Is the literal six day creation wrong?

[Alan McDougall]

Hi I could never bring myself to believe that the earth and the universe was created in six literal twenty four hours. Some say God did create everything in six literal days but gave the earth an image of being very old To me that would make God out as lying about his own creation.

If fact God in my opinion has never stopped creating!!

Alan

[touchingcloth]

In terms of the scince a literal 6 day creation is dead wrong.

[Ngakunui]

Here's something about it on this website.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ehnmo6NyT3

Just figured I'd link you to it. What this basically states is that the word translated as day most likely means something much longer than a 24-hour Terrestrial day. So to put simply, the Bible isn't in error so much as its English translations.

[jlay]

How do we judge a literal day, today?

The rotation of the earth. And we attempt to judge the time of everything in the universe by the rotation of this tiny little spec of dust in the galaxy. Kind of comical when you think about it. Hmmm, who is it that thinks the earth is the center of the universe?? Science or religion.

Considering that the bible claims the sun was made on day 4, this would make a 24 hour day a real problem. Even a YEC like myself acknowledges this.

No matter how much we think we know, no one can physically travel back in time and witness such events. All one can do is make conclusions based on the evidence. Keep in mind that two people can look at the same evidence and draw differing conclusions. And both can use sound methods. So, for me to claim that the earth is or isn't a certain age would require absolute knowledge of things that I can not test and observe directly. I can not, nor can any person. One can only test and observe the residual evidence. Scientifically, one can only say, based on THESE interpretations of the residual evidence the earth/universe is X number of years old. But no matter how old it is today, science overwhemlingly agrees that the evidence does point to an alpha event. A beginning. Guess what? The earth was one day old at some. It was 6,000 years old at some time.

So, what does beleiving in a literal 24 hour, six day creation have to do with trusting the bible and Jesus. Not much if you ask me. I can't believe in a literal 24 hour, six day creation because the bible doesn't literally teach this. To do so, I would have to impose my prejudices upon the text. I can beleive in a literal six day creation, because the bible literally records 6 days, but I can only suppose what and how long those days could have been. I can't imagine what forces of physics were at work when the universe sprung to life. I certainly can't say that I can dig up a rock, or look in the the vastness of space, and say, Yep this is how old it all is. I am right and you are wrong.

[touchingcloth]

But no matter how old it is today, science overwhemlingly agrees that the evidence does point to an alpha event. A beginning. Guess what? The earth was one day old at some. It was 6,000 years old at some time.

Point me to any science that says the earth was once one day old. Planetary accretion is a grindingly slow process - drawing boundaries between a disc of dust, a localised accumulation of dust, a proto-planet and a planet is as arbitrary as to make a "one day old" or even a "6,000 year old" earth meaningless as a concept.

[derrick09]

Hello touchingcloth, I have a quick question for you, in your opinion, what are your top, most convincing evidences or arguements for macroevolution? Just curious. Thanks in advance.

[Alan McDougall]

The earth is about 5 billion years old and that is both a scientific and biblical truth. How could God convey these enormous time spans to the writer of Genesis?

[jlay]

And you have observed this first hand? Last I checked we can barely determine how many planets our own solar system has. I was taught, scientifically, we had nine. Oh wait. Now you are telling me you witnessed the formation of the earth. Point me to any evidence that has first hand testable and observable proof.

If you are going to asign an age to the earth, then it was one day old at some point, regardless of its initial size or mass.

I live on earth. I take acception that you beleive the 1st day of its existence is meaningless.

[Byblos]

But no matter how old it is today, science overwhemlingly agrees that the evidence does point to an alpha event. A beginning. Guess what? The earth was one day old at some. It was 6,000 years old at some time.

Point me to any science that says the earth was once one day old. Planetary accretion is a grindingly slow process - drawing boundaries between a disc of dust, a localised accumulation of dust, a proto-planet and a planet is as arbitrary as to make a "one day old" or even a "6,000 year old" earth meaningless as a concept.

Once the planet was fully formed (however long that process took and by whatever means it got to be that way, including planetary accretion of stellar dust), 24 hours later it was one day old. And it's the same science that claims the planet is 4.5 billion years old (one day is a tiny fraction of that but still a distinctive fraction). Unless you want to argue that the planet is still in the process of forming.

[Alan McDougall]

We KNOW the earth is very old by the ice core samples from the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelf's. The show summer and winter for countless thousands of years in the very way the annual rings of a tree reveals its age

[jlay]

We KNOW?

Are you sure? Has the rate of ice build up been the same over time? (Hint: Ice age)
Can there be multiple build ups and thaws in one year?
Did you know that trees can produce multiple rings in a year?

Have you ever heard of "Glacier Girl?"

We can observe ice TODAY. We can not travel back in time and observe. We must make inferrences upon the evidence. We do KNOW from this incident and others that rapid deposit is in fact a reality.

[touchingcloth]

And you have observed this first hand? Last I checked we can barely determine how many planets our own solar system has. I was taught, scientifically, we had nine. Oh wait. Now you are telling me you witnessed the formation of the earth. Point me to any evidence that has first hand testable and observable proof.

If you are going to assine an age to the earth, then it was one day old at some point, regardless of its initial size or mass.

I live on earth. I take acception that you beleive the 1st day of its existence is meaningless.

