God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[zoonance]

who says?

Where is a cross kind?

How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?

FTL

Dog breeds are not genetically distinct.  They simply express their DNA in distinct packages.  Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep.  And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean!  And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug.  Otherwise you have a cross.  Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.

[Harold]

who says?

Where is a cross kind?

How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?

FTL

Dog breeds are not genetically distinct.  They simply express their DNA in distinct packages.  Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep.  And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean!  And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug.  Otherwise you have a cross.  Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.

If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?

FTL

[mike]

who says?

Where is a cross kind?

How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?

FTL

Dog breeds are not genetically distinct.  They simply express their DNA in distinct packages.  Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep.  And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean!  And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug.  Otherwise you have a cross.  Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.

If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?

FTL

Maybe frozen dogs. 

It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.

[Gracious]

Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.

For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.

my humble 2 cents

Rick

I'd have to say "nope"      ... here's why:

2 Peter 3
(New International Reader's Version)
8 Dear friends, here is one thing you must not forget. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years. And a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow to keep his promise. He is not slow in the way some people understand it. He is patient with you. He doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins.

Psalm 90:3-5
(New Living Translation)
YOU turn people back to dust, saying,
      "Return to dust, you mortals!

[soterion]

Gracious,

How do you get 1,000 years out of "...and there was evening and there was morning, one day"?  Also, what do you do with Exodus 20:11?  Do you define the days of creation as being 1,000 years each?

I am afraid you are confusing figurative language with literal.

[zoonance]

who says?

Where is a cross kind?

How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?

FTL

Dog breeds are not genetically distinct.  They simply express their DNA in distinct packages.  Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep.  And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean!  And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug.  Otherwise you have a cross.  Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.

If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?

FTL

Maybe frozen dogs. 

It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.

And my grandkids will turn black if we move to africa.

[CSloan]

And my grandkids will turn black if we move to africa.

So what is evolutions answer for ethnic diversity, some "races" aren't as evolved as others?

[zoonance]

interpretations are products of the biases.    God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed.    If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored.   Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package.  They simply don't always match up!    Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?     Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess.  We need not provide these individuals with evidence.   No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed.  But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!"    I am not an evolutionist by the way.   But I am not blind either.

[Harold]

who says?

Where is a cross kind?

How many dogs types do we have and how long did it take to get there?

FTL

Dog breeds are not genetically distinct.  They simply express their DNA in distinct packages.  Plus, they are a product of directed breeding, eliminating the puppies that don't fit the desired affect and breeding the one's you want to keep.  And, a chinese pug didn't get out of china on its own ending up on an island in the middle of the ocean!  And it takes another chinese pug to get a chinese pug.  Otherwise you have a cross.  Breeds are not species anymore than a homo sapiens europeanensis versus a homo sapiens aborigiensis exist.

If I start with one type of dog, then this breed is moved to an area where there is extreme cold. Over, say three generations of dogs, what would we expect to find?

FTL

Maybe frozen dogs. 

It sounds like you are talking about Lamarckian evolution. I'm not sure anyone believes that way anymore. Even so, three generations is insufficient to see any significant change.

How many generations of peppered moths have we observed?

No,(Not Lamarkian) but survival of the best adapted.

And my grandkids will turn black if we move to Africa.

I would think if isolated for 150 years your great, great, great, grand children may see an adaptation of survival of the fittest.

FTL

[zoonance]

That is part of the problem.  The use of "I would think...." instead of "I have observed..."   (I in no way mean to be anything but equally honest.  Forgive me if anything I say sounds...inappropriate or unkind to a brother in Christ!)

[CSloan]

Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?

Could it be possible that all the genetic diversity existed in the first man and woman, and through the ages we have all the diversity shown in the children of men.

This might seem like a washed out answer, but sometimes the most obvious conclusion is correct.

[zoonance]

That can not be argued.  Well, it probably could be and might even be eventually by someone!   But for now, since I am not a geneticist, let us rest in our adamic DNA.

