I really don't know how God created all we see. My beliefs are based upon the Bible but not based upon the assumption that the Bible is meant to be always and forever understood as literal history. Know doubt when ancient times simple literal understanding was used, but I think God is bigger then that and that even as we learn so much more then what we knew in the past the Bible can still speak to us. And we don't have to suspend our knowledge of the world in order to understand the messages of God found in the Bible.
I am working on a multi-part series posted on my blog which I have not completely finished but you may find it helpful in understanding which is based upon the realities we see and the stories we read in the Bible.
http://newprotestants.com/ecc.html
There is nothing anti-biblical about interpreting the Bible in ways other then traditional fundamental ways. A fundamentalist Jew would never accept Christianity, something has to cause them to rethink their interpretations. These points of rethinking interpretations has been a pretty regular part of the Judeo-Christian religion.
I found Woob's order to stop pretty funny, apparently he thinks I am a demon that he can cast out, probably reading too much Neil Anderson, well not him but some Adventist of the same idea.
I will tell you the tipping point was for me many years ago in an Astronomy College class that was taught by a Paleobotanist. His area of specialty was microscopic fossils. When you find that there are areas of cyanobacteria (used to be called blue-green algae) which is only made up of layers of bacteria without any pollen grains then I had to re-evaluate my assumptions. When the oldest fossil beds contain the bacteria and no pollen e.g. no plant material then the possibility that things began differently they we assumed has to be considered. I agree with Woob that God could have done it all in just an instant or 6 days but it could also be over billions of years. Yet the reality we see has to lead to the question of how God created and we may never have the answer to that.
RC,
It is not a question of 'how' God created, but a question of what time frame God created in.
The Bible is very clear on this matter. In fact, the Sabbath command alone can serve as a means to prove that God created in six literal days, since the command itself is rooted in the creation account. The Sabbath day does not last for thousands of years, but only for a 24 hour time period.
Moreover, the idea of a 'morning and evening' in the creation account makes it quite clear that it was a literal six day creation.
And as stated before, it would be nonsensical to think that it took millions of years to create cattle. To assume each day to represent such a time frame, one would have to render such a conclusion, as it were. Also, the creation account speaks of 'days', not millions of years.
Of course, there are other arguments.
As to what I mean by anti-Biblical, there are teachings in the Bible that are obvious. Such teachings can only be denied when someone either refuses to see the obvious, or just simply acts in a dishonest manner.
The idea that the creation account did not take place in six literal days, is a denial of the obvious, and is thus an anti-Biblical position.
What it comes down to RC, is either you are going to accept what inspiration says, or you are going to reject it. Just because you can't explain it in detail, that doesn't make it false. You don't have to explain everything. There are some things that you just have to accept by faith, knowing that there is a devil out there that is going through great pains to distort the truth.
Not everything that science dictates to be evidence is proof for what many assume the answers to be. Just because you or someone else discovers something that appears to be contrary to what the Bible teaches on a fundamental level, that doesn't mean it is what science determines it to be (in this case a means to refute what the Bible says). Until you learn everything there is to know about such findings you can't speak in absolutes on the matter, but merely offer theories as to what such findings mean. Later discoveries may prove to refute such hypotheses at some point in time, as science changes its perspective quite frequently.
By the way, I don't believe you are a demon. I ordered you not to teach such things in here because 1. such a teaching is anti-SDA, and anti-Biblical. 2. two friends of mine that were members of this forum are now atheists because of such a teaching. This greatly troubles me.
Oh I will just type it. 
