God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[mike]

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.

I think you are correct about the weight of evidence demonstating an earth that is billions of years old. Hoever, I do not believe that the Bible actually suggests that the earth is much younger. People have just read their bias back into the text.

[Harold]

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.

There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.

FTL

[CSloan]

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.

I think you are correct about the weight of evidence demonstating an earth that is billions of years old. Hoever, I do not believe that the Bible actually suggests that the earth is much younger. People have just read their bias back into the text.

Could you be doing the same?

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.

They may not have been intended for this purpose, but then they still serve it quite well.

[normfromga]

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.

There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.

FTL

I hope I mistook any inference that only an Evolutionist would doubt a literal six-day Creation or a 6000 year-old earth...

[jb728b]

Things that make you go Hmmm.

Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Genesis 1:8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

I could go on.  After all there are 4 more days to go.

Whom shall I believe?   

[zoonance]

and thou shalt take 2 of every kind etc.......    and which thou wilt find twas impossible if I wouldst be taken literally.  Thoust will feel compelled to attempt at explaining how it was done and find thy answers lacking.

OR

and I shalt leave false evidence as to tempt and try the faith of those who doth try to learn and apply the same brain in scientific approach successfully to the rest of their earthly experience in scientific discovery and application.  In the end, only those who stand firm on the creation chapters saying they mean what they say shalt find other scriptures and spend much time in explaining why they don't mean what they say.

I don't have the answers but Answers in Genesis hasn't done it for me yet.  Nor do I have any particular equally brilliant ideas of my own: Maybe someone will discover how the evidence really does mesh with the literal details (6 days - He made it look old, He could have spoke it into existence, etc.  (Noah's ark - save the planet flora and fauna - miraculous contraevidence event.  He maybe used liquid nitrogen and had a frozen zoo.  Doesn't say Noah didn't - or did he have the technology then?  All he needed was a couple of days - didn't need to start over.  Why the flood and the preservation of one family anyway - another adam and eve event to populate the earth?)

I hope asking questions is not heresy!   I don't expect God to make sense per se.  But I do expect reality to reflect the Real.

[CSloan]

I hope asking questions is not heresy!

No, but the questions you are asking are pretty silly.

[zoonance]

Not as silly as some of the counterarguments and "proofs" for a 6 day earth?   It would be better sometimes not to try to prove it accurate and just accept it for what it says.    It is as if science can only be used to prove or disprove rather than simply observe, investigate and develop a greater understanding of what it is and how and why?   the how and why is where much of the debate lies.  Much of the what is simply that ... what's right in front of us.

[mike]

I hope asking questions is not heresy!

No, but the questions you are asking are pretty silly.

On the contrary, they are enormously important questions. And I believe he asked them seriously, even if thou mightest protest his KJV English.   

CSloan, I have found that digging deeper has strengthened my faith, rather than weakening it. If we could fully comprehend everything about God, he wouldn't actually be God, but just a construct of our own minds.

Consider weighing some of the evidence regarding the age of the universe, as well as textual criticism evidence (as has been recommended to you). I know that you may still reach different conclusions than I have (and that's certainly okay), but I think your faith and also your Christian witness would be strengthened.

[jb728b]

When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults.  All of his creation was that way.  After all he said be fruitful and multiply.  You don't say that to an infant anything.

Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?

I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was.  Several things need to be commented on. 

First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown.  A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.

Secondly, Just as today,  many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.

Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark

[Cross-titled]

I wanted to stop by long enough to vote.  I think this is an interesting debate.

I believe:

... God created the heavens and the earth.

... God created it in 6 days.
... a day to a timeless God is any length He wants it to be.

... God speaks to me in truth.
... God speaks to me in any way that helps me understand.

... God has no gender.
... God is my FATHER.

... science indicates, points to, proves God's existence.
... science indicates, points to, proves God's miracles.

... my faith is built on so much more than my understanding of how the earth was created or how long it took.
... my faith is built on so much more than inferring that God must have lied to me then if it wasn't done in 6, 24 hr days.

... that one of the beautiful attributes of the Bible is its blending of poetry, allegory, prose and song.
... that through the blending of all of these, and other types of literature, God communicates to me TRUTH.

[Cross-titled]

When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults.  All of his creation was that way.  After all he said be fruitful and multiply.  You don't say that to an infant anything.

Actually, we don't know how old they were or how long of a time it was before God told them that.  The creation of life and everything else from nothing is quite a feat in itself, wouldn't you say?

Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?

He could produce a planet any way He saw fit.  Why are we putting guidelines on creation?

I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was.  Several things need to be commented on. 

First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown.  A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.

Secondly, Just as today,  many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.

Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark

It sounds like you need to have a complete physical understanding of what took place (on the ark AND in the creation story) and I don't know if that was God's intention at all.  What do you think WAS God's intention?  Is your faith shaken to think of creation in any other way than literally in 6 days?

[CSloan]

My great opposition the day/age theory is this:

God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.

Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.

The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.

So now you have this great division between literal interpretation and a modern interpretation.

[Cross-titled]

God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.

Interesting, but I respectfully disagree.  Think about how a grown parent talks to a little child that would have no way of understanding adult things.  (This is not exactly a good analogy because a little child eventually grows up to be a grown parent but we never grow up to be God)  "Daddy, where do babies come from?"  I would probably just about go anywhere other than trying to explain specifics, but I would make a point of explaining the "truth" that God does it.  Use birds and bees or something.

I don't think that we were EVER intended to know "everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25".  Especially the nuts and bolts of the physical assembly of the universe.  The first verse is enough for me.

Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.

It doesn't imply to me "that God would be misleading".  And I certainly don't find him using "misleading language to man" when His purpose isn't to give us a science lesson.  To our natural question "How did we get here?" God is just saying in a very beautifully written way that through a glorious sculpting of created matter He formed us and all we have and see around us.  And I find this very much in harmony with scripture and His loving nature.  He says, "I AM".  I have faith in THAT.

The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.

I don't believe you have to be an evolutionist to not believe in a literal 6 day creation.

Do you mean that NO ONE believed in a non-literal 6 day creation before Darwin?  For thousands of years?  Do you really believe the reason people choose to believe this is because it "was invented to coincide with evolution theory"?

[CSloan]

God uses language to communicate to man what he wants us to know. The record of the creation was recorded because God must of wanted us to know everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25.

Interesting, but I respectfully disagree.  Think about how a grown parent talks to a little child that would have no way of understanding adult things.  (This is not exactly a good analogy because a little child eventually grows up to be a grown parent but we never grow up to be God)  "Daddy, where do babies come from?"  I would probably just about go anywhere other than trying to explain specifics, but I would make a point of explaining the "truth" that God does it.  Use birds and bees or something.

I don't think that we were EVER intended to know "everything contained in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:25".  Especially the nuts and bolts of the physical assembly of the universe.  The first verse is enough for me.

I'm not talking about anything outside of whats contained in the passages. I think it was clear I wasn't talking about "nuts or bolts" of the assembly for the universe. I was addressing day/age theory.

You may be satisfied with the the first passage, but theres more then just Genesis 1:1.

Now to suggest the word day isn't what it says it is implies that God would be misleading or use misleading language to man. This I find not in harmony with the rest of Scripture, nor in harmony with the nature of God revealed in Scripture.

It doesn't imply to me "that God would be misleading".  And I certainly don't find him using "misleading language to man" when His purpose isn't to give us a science lesson.  To our natural question "How did we get here?" God is just saying in a very beautifully written way that through a glorious sculpting of created matter He formed us and all we have and see around us.  And I find this very much in harmony with scripture and His loving nature.  He says, "I AM".  I have faith in THAT.

You either are purposefully ignoring what I posted, or misunderstood what I'm addressing. I was talking about the day/age theory and my objections to it.

The reason the day/age theory was invented was to coincide with evolution theory because men felt if they did not compromise to this new theory, they would lose people because it challenged the Bible. So they developed a new theory that allowed people to incorporate evolution into their theist beliefs, through reinterpreting [reinventing] Genesis.

I don't believe you have to be an evolutionist to not believe in a literal 6 day creation.

Do you mean that NO ONE believed in a non-literal 6 day creation before Darwin?  For thousands of years?  Do you really believe the reason people choose to believe this is because it "was invented to coincide with evolution theory"?

Yes, day/age was invented as a compromise to evolution and the idea of an old earth (billions of years). I'm not suggesting you have to believe in evolution to believe in day/age, but evolution was the prime factor in the development in this theory.

If you do not fully understand the theory of day/age, I suggest you look into it before continuing in a debate.

[zoonance]

When God created Adam and Eve they were both physically mature adults.  All of his creation was that way.  After all he said be fruitful and multiply.  You don't say that to an infant anything.

Why would God not, also, produce a planet the same way?