[Harold]

That is part of the problem.  The use of "I would think...." instead of "I have observed..."   (I in no way mean to be anything but equally honest.  Forgive me if anything I say sounds...inappropriate or unkind to a brother in Christ!)

I did not in any way take it as unkind, you are correct we have not observed. We must depend on others that have to form our opinion.

FTL

[CSloan]

That can not be argued.  Well, it probably could be and might even be eventually by someone!

Already has.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

[Harold]

Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.

Exo 20:11  In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.


If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?

FTL

[jb728b]

The Bible says "days".   

Genesis 1:4  ...and there was evening and there was morning; the first day.

Hmmmm.  I wonder what that means. 

[CSloan]

The Bible says "days".  

Genesis 1:4  ...and there was evening and there was morning; the first day.

Hmmmm.  I wonder what that means. 

Lexicon Results for yowm (Strong's H3117)
Hebrew for H3117
יום

Transliteration
yowm

Pronunciation

yome (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)
from an unused root meaning to be hot

TWOT Reference
852

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow

[normfromga]

interpretations are products of the biases.    God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed.    If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored.   Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package.  They simply don't always match up!    Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?     Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess.  We need not provide these individuals with evidence.   No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed.  But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!"    I am not an evolutionist by the way.   But I am not blind either.

Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.

They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.

[normfromga]

Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.

Exo 20:11  In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.


If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?

FTL

Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (yom) to make Heaven and Earth...

So how could the original statement be true?

[Harold]

Back to the OP. If God did not create in six literal days then we have been misled either by God, or by Moses.

Exo 20:11  In six days the LORD made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn't work on the seventh day. That's why the LORD blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy.


If this is not true how can you trust the rest of your Bible?

FTL

Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (yom) to make Heaven and Earth...

So how could the original statement be true?

And all that is in them. Five more days.

FTL

[zoonance]

interpretations are products of the biases.    God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed.    If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored.   Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package.  They simply don't always match up!    Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?     Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess.  We need not provide these individuals with evidence.   No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed.  But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!"    I am not an evolutionist by the way.   But I am not blind either.

Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.

They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.

No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood.   So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype.    It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true.   Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....

[CSloan]

Yet, in Genesis 2:4, it says that it only took God ONE day (yom) to make Heaven and Earth...

So how could the original statement be true?

Look at the passage closely:

Gen 2:4-5
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

The complete sentence includes the plants and herbs of the field before they grew. If you take 2:4 away from 2:5, sure it doesn't make sense. Context is crucial to understand the complete what the passage is leading to.

This is an recount of the creation from Genesis 1:1, detailing the creation of man and the specific events in the garden. Some would go as far to say Genesis 2 is a second or separate creation record, but that is just erroneous looking at chapter 1 and chapter 2 together.

[Harold]

interpretations are products of the biases.    God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed.    If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored.   Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package.  They simply don't always match up!    Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?     Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess.  We need not provide these individuals with evidence.   No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed.  But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!"    I am not an evolutionist by the way.   But I am not blind either.

Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.

They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.

No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood.   So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype.    It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true.   Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....

Can you find one observance of a net gain in genetic information from one type to another type? Like T-Rex to parakeet.

FTL

[zoonance]

interpretations are products of the biases.    God made them black, white, yellow, red and like begat like until mixing came along OR the aborigine or the isolated pockets of distinct "native" peoples (whereever) are the current cumulative phenotypes that survived to breed.    If we are forced to accept either/or, then observations are to be ignored.   Thus the difficulty of communication between observers/interpreters and forgone conclusions delivered in a package.  They simply don't always match up!    Ethnic diversity exists.  Why and How?     Some would argue that being more evolved than another is not limited to ethnic diversity but also intellectual prowess.  We need not provide these individuals with evidence.   No doubt that conclusions can be so ungodly as to be dismissed.  But some conclusions, at its packaged best, would have to include "That is how God did it!"    I am not an evolutionist by the way.   But I am not blind either.

Evolutionists talk "species" but produce "breeds", "strains", "races," "variants" and other reversible sub-species.

