, but the morning / evening attribute is very convincing for me that a single, 24 hours day is meant.
I'm not questioning that the Bible says evening and morning and that does seem to imply one day...
I am interested in the original language, of which I do not know so I be stuck there.
The way it is worded though does seem to state one day..there was evening and there was morning the first day.
ClearSky said:
There are other arguments that support a short time period, such as God's omnipotence. He would not need billions of years for creating earth or life.
No argument there. Though would He need to make babies to grow to maturity or could he create them as adults and does He take pleasure in watching His creation grow?
ClearSky said:
Species, yes; genus, no. Evolutionists explain this with the long time period (hundred thousands and millions of years) required for evolution. Even dogs needed many thousand years despite they had high selection pressure and are still genetically almost 100% identical to wolves.
Yes, that's what I wanted to know is if an already known species has ever "evolved" into something else..
none that I'm aware of. Still waiting on the linked evidence that that has occured in the other thread.
ClearSky said:
Had the trees that God planted in the garden Eden tree rings or not? You can bet that they had tree rings, as God didn't plant seeds but full grown trees. Not only in the garden but everywhere on earth. There, you got your rings.
I never really thought about it that way, simple, but true.
ClearSky said:
God made a world that already looked old, not only for a superficial look but even for a detailed scientific examination. That's why scientists think the earth exists since 4.6 billion years. They have to think so because their observations tell them so, but that doesn't mean it is true.
Yes, and to some scientist or to whom ever could not believe that God would do these things even though this Scripture applies to the message of the cross, I think it could apply to God's creation:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
The scripture applied literally is medicine for man. As wisdom for living, it is just blessing and better life, not harshness. As a solution for disease and injury, it works. As a message of salvation, nothing else fits the mind and heart of man like Jesus to save. Man is too stupid for anything else, actually. Think about the confession of faith and why man does so little and God so much to make that possible.
Why should creation be taken any differently? If God can overcome expectation to heal and raise the dead, why should we expect that he cannot overcome the limitations of modern science to create?
If one takes all the modern critical methods that lead to "debunking" Jesus as God incarnate and a man who rose from the dead, there is as strong correspondence between what these methods dictate for our view of Jesus and our view of creation. The same principals make Jesus inspired perhaps, but full of error, not God and not risen from the dead.
This same Jesus is the "Word." If God can incarnate as the Word, what would one expect of the Words of Genesis? Particularly where Jesus endorses specifically that Adam was a man and that at the beginning of creation, God made male and female humans, not ameobas.
If any principle has the ability to attack the person of Jesus as the incarnation of God risen from the dead, then one must test it for inconsistency on its own terms. That is the thing about human principles. There is always internal inconsistency. The Word, unlike anything else yields consistency consistently.
Testing the principles of modern man against man's own principles, we find enormous holes in the process of reason. Neither random mutation nor any known process of mutation can solve the problem of creation in 2 billion years, nor in 20. It is statistically absurd. Geology is full of so many errors and anomalies -- single trees that extend through "millions" of years of strata. The process of putting dates to these strata is full of embarrasingly absurd error.
The creation of the universe arises from an enormously unlikely event as a Big Bang. So why would 10 to the 60th such events in six days be less likely than one event starting on 1 day and extending for 15 billion years? Statistically its not less likely. Nobel prize winning physicists put the odds on a successful Big Bang at 1 in 10 to the 120th power. Some estimates are that there are 10 to the 60th atoms in the universe. So, why is biblical creation less likely? It isn't. A likelihood of 1 in 10 to the 50th is defined as statistical absurdity -- it is practically meaningless. Now compare the number of atoms in the universe to the odds that the Big Bang would actually succeed in creating stars and life. The latter number is larger by a factor that is statistically absurd. Could God have created all those particles more or less where they are all at once? That would be just as "easy" or likely as setting off one big bang on one day and taking 15 billion years to finish it.
Further, all of creation is full of anomalies. Between here and the nearest galaxies are trillions upon trillions of virtual particles or areas that share some properties with the Big Bang: we can't look behind them and their potential energy or dynamic force is essentially infinite -- for all we know. In other words, most of what exists is known to be beyond our knowledge by the definitions of science itself. Could God have worked through those things in six days? You bet, for all we know.
This is all man's science evaluated on its own terms.
For all we know. That is the key. Because we don't. Thus, the Word of God.
Well I know that God can do anything He wants. He could have created all within 6 literal days, but He also could have put everything into motion.
My question is which one was it?
Could it have been a little of both?
How are hobbits and other such fossils that evolutionist say have been found explained? I don't even know what a hobbit is I just seen them post it...guess I should get to looking that up before I'm asking questions..
I have yet to ask this question here, but from my understanding dinosoars were around in Biblical times, evolutionist say no, what say you?