I'm not sure if many people have a grasp on Just HOW big the ark was.  Several things need to be commented on. 

First of all NO WHERE did God say that the animals to be brought on the ark were to full grown.  A baby elephant takes up a lot less room than a full grown one.

Secondly, Just as today,  many of the larger mammals hibernate thus reducing the amount of food that would have be taken on the ark.

Thirdly there are also many animals that can live in water as well as on land so there would be no need for them on the ark

My point exactly.   

[Harold]

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.

There is no irrefutable fact as to the earth's age. 90% of all the dating methods refute the long ages the evolutionists need to support their faith.

FTL

I hope I mistook any inference that only an Evolutionist would doubt a literal six-day Creation or a 6000 year-old earth...

A theistic evolutionist still believes that we evolved over billions of years, a local flood......etc

FTL

[Harold]

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.(GWT)

Now this verse is smack-dab in the middle of the Law/Ten Commandments, this God wrote with His own hand. Now draw a line in the sand, either God created in six literal days or God is a l........

FTL

[zoonance]

... ot bigger than ancient civilizations ability to comprehend?

[marc]

Thank you, zoo. 

He's bigger than I can comprehend, too.

[Harold]

Luk 13:14  But the leader in charge of the synagogue was indignant that Jesus had healed her on the Sabbath day. "There are six days of the week for working," he said to the crowd. "Come on those days to be healed, not on the Sabbath."

Back to the OT,

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day He rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Joh 1:3  God created everything through Him, and nothing was created except through Him.

Col 1:15  Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
Col 1:16  for through Him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through Him and for Him.

Eph 1:9  God has now revealed to us His mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill His own good pleasure.
Eph 1:10  And this is the plan: At the right time He will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.

Not so hard to understand. Why do we have a seven day week?

FTL

[zoonance]

Why not use a seven day week as a experiental base to explain creation?  Why can't we have a 2 day week or a 20 day week?   Why a leap year?  Why a gregorian calender and not a roman calender"  (I have no idea what I am talking about! :) but I do recall that there have been some 'changes' to our calender et al.    Why did He rest on the seventh day?  what happened on the eighth?  Why a seven day week? Maybe tradition, maybe biblical influence, I don't know.  Like I have repeatedly said, simply accepting the bible as literal and "the way it is" is easier to swallow than the "proofs" that scientists are dishonest.   

I still can not figure out why one of the greatest objections to evolution (which I have also stated that I am not convinced of its absolutes either!) has been the goofy question "If evolution is the truth, why can't we see it happening today? " or questions like that.   I can't shake the obvious observation that the same people who speak of a species "adapting a bit" could do so in a few thousand years in just as many limited niches (temperature, marine versus fresh, forest versus desert, etc etc etc etc etc)  but scoff at scientists for not finding "evolution going on today!" as proof that evolution isn't true. 

Interestingly enough, I see that the Christian Chronicle has an article this month on the existence of God.

[zoonance]

In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious  limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back.    Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual.  You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island.  I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.

[CSloan]

In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious  limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back.    Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual.  You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island.  I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.

The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.

What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.

[marc]

Barry said:

The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.

Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.

and

I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?

These assertions are incorrect.

Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.

Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.

Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.

Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.

Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".

Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.

.................................................................................

My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.

I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.

Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Mike

this is a good post that may not have been viewed in a while. 

[Barabbas]

Barry said:

The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.

Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.

and

I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?

These assertions are incorrect.

Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.

Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.

Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.

Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.

Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".

Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.

.................................................................................

My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.

I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.

Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Mike

this is a good post that may not have been viewed in a while. 

Here is a quote from Irenaeus:

and there are some again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,

[marc]

and sometimes we forget that the "ancients" used more figurative language than we do, not less.

[zoonance]

In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious  limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back.    Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual.  You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island.  I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.

The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.

What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.

Besides being blind and living completely underground....  What did the ancestor look like and how has it evolved into the naked mole rat and its cousins of today ?    They built and went all over the earth?  Maybe the wives did!   And then took them back afterwards.   That's one down.  What about the worm snake?

[mike]

marc,

I was just going to repost that info from the church fathers. Thank you for looking up the old post and saving me the trouble.

CSloan,

As you can see from this information, which I will repeat, the idea the the days in the creation week account may not be literal 24 hour days precedes the development of anyone's theory of evolution by more than a thousand years.

For example:
Philo (20 BC - 45 AD) believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are only a metaphor, and that God created everything instantaneously.
Josephus (37 - 103 AD) questioned the meaning of the expression "one day".
Justin Martyr (100 - 166) believed each creation day was 1000 years long, based on Psalm 90:4 & II Peter 3:8.
Irenaeus (130 - 200) believed the same as Justin Martyr.
Hippolytus (170 - 236) also felt the same way.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - 220) believed, like Philo, that creation days are only a metaphor. His idea was that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.
Origen (185 - 254) believed that the 7 creation days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.
Lactantius (250 - 325) 100 years/day, like Justin Martyr.
Eusebius of Caesarea (260 - 340) translated yom in Genesis 2:4 as day, referring to the entire creation week.
Basil of Caesarea (330 - 379) said the days represented ages, with the first day the beginning of creation.
Ambrose of Milan (340 - 397) believed the 7 days were a literal 144 hour period, but explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, such as "Day of the LORD" or "eternal day of reward."
Augustine (354 - 430) felt that the creation days were figurative. He said that evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.



Thus, your statement:

Yes, day/age was invented as a compromise to evolution and the idea of an old earth (billions of years). I'm not suggesting you have to believe in evolution to believe in day/age, but evolution was the prime factor in the development in this theory.

If you do not fully understand the theory of day/age, I suggest you look into it before continuing in a debate. 

is not correct.

Might I suggest, brother, that you are the one who needs to spend a bit of time studying.

[blituri]

Take in consideration that EARTH does not speak of the GLOBE but of the dry, fruitful places where mankind can live.

Note also that in Matthew 13 Jesus explained that truth had been hidden in parables from the creation of the world. Other references make that the world defined in Genesis.

Job also speaks of clearly figurative creation and calls them "parables" in two places.

It is simply faith-destroying to teach and traffic on the notion that maybe 200 billion stars in 200 billion gallaxies "within out view" is only 6,000 light years across.

[CSloan]

In the end, simply noting the marvelously wonderful and nearly infinitely diverse fauna with their individually strict, often isolatingly precarious  limited, obviously designed niche in life, I need to know how the naked mole rat got to the ark and back.    Ask that question in awe of the complexity for each and every unique individual.  You will see the fingerprints of the Creator written all over in the deepest oceans and the tallest mountain, the tiniest pool in the jungle to the patch of trees on a distant island.  I love Him so much for giving his Son to one who seeks to know Him and about Him even with such inquiry.

The mole rat would only need to find his way to the ark. And I think God either drew all the animals, or Noah and his sons got them. Or a combination of both. But either ways its not spelled out specifically.

What is spelled out is every kind of animal we have today is an ancestor of a passanger of the arks maiden voyage.

Besides being blind and living completely underground....  What did the ancestor look like and how has it evolved into the naked mole rat and its cousins of today ?    They built and went all over the earth?  Maybe the wives did!   And then took them back afterwards.   That's one down.  What about the worm snake?

I'm not going to defend every point of the flood to your skepticism, the flood requires no apology.

[zoonance]

Then why try?   Let the others of us give it a shot.

[Sequea]

Wow...I don't think I've ever read some much on the Creation of the earth! There are soo many opinions out there. I personally believe that God created the earth in 6 literal days (and rested on the 7th.) My question is, if they weren't literal days then how long was God resting for on the seventh day? You have to wonder if God created Adam and Eve and then decided to rest what was going on while he rested for lets say 1000 years? By that time Adam and Eve would have fallen short of God's glory, been banned from the garden, had Can and Abel, died and then some. It almost doesn't make sense to say that God didn't create the world in literal 24 hour days. I am not saying that it couldn't have happened. Only God knows the truth, but I can't find any evidence to support that fact. I don't care if man has been questioning it for years and if scientists believe in evolution. We must remember that man is WRONG at times. God is ALWAYS RIGHT. ALWAYS. He has never been wrong and never will be. I can in no way put my trust in man and that is why I cannot believe in most of the theories that man has come up with. God created the world. That is that. We can't be saved by debating when or how it was created, but it is nice to talk of such things!

Sequea

[zoonance]

Fortunately, I sincerely doubt anybody on the Forum doubts that God is always right!  :)   Although, some do seem to indicate that to even try to contemplate how scientific discovery compliments or perhaps fine tunes our understanding of scripture is questioning His word.  Not to say that theories of man can be full of holes, but so can any of our interpretive faculties!

[CSloan]

Then why try?   Let the others of us give it a shot.

So what are you saying, there is no global flood or was it local?

Or are you saying there was no flood at all?