Have I observed this first hand? Nope, but I have looked at evidence from it from multiple different disciplines. All you have is a book.

So, testable and observable evidence (never use the word proof if you want to talk, as it were, scientifically)?
How about the movement of the continents?
Sedimentary deposits?
The formation of various geological structures?
The results of multiple different radioactive clocks converging on a common date for the oldest solid rocks?
Seeing other planetary systems that span the whole range of stages of planetary accretion?
All of the above which point to the fact that planets take longer than 6 days to form, and that our own planet in particular is older (much, much older) than 6,000 years.

Your point about how there are no longer 9 planets nicely compliments my point about how there was no first day for the earth; there's an aribitrary deliniation between what makes a planet vs a dawrf planet in the same way that there is an arbitrary deliniation between an accreting disk of dust and a fully formed planet.

[jlay]

ave I observed this first hand? Nope, but I have looked at evidence from it from multiple different disciplines. All you have is a book.

What do you mean all I have is a book? Do you have some top secret evdience you are not sharing. Or do I have access to the same science that you do? Are creationist somehow prohibited from the information. BTW, I am not debating the evidence with you. I am debating the interpretations.

Stop your condescension. You rely on faith. Faith in the opinions you have read. You have NOT examined the evidence yourself. You have put your FAITH in the interpretations of the evidence.
I have had a friend (deceased now) personally drill down hundreds of feet in the ice of Greenland to recover WWII planes, buried 250 feet of ice.

How about the movement of the continents? I believe they have moved. What's your point?
Sedimentary deposits? They exist. Do they have dates written on them? Many show evidence of rapid deposit from catastophe, not slow processes.
The formation of various geological structures? Uh, huh. You mean like the grand canyon?
The results of multiple different radioactive clocks converging on a common date for the oldest solid rocks?
Seeing other planetary systems that span the whole range of stages of planetary accretion? Examples?
All of the above which point to the fact that planets take longer than 6 days to form, and that our own planet in particular is older (much, much older) than 6,000 years. I've already address the 6 day issue. I've never seen a planet form, have you?

Your point about how there are no longer 9 planets nicely compliments my point about how there was no first day for the earth; there's an aribitrary deliniation between what makes a planet vs a dawrf planet in the same way that there is an arbitrary deliniation between an accreting disk of dust and a fully formed planet. Byblos answered this quite well.

[touchingcloth]

Stop your condescension. You rely on faith. Faith in the opinions you have read. You have NOT examined the evidence yourself. You have put your FAITH in the interpretations of the evidence.

I've examined plenty of the evidence myself. I don't rely on faith, I have a reasoned and rational view that, in the true spirit of scepticism, is open to re-evlauation on the strength and preponderance of new evidence.

The formation of various geological structures? Uh, huh. You mean like the grand canyon?

Yup. Or mountain ranges. Or oceanic crust. The list is pretty long.

Seeing other planetary systems that span the whole range of stages of planetary accretion? Examples?

Fomalhaut B is a pretty good example of an accreting system that is currently observable from earth; it's special in that it's the first such system to have been imaged in the visible spectrum but there have been observations in the X-ray and other spectra in the past (Science article, wiki page). A good primer on planet formation is here.

All of the above which point to the fact that planets take longer than 6 days to form, and that our own planet in particular is older (much, much older) than 6,000 years. I've already address the 6 day issue. I've never seen a planet form, have you?

From start to finish? Nope. In the process of forming? Yup.

Your point about how there are no longer 9 planets nicely compliments my point about how there was no first day for the earth; there's an aribitrary deliniation between what makes a planet vs a dawrf planet in the same way that there is an arbitrary deliniation between an accreting disk of dust and a fully formed planet. Byblos answered this quite well.

No, he didn't. I'd agree that there was a first day from the earth being fully formed, but my point is there's no good definition of fully formed. As an analogy take Bill Gates, it could be said that there was a first day when he became a rich man...but how many dollars did he need in his bank account before he was considered rich? My point is that it's a gray spectrum between no planet and a fully formed planet, not a black and white deliniation.

[jlay]

Fomalhaut B is a pretty good example of an accreting system that is currently observable from earth; it's special in that it's the first such system to have been imaged in the visible spectrum but there have been observations in the X-ray and other spectra in the past (Science article, wiki page). A good primer on planet formation is here.

First of all, it is not observable from earth. It was observed from Hubble, which isn't on earth.
How long have we been observing this planet now? 1,000 years, a million years. Oh, about four years. Actually not that long. That is just the time since the discovery till now.

Yup. Or mountain ranges. Or oceanic crust. The list is pretty long.

And what is point exactly?

From start to finish? Nope. In the process of forming? Yup.

Wow! This is amazing. Is it possible that there are alternate explanations? Is this even a fact, or a theory?

My point is that it's a gray spectrum between no planet and a fully formed planet, not a black and white deliniation.

Then how can you be so certain regarding Fomalhaut B?
The planet is 25 light-years away. And suddenly we know how old it is, and that it is in this specific time of formation? The fact is that FB is like looking at a grain of sand in a sandbox. Even with hubble, it is a spec. I went ahead and did a little research (since its not top secret) and it is littered with "maybes" and "may haves." In other words speculation. An obvious sign of folks trying to apply their interpretations to the evidence.