Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
What have you offered by way of proof?

The bible. The different past. The different future. Jesus body when it was ressurected. The passing away of these heavens. The closeness of the spiritual in the past. New Jerusalem. A sun earth, and moon that are forever, not to decay away as science claims. The fact the spiritual is needed for eternal life, not just physical. The rapid growth rates, different light, and lifespans of the past. etc etc etc. What are you talking about?

You may not like the word, gnosticism; but it is the word that descrbes what you are trying to teach here. As to my credentials to offer that label, I am familiar with and have worked with the original manuscripts and translations of the Nag Hammadi library and am very familiar with gnosticism. Unfortunately, this old heresy has been around for a long time. It keeps coming back in different forms.

It means nothing to me, sounds like you are hung up on it. I look at whether ideas are bible based or not, not some people pet peeves and hang ups, and buzz words!

What you are preaching here is gnosticism and is a torturing of the text.

No it is a beautiful harmonizing of the bible, in a simple and inspiring manner that leaves God as real, and not a liar, dead, sick, or missing in action!

You completely eliminate physical evidence from anything so you in effect remove yourself from any form of accountability and anyone's refutation is reduced to opinion, so why bother arguing with you? May as well argue physics with a hamster.

Yes, if you try to limit God, and creation, and the past, and he eternal future to silly, inept, pitiful physical only evidence, you might as well talk to your hamster!

Apparently you've got it all figured out, you deny anything can refute you and all you do is cruise by, drop replies with multiple exclamation points and argue that nobody shows you any proof when you deny that any proof can exist for your own position.

If you have some refutation, let's have a boo. If not, why flap the jaws?

Well Dad,

Let's start then.

We'll focus on the Bible only since you (erroneously) presume that physical evidence is unecessary and unreliable.

You cite the Bible as evidence of your beliefs.

1. As demonstrated previously in this thread, you argued against days of more than 24 hours based on the activity of the 6th day. Yet, you completely missed that the sixth day chronology in Genesis 1 included Male and Female as being created on that day, arguing that the text itself made no such presentation. To your credit, you admitted you were wrong when shown your error, yet you leapt beyond digesting the implications and problems that your error present and made additional assertions.

Please show me that your position is consistent with the Bible by going back and interacting with the text to show how that change in understanding has modified your position and thus how your position is subject to the Bible itself, rather than your just asserting that it doesn't matter and then restating your previous assertion.

2. Please show how you reconcile the time spans in the Geneology of Genesis to assert that the separation theory in terms of plate tectonics (which most reputable Young Earth Creationists reject) that you assert in Gen 10:25 is consistent with this event having taken place. Explain how you tie this to the Flood despite the Flood having taken place 120 year prior.

3. Please explain on what basis, textually you assert that there are 3 forms of separation taking place in Gen 10:25

a) Languages and people (which are pretty much iniversally accepted)
b) Continentally (which is not accepted by a high percentage of people in your own camp)
c) Spiritually (which is accepted by an even smaller percentage of the group from b although it is in fact referenced in Gnostic scriptures, a group condemned as heretics throughout the early Church and embraced today by a Gnostic revival and New Age movement.)

Please base your answers in the text itself, outside any outside theories and expalin how your position is consistent with the text from a historical, grammatical, and contextual point of view.

You may want to think about your answer rather that ignoring it or flying by it with a quick generallity as I intend to interact with you and ask for clarification

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well Dad,

Let's start then.

We'll focus on the Bible only since you (erroneously) presume that physical evidence is unecessary and unreliable.

It is fine for where it applies, in the present. But, of course if the future, for example, it does not apply. So, unless you could demonstrate it applied to the past or will to the future, no physical evidence exists now perceivable by man for a spiritual component then!

You cite the Bible as evidence of your beliefs.

1. As demonstrated previously in this thread, you argued against days of more than 24 hours based on the activity of the 6th day. Yet, you completely missed that the sixth day chronology in Genesis 1 included Male and Female as being created on that day, arguing that the text itself made no such presentation. To your credit, you admitted you were wrong when shown your error, yet you leapt beyond digesting the implications and problems that your error present and made additional assertions.

Hey, I don't argue with the bible. I don't even argue with science that is real, testable, observable, and applicible.

Please show me that your position is consistent with the Bible by going back and interacting with the text to show how that change in understanding has modified your position and thus how your position is subject to the Bible itself, rather than your just asserting that it doesn't matter and then restating your previous assertion.

OK, here's the new improved version. Ha.

"(1) God created the higher forms of animals, [yes] (2) God created Adam, [yes] (3) God planted a garden in Eden,[maybe not] (4) God made to grow the vegetation in Eden,[yes, fast plant growth] (5) God gave Adam the responsibility for tending the garden,[yes, how long does this take a minute or two?] (6) Adam became lonely,[yes, maybe sexually, he was very virile] (7) God had Adam name all of the animals, in search of a companion, [yes, not that many animals though, since a lot came from later hyper evolution] (8.) Adam was still lonely after this, [yes, all the animals with partners, he could see none were his partner[/color]] (9) God put Adam into a deep sleep and made Eve from his rib,[yes] (10) Eve was presented to Adam as his new partner, and finally [yes] (11) God gave them instructions to multiply and care for the earth. [yes] "

2. Please show how you reconcile the time spans in the Geneology of Genesis to assert that the separation theory in terms of plate tectonics (which most reputable Young Earth Creationists reject) that you assert in Gen 10:25 is consistent with this event having taken place.

I say it happened either in the flood, or the split, in Peleg's day. Not in creation week.

Explain how you tie this to the Flood despite the Flood having taken place 120 year prior.

? Tie what to the flood?

3.

Please explain on what basis, textually you assert that there are 3 forms of separation taking place in Gen 10:25

I think it refers to the split. Also, as we know, the tongues happened here. As for the continental seperation, it wasn't far from here, even if it was the flood 101 years before this time. Whatever else happened, I think the big thing here was the split.

a) Languages and people (which are pretty much iniversally accepted)
b) Continentally (which is not accepted by a high percentage of people in your own camp)
c) Spiritually (which is accepted by an even smaller percentage of the group from b although it is in fact referenced in Gnostic scriptures, a group condemned as heretics throughout the early Church and embraced today by a Gnostic revival and New Age movement.)

Can you show a link or something about where the split was referenced? That's news to me. I think likely we are talking about 2 different things here. Mainly, I am talking about matter in the universe, and rhe world. Where the added spiritual with the physical changed everything. This is why we had rapid plant growth, fast cooling lava, light that got here quickly from far stars, no radioactive decay, hyper evolution from created creatures where needed, possibly no gravity as we know it now, and the spiritual realm much closer to the realm of men. Etc. