Young Earth Creationism

[Steve Petersen]

If this were possible some TE would be able to supply Scripture to support it. In 12 years, I have yet to see anyone rise to the challenge. Those who tried deliberately took verses out of context and were shown to be wrong by merely posting the previous and subsequent verses. TE has no Scriptural basis.

The Bible doesn't support a lot of things. Doesn't mean they are false.

What does the Bible have to say about algebraic equations, how many electrons around a hydrogen atom, immunology, automobiles, etc..etc....ad infinitum.

Scientists propose a hypothesis and make predictions based on that hypothesis. They then look for evidence that prediction makes. If they find it, the hypothesis is stronger. Multiple predictions and confirmations raise the hypothesis to a theory.

 

[miamited]

Myths are stories that convey truths about the world.

As our knowledge of the world changes, our myths must also change.

Hi steve,

I appreciate your definition and I suppose a lot of folks see it that way. It is my understand that myths do not necessarily 'convey truths', but are rather man's effort to explain a truth. Here are a few of the older Greek ones:

Greek Myths

I don't know if you're interested in the effort, but I'd be willing to discuss the 'eternal truths' that you find portrayed in them. Then we can also discuss how they do or don't represent 'true myths'.

I suppose it's a part of the pride of man that we sometimes confound ourselves with our own great wisdom and knowledge. We teach things that sound so right, but are so wrong. It reminds me of Paul's words to Timothy about itching ears.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

The answers are still 'yes'. The 'fact' that some cultures use mythology to express 'eternal truths' doesn't alter the 'fact' that the mythology is a myth. It just means that the myth was conceived to express an eternal truth. The foundational story line is still a myth.

So, I'm still unable to conceive of a 'true' myth, but I would gladly accept that a made up story might be told to give understanding of an eternal truth. That doesn't, however, change the position of the myth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Myth, to you, is a pejorative term. It isn't that to people who study literature. Eventually, our culture might lose poetry, and the term, "poetry" might mean "something that is false." It won't change the fact that the Psalms are poetry and that they are true. Merely, they are a different form of literature from what people are comfortable calling "true." Likewise with mythology. You are uncomfortable with a "true myth." But to many cultures, this is no harder than talking about "true poetry."

 

[miamited]

Myth, to you, is a pejorative term. It isn't that to people who study literature. Eventually, our culture might lose poetry, and the term, "poetry" might mean "something that is false." It won't change the fact that the Psalms are poetry and that they are true. Merely, they are a different form of literature from what people are comfortable calling "true." Likewise with mythology. You are uncomfortable with a "true myth." But to many cultures, this is no harder than talking about "true poetry."

Hi willtor,

You are a person who has an amazing ability to obfuscate and convolute. Why on earth would you think that because I understand what a myth is, that I consider it a 'pejorative term'? I don't disapprove of myths, but I understand what they are.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind:
realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept:
His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

In your use as a literary construct you may define it any way that you feel is right, but the dictionary defines its use, even as a traditional or legendary story, as something not true or whose truth is indeterminable. Let's lay this issue to rest once and for all. Give me a 'true' myth. By 'true', I don't mean as regards some point that the myth might be trying to make, or that the 'truth' is that the myth exists, but that the myth itself is true. The story line of the myth is true.

I suppose somewhere in ages future the word 'poetry' might mean something that is not true, but as yet, through all the 6,000 years of mankind, poetry has never been a word that has any application whatsoever to the 'truth' of the writing. It merely describes a type of writing style. We can just as easily make some claim that some day the word 'red' might mean a building or skyscraper of more than 1,000 feet in height, but as yet, it has never meant anything like that. You are absolutely 100% correct that 'they are a different form of literature'. Where you then get the idea that it also means ' from what people are comfortable calling "true', is quite beyond my ability to understand. As I say, I've never allowed that the word 'poetry' has anything whatsoever to do with 'truth'.

Finally, the reason I am uncomfortable with a 'true myth' is that, as yet, and until you respond to my request for one, I don't know of any. I have studied the ancient myths of cultures past and yes, there are a few occasions where someone has made up a myth to explain a truth, Aesop's fables, come to mind. Many of the Disney story lines try to teach a 'truth' by using a mythical story, but the stories themselves are not true. That's why they are called myths.

However, all of this discussion should be set back on track as regards how this issue of 'myths' applies to the creation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KWCrazy]

The Bible doesn't support a lot of things. Doesn't mean they are false.

It does if they are 100% in opposition to what the Bible DOES say. The Lord Himself wrote on a stone tablet, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

If you don't have very specific quotes to disprove the word of the Lord Himself, then you're teaching false doctrine.

What does the Bible have to say about algebraic equations, how many electrons around a hydrogen atom, immunology, automobiles, etc..etc....ad infinitum.

What the Bible states is in Revelation 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Nothing in the Bible states that the things you mentioned will not happen. Thins like air currents, the hydrologic cycle, electrons, gravity, the earth hanging on nothingness and germs (unclean things) are mentioned.

Scientists propose a hypothesis and make predictions based on that hypothesis. They then look for evidence that prediction makes. If they find it, the hypothesis is stronger. Multiple predictions and confirmations raise the hypothesis to a theory.

Unfortunately, they can never raise their theory to fact.

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

You are a person who has an amazing ability to obfuscate and convolute. Why on earth would you think that because I understand what a myth is, that I consider it a 'pejorative term'? I don't disapprove of myths, but I understand what they are.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind:
realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept:
His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

In your use as a literary construct you may define it any way that you feel is right, but the dictionary defines its use, even as a traditional or legendary story, as something not true or whose truth is indeterminable. Let's lay this issue to rest once and for all. Give me a 'true' myth. By 'true', I don't mean as regards some point that the myth might be trying to make, or that the 'truth' is that the myth exists, but that the myth itself is true. The story line of the myth is true.

I suppose somewhere in ages future the word 'poetry' might mean something that is not true, but as yet, through all the 6,000 years of mankind, poetry has never been a word that has any application whatsoever to the 'truth' of the writing. It merely describes a type of writing style. We can just as easily make some claim that some day the word 'red' might mean a building or skyscraper of more than 1,000 feet in height, but as yet, it has never meant anything like that. You are absolutely 100% correct that 'they are a different form of literature'. Where you then get the idea that it also means ' from what people are comfortable calling "true', is quite beyond my ability to understand. As I say, I've never allowed that the word 'poetry' has anything whatsoever to do with 'truth'.

Finally, the reason I am uncomfortable with a 'true myth' is that, as yet, and until you respond to my request for one, I don't know of any. I have studied the ancient myths of cultures past and yes, there are a few occasions where someone has made up a myth to explain a truth, Aesop's fables, come to mind. Many of the Disney story lines try to teach a 'truth' by using a mythical story, but the stories themselves are not true. That's why they are called myths.

However, all of this discussion should be set back on track as regards how this issue of 'myths' applies to the creation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

This stuff about poetry is precisely what I'm saying about mythology! At one time, it was a popular way of expressing an eternal truth. Today it isn't. And that's why you think it must necessarily be false.

Here's an example of a mythological story that is true: The Pilgrim's Regress, by C.S. Lewis. It's a non-factual autobiography.

In fact, this is not mythology, but it's close enough for our purposes because it is an apparently historical narrative that is non-factual but expresses a truth.

 

[miamited]

This stuff about poetry is precisely what I'm saying about mythology! At one time, it was a popular way of expressing an eternal truth. Today it isn't. And that's why you think it must necessarily be false.

Here's an example of a mythological story that is true: The Pilgrim's Regress, by C.S. Lewis. It's a non-factual autobiography.

In fact, this is not mythology, but it's close enough for our purposes because it is an apparently historical narrative that is non-factual but expresses a truth.

Hi again willtor,

So, let me see if I've got this straight. I ask you to bring me a myth that is true. You propose 'The Pilgrim's Regress'. Then you plainly write 'In fact, this is not mythology...' Well, then it doesn't qualify, by your own definition, of what I asked for. However, here's one description of the work I found online: The Pilgrim's Regress is a book of allegorical fiction by C. S. Lewis. Do you know what the term 'allegorical fiction' means?

I will say again, convolute and obfuscate, are the primary words to describe your responses to me. Are you able to answer my challenge to you or not? Since this story by C. S. Lewis is not mythical, by your definition, then it fails the first test of the request.

And while I'm at it, let me see if I understand your other point. Poetry today is not used by writers in writing about eternal truths?

This stuff about poetry is precisely what I'm saying about mythology! At one time, it was a popular way of expressing an eternal truth. Today it isn't.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Steve Petersen]

It does if they are 100% in opposition to what the Bible DOES say. The Lord Himself wrote on a stone tablet, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

So is 'the Day of the Lord' a literal 24 hour period?

Isaiah 2:12

Palm 90:4

Amos 5:18-20

Joel 2:1-11

Acts 2:17-21

1 Thessalonians 5:2

2 Peter 3:8-10

 

[Willtor]

Hi again willtor,

So, let me see if I've got this straight. I ask you to bring me a myth that is true. You propose 'The Pilgrim's Regress'. Then you plainly write 'In fact, this is not mythology...' Well, then it doesn't qualify, by your own definition, of what I asked for. However, here's one description of the work I found online: The Pilgrim's Regress is a book of allegorical fiction by C. S. Lewis. Do you know what the term 'allegorical fiction' means?

I will say again, convolute and obfuscate, are the primary words to describe your responses to me. Are you able to answer my challenge to you or not? Since this story by C. S. Lewis is not mythical, by your definition, then it fails the first test of the request.

It's the same difference. That's the point. It's a narrative that is not literal, but is still true. It sounds like convolution and obfuscation because you equate "myth" with "false".

And while I'm at it, let me see if I understand your other point. Poetry today is not used by writers in writing about eternal truths?



God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No, mythology. At one time it was used to express truths (or perceived truths), just as poetry is, today. It isn't, any more, and one day poetry may do the same. And if that happens, someone like you will say, "the Psalms are not poetry because they're true," and someone like me will say, "once upon a time, poetry was used to express truth," and the first person will not understand and be convinced that the second is saying that the Psalms are false because they are poetry.

 

[KWCrazy]

So is 'the Day of the Lord' a literal 24 hour period?

The word "day" can be used to mean long periods of time, however not when used in the context of Genesis 1. With the qualifiers used, it cannot possibly mean other than a single calendar day. There are no examples to the contrary.
Isaiah 2:12
The LORD Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled).
Judgement day is, in fact, a day; a moment when they will stand before the Lord.

Palm 90:4
This is one of the most commonly intentionally misquoted verses, so I'll post the complete context. You'll noticed that verse three refers to the creation of Adam from dust; something you obviously refuse to believe.

Lord, you have been our dwelling place[a]
in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You return man to dust
and say, “Return, O children of man!”
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.


Amos 5:18-20
18 Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!
Why would you have the day of the Lord?
It is darkness, and not light,
19 as if a man fled from a lion,
and a bear met him,
or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall,
and a serpent bit him.
20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light,
and gloom with no brightness in it?

Nothing here suggests that the day of the Lord is a few thousand years.
Joel 2:1-11
Acts 2:17-21
1 Thessalonians 5:2
2 Peter 3:8-10

I'm sorry, but if you're attempting to say that any of these uses are similar to the verbiage in Genesis your post is a miserable failure. Not a single one of them are named, numbered or comprise an evening and morning. Interestingly, though, the Day of the Lord is considered by most to be a singular day of reckoning, when the Lord returns.

 

[miamited]

So is 'the Day of the Lord' a literal 24 hour period?

Isaiah 2:12

Palm 90:4

Amos 5:18-20

Joel 2:1-11

Acts 2:17-21

1 Thessalonians 5:2

2 Peter 3:8-10

Hi steve,

I'd like to add my agreement with what KW has written.

The singular word 'day' can mean several periods of real 'time' passing on the earth. It can also reference just a 'point' in time, such as many of the passages that speak of something happening at some future day as many of your examples refer to. There are a number of words in the english language that are not specific in and of themselves to be understood just by the word itself.

Run!

If I'm in a bad neighborhood and someone says that word I might assume that I'm in some danger and should move from the place where I am standing in a speedy manner.

Run!

If I'm a painter, I'm probably likely to look around and see if there's a dollop of paint moving across my work.

Exact same word. Spelled the same. Pronounced the same. But, to understand the intention that the speaker means to convey to me, I have to have some context.

So, those who just write, "day can mean a couple of different concepts of time", and then just leave it at that are being a bit simplistic. They are expecting everyone to agree that because it can be ambiguous in its definition then we just can't know what the word means anytime we see it written or said. Even in common speech today, if I ask someone what day is it. The one who answers would be correct in answering to me, "It's the day of President Obama's presidency."

It's all about context. And of course we have the testimony of our God in later writings mentioning the same thing and we can match up the context there also to be assured that we are understanding the correct intention of the author.

Finally, and of course this always bring down a firestorm of debate, but I firmly believe that it also has a lot to do with 'knowing' God. The Scriptures declare that God gives wisdom to the simple. It also tells me that if I feel I am lacking in wisdom that I can go before my Father and ask for it and He will give it generously. I've done that.

Set aside all other knowledge and wisdom. Closed up all the science books and cleared my mind as best any human can of any preconceptions or earlier understanding and just gotten down on my knees and made a repeated and simple request: "Father, give me understanding of this issue of how and why and when you created all things. Your word tells me that you did. That everything that has been made was made by you. That the heavens and the earth and all things both above and below them were made by you. Father, your word also tells me that you give wisdom to the simple and give generously to those who ask. I'm asking, Father." Then I open the Scriptures and read the account of the creation. And I follow this prescription not just once, but several times.

So, while I certainly don't expect others to agree with me. My faith says that God has given me the answer to my prayer. He has confirmed in me, by His Spirit, the truth. He has done exactly what He said He would do. He has given wisdom and knowledge to the simple and, I believe, given it generously.

All the detractors look at me with incredulity and say, "But science says...", "Science has proven...", "Great men of science who have given of their life's work have said and proved and expounded at great length...". I'm sorry, but my simple and heartfelt response is, "I don't care. God has impressed upon me a knowledge, wisdom and faith that says this this is the how, when and why God created this realm. He has impressed upon me that we humans, creatures that He also made for His pleasure and purpose, live in a similarly created realm of existence. All of the beauty and majesty and awe of the universe and the earth was all just created for me and you to have a place to set our heads at night and to walk about during the day. It's all a fabulous and marvelous created existence that a loving and gracious and merciful God made by His awesome power and knowledge and wisdom so that I would have life and His pleasure and desire for me is to find Him, know Him and love Him for doing it all.

One day He's going to bring it all to a head. He's going raise His hand and declare, "Enough!" Son, I have waited patiently and I have provided everything that each and every single person living in my created realm needs to learn about me and to choose to love and serve me. Now the world has just gone over the top in its wickedness and hatred towards me and it is enough. It is time for the harvest. Son go get your children and let's bring this existence to a close and move on to the end of the story. I want to reap the harvest for which I have waited so long and nurtured and provided for."

Science, friend, science is just a construct of mankind that we have made to study what God has created. It's just another form of man's pride that He thinks to himself, "I can figure out how and what and when God did by studying the created things rather than the Creator. Come! Let us build a tower unto the heavens where we can be like God."

God bless you my friend.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KWCrazy]

All the detractors look at me with incredulity and say, "But science says...", "Science has proven...", "Great men of science who have given of their life's work have said and proved and expounded at great length...".

Sadly, many who profess to be well educated in science do not know its limitations. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It does not and cannot study the supernatural. It can't disprove a single miracle nor can it offer a correct explanation of one. Science will look at a tree bearing fruit and say that it is at least 15 years old, though God created the same thing with a breath on day three. Science would look at Adam; an adult male; and conclude that he is at least 20 years old though God made him from dust seconds earlier. All things were created in their maturity, which explains to us why we see age in them. This world is an artificial physical construction which will one day be destroyed. The Lord is eternal and His offer of eternal life is real.

Science will tell you that it is impossible for a man to be dead for a man to be dead and rise again on the third day. It is not possible for a Holy Spirit to indwell with us. However, the most simple minded believer has a greater wisdom than the most intellectual atheist. The latter is called a fool for his denial of God and will be destroyed in the lake of fire: the second death. The former will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. The last shall be first and the first last.

You don't need to be a special, deserving person to enter the kingdom of Heaven. There are none deserving. You need to have faith in the one who has paid the price of your admission. That is the real truth we all need to learn.

Peace and love.

 

[miamited]

Hi KW,

Agreed! Science, while it certainly answers a lot of our questions in the here and now about how things work, suffers the basic human limitation that we do not see the end from the beginning. We do not have all wisdom and knowledge. When we begin to use science to tell us about things in the far distant past we need to understand that there's no way to prove any theory, but must merely rely on extrapolating what we see today in the physical realm and assume that it has always remained relatively constant. If our assumptions are correct, then yes, we can have some confidence that our theories are correct, but, unfortunately God hasn't given us any way by which we can test our assumptions for their validity.

Of course you are absolutely correct that science, as a study and method, leaves no allowance for the miraculous. But God, I believe, by the testimony of His word and His Son and His Spirit has given us the answer to these particular questions. I can't help but consider the '666' of the revelation in these discussions. They seem to always pit the wisdom and knowledge and testimony of God against the wisdom and knowledge and testimony of man. '666' is the number of man.

God bless you brother.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Sadly, many who profess to be well educated in science do not know its limitations. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It does not and cannot study the supernatural. It can't disprove a single miracle nor can it offer a correct explanation of one. Science will look at a tree bearing fruit and say that it is at least 15 years old, though God created the same thing with a breath on day three. Science would look at Adam; an adult male; and conclude that he is at least 20 years old though God made him from dust seconds earlier. All things were created in their maturity, which explains to us why we see age in them. This world is an artificial physical construction which will one day be destroyed. The Lord is eternal and His offer of eternal life is real.

Science will tell you that it is impossible for a man to be dead for a man to be dead and rise again on the third day. It is not possible for a Holy Spirit to indwell with us. However, the most simple minded believer has a greater wisdom than the most intellectual atheist. The latter is called a fool for his denial of God and will be destroyed in the lake of fire: the second death. The former will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. The last shall be first and the first last.

You don't need to be a special, deserving person to enter the kingdom of Heaven. There are none deserving. You need to have faith in the one who has paid the price of your admission. That is the real truth we all need to learn.

Peace and love.

You can't have it both ways: Science cannot disprove a miracle OR science says it is impossible for a man to be dead and then rise from the grave. Stick with no more than one. Personally, I think neither. But it certainly cannot be both.

 

[KWCrazy]

You can't have it both ways: Science cannot disprove a miracle OR science says it is impossible for a man to be dead and then rise from the grave. Stick with no more than one. Personally, I think neither. But it certainly cannot be both.

Sure it can.
Science can't disprove miracles because science does not study the supernatural any more than an altimeter measures heat. Science relies on the physical laws of the universe. That includes the fact that decay begins immediately after death and continues until there is nothing left. When a person has no life functions and the body is allowed to decay, unless there is some kind of super mummification process to keep the tissues viable there is no chance of re-animating it.