They used to criticize Creationists for using the vague term "kinds", but, push-turn-to-shove, their definition of "species" become vaguer all the time.

No doubt they will become even more fine tuned as the genome is further understood.   So much of the early work was based on phenotype rather than genotype.    It really isn't all that vague, but it may not be 100% accurate, that is true.   Speaking of "vague terms" - baptism, christian, sin, works....

Can you find one observance of a net gain in genetic information from one type to another type? Like T-Rex to parakeet.

FTL

If that never happened (viruses basically exist because they add themselves to their host DNA! - a gain in higher animals typically leads to disease) then 2 of EVERYTHING had to be on the boat.   Even a fantastical explanation doesn't allow for that.  Nor does it explain how they got redispersed.  I don't have all the answers, but the answers given most of the time in opposition will do no justice to "professing to being wise, they became fools."     Round is not square and black is not white.  Explaining and describing the material world what is in front of us can be challenging.  To force the process through a scriptural prism will likely distort rather than clarify.  Our kids (not necessarily a good thing!)  will be given a choice - It may start out trying to mesh what "the preacher says" and what "the scientists say" but it may end with such a intellectual mess that sides are chosen.   Again, I don't have the answers, but uninformed scientists attempts at theology are likely to be as confusing as uninformed christians are at creation apologetics.   "The Bible says it and that is good enough for me!" seems to work better when confronting scientific obstacles than it does in finding unity in the body amongst ourselves.   The details may elude us for a long time or the KEY may be just around the corner that allows the truth of scripture explain the truth of observations.   Hope this all makes some sense.

[Harold]

But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.

There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.

FTL

[Carico]

The evidence relies upon mathematical assumptions and models which cannot be verified to be 100% accurate.

Because the rate of exponential decay of Carbon 14 follows a certain pattern for awhile, does not mean that all elements follow this particular model.  Also, Carbon 14 is only valid in situations less than 50,000 years.  A whole host of other dating methods are being used for things assumed to be of different ages.

It is very possible that current dating methods are not correct.

I'ts not only possible, it's probable which is precisely why scientists are always trying to improve their dating methods. And since they don't understand God's awesome power, then of course, God creating the universe in 6 days seems impossible to them. But what Satan tells us is true is actually false and what he tells is false is actually true.

[zoonance]

But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.

There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.

FTL

Then there had to be 2 of each (Plus more of each of the "clean" stuff - the humans were at least expected to eat/sacrifice?), plants and animals, feed stuff etc.....  We feed so much here at our small zoo in a year and we only have about 500 or so species represented here.  If observations and thought count for anything in religious dialogue, then the same mind and processes are to be utilized in experiential dialogue.   Making the ark a floating miniearth to save that which took 2 days to make with the expectation of filling the niches as yet still underwater can only mean that some details are missing or our favorite artist is Don Henley with his song "Lying Eyes"   Do the math.  Somebody's conclusions don't add up.     IF the flood was regional and not the entire planet, maybe aspects of the story could be explained, albeit with stark, confusing questions left unanswered.  Answers in Genesis is at least giving it a shot - probably more to give christians some comfort rather than a seriously credible alternative to scientific observations and common sense.   One has to readily admit that there are certainly goofy, unbelievable conclusions made from a godless agenda and deserving of alternative explanations!   

Even the tower of babel requires faith as an explanation of why so many languages exist.  (Go on a mission trip.  Lots of building takes place with hand gestures and stick figures without having a clue what the other guy is saying.)  But this biblical account is far easier to run through a prism than to pluck out our eyes that can see and pith our minds that can observe. 

[Harold]

But there is no net gain in genetic information for the DNA, you are a human and will beget humans. There are a lot of different types of humans, but humans they are.

There is still no net gain in genetic information within the DNA chain.

FTL

Then there had to be 2 of each (Plus more of each of the "clean" stuff - the humans were at least expected to eat/sacrifice?), plants and animals, feed stuff etc.....  We feed so much here at our small zoo in a year and we only have about 500 or so species represented here.  If observations and thought count for anything in religious dialogue, then the same mind and processes are to be utilized in experiential dialogue.   Making the ark a floating miniearth to save that which took 2 days to make with the expectation of filling the niches as yet still underwater can only mean that some details are missing or our favorite artist is Don Henley with his song "Lying Eyes"   Do the math.  Somebody's conclusions don't add up.     IF the flood was regional and not the entire planet, maybe aspects of the story could be explained, albeit with stark, confusing questions left unanswered.  Answers in Genesis is at least giving it a shot - probably more to give christians some comfort rather than a seriously credible alternative to scientific observations and common sense.   One has to readily admit that there are certainly goofy, unbelievable conclusions made from a godless agenda and deserving of alternative explanations!   

Even the tower of babel requires faith as an explanation of why so many languages exist.  (Go on a mission trip.  Lots of building takes place with hand gestures and stick figures without having a clue what the other guy is saying.)  But this biblical account is far easier to run through a prism than to pluck out our eyes that can see and pith our minds that can observe. 

If there was a world wide flood what would we expect to find?

Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

What do we find?

Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

Roughly 16K kinds would represent what we see today, that leaves more than enough room for all the animals.  None of them ate meat until they came off the ark. So the immense amount of space on the ark would store food for how many juvenile animals? Go visit a place where they unload cargo from a ship and you tell me?

FTL

[blituri]

I agree that preachers are not qualified to pronounce judgment on science.  Nor are most even prepared to to pick out the eternal principles from the figurative lauguage. I heard all of my life that Jesus used parables to make truth easy for we simple minded people. I had to learn for myself that Jesus said just the opposite.  When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.

A parable is a "superior form of speech." Jesus in fact said that it was to keep the wise from understanding. By definition of the word, a parable can be like a "preacher's" story.  When Jesus was asked why He spoke to the masses using parables--which even they did not understand -- He said:

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew 13:13

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Matthew 13:14

For this peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:15

Later:

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Matthew 13:34

    Multitudes is: Ochlos (g3793) okh'-los; from a der. of 2192 (mean. a vehicle);
    a throng (as borne along); by impl. the rabble; by extens. a class of people;
    fig. a riot: - company, multitude, number (of people), people, press.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
        I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which
        have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Matthew.13:35

[Harold]

they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.

If the Bible is not true in Genesis it is not true in Revelation.

FTL

[CSloan]

When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.

They will never "discover" that, they will be indoctrinated with it by secular humanists.

Starlight and the lightyear theory, along with every other old earth theory is based on assumptions.

Genesis accurately records the age of creation through genealogies, from creation. Without evolutionary assumptions, determining the age of the earth scientifically would result in a figure very closely releated to that recorded in Genesis.

[mike]

When our youth discover that just our galaxy is about 100,000 light year across and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies -- just within out view -- they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.

They will never "discover" that, they will be indoctrinated with it by secular humanists.

Starlight and the lightyear theory, along with every other old earth theory is based on assumptions.

Genesis accurately records the age of creation through genealogies, from creation. Without evolutionary assumptions, determining the age of the earth scientifically would result in a figure very closely releated to that recorded in Genesis.

CSloan,
Surely you know that the genealogies listed in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Bible) are incomplete. They are summaries, and it was common practice to skip less important individuals to come up with a significant number of generations, like Matthew did in his gospel.

Don't make the mistake of applying modern standards of scientific accuracy to an ancient text, which the authors never intended.

[normfromga]

they will never believe that it all happened 6,000 years ago and there is no Biblical reason for believing so.

If the Bible is not true in Genesis it is not true in Revelation.

FTL

And conversely...

If the six-days Creation is literal in Genesis, then the 1000-years reign is literal in Revelation...

[Harold]

I would say yeah it probly is true. It sure would be cool to see.

FTL

[D Cunningham]

To the best of my understanding it is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years older than the Bible suggests. If we were to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then we can assume that it was created in 6 days, otherwise we cannot.