Miracles by definition violate the laws of nature.

 

[Willtor]

Sure it can.
Science can't disprove miracles because science does not study the supernatural any more than an altimeter measures heat. Science relies on the physical laws of the universe. That includes the fact that decay begins immediately after death and continues until there is nothing left. When a person has no life functions and the body is allowed to decay, unless there is some kind of super mummification process to keep the tissues viable there is no chance of re-animating it.

Miracles by definition violate the laws of nature.

So... science doesn't say that a dead person can't rise from the dead because it's unqualified to speak on that issue?

 

[KWCrazy]

So... science doesn't say that a dead person can't rise from the dead because it's unqualified to speak on that issue?

Science cannot offer an explanation on how a man can rise from the dead. Science would deem that to not be possible. It violates known biology. If there is a supernatural force capable of raising the dead science cannot identify it since science is the study of the natural world.

 

[Willtor]

Science cannot offer an explanation on how a man can rise from the dead. Science would deem that to not be possible. It violates known biology. If there is a supernatural force capable of raising the dead science cannot identify it since science is the study of the natural world.

Biology conferences/journals would not accept a paper that made a statement (one way or the other) on the resurrection of Jesus without evidence. When we say that "science says x" we are talking about peer reviewed papers, not what is said by popular speakers, even scientists outside of their research papers.

For example, take Francis Collins (Christian) and Richard Dawkins (Atheist): We do not say that science says that Jesus rose from the dead because that is what Francis Collins says, even though he is a well respected research scientist. Likewise, we do not say that science says that Jesus did not rise from the dead, even though that is what Richard Dawkins says, even though he is a well respected research scientist (not that he does a lot of research anymore, but you take my point). Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, if they were here, would both agree on this point. It isn't science simply because a scientist says it. It's science because it survives peer review in a conference or journal.

Science says "x" when "x" appears in a paper in a conference or journal, and after the paper has had some time to receive criticism. No peer reviewed paper exists that says that Jesus did or did not rise from the dead.

---

This is different, however, from saying that no such article could appear. With physical evidence, science actually _could_ make a statement on the matter -- supernatural or no. If it were supernatural, science probably could not put forth a mechanism, but it certainly could affirm it. Likewise, if Jesus' body were recovered, it could make the statement that the resurrection did _not_ happen.

Science is, in principle, capable of making a statement one way or the other. However, it has not done so.

 

[mark kennedy]

The singular word 'day' can mean several periods of real 'time' passing on the earth. It can also reference just a 'point' in time, such as many of the passages that speak of something happening at some future day as many of your examples refer to. There are a number of words in the english language that are not specific in and of themselves to be understood just by the word itself.

I have often made this point, the first chapter of Genesis is 6 regular 24 hour days. The literary features could not be more clear, day means day in Genesis 1 and the vast majority of OT passages using Yom for Day:

yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום: From an unused root meaning to be hot. Day (as opposed to night), or day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)
​

There are exceptions of course,

And in process of time H3117 it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (Gen 4:3)​

The point being, you don't get to rewrite the Scriptures by reinterpreting things you don't believe. It takes little effort to clarify the point that day means day in Genesis 1.

 

[Calminian]

Sadly, many who profess to be well educated in science do not know its limitations. ...

That's a great line. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

It really sums up the modern problem of religious scientist worship. We look to these high priests to answer questions about everything, even those outside their field of expertise, like questions of ontology (existence) and origins (beginnings). They're experts on natural normative processes to be sure, but don't realize they can't even use their own system of investigation and prove the absolute uniformity of natural laws. They merely have to assume nothing outside of normal processes has affected anything, ever! And that's a religious assumption, not a scientific one.

Thus we have men who are experts in one field commenting on subjects they almost understand nothing about. They're often less equipped than the average sunday school student (provided they're raised in a biblical environment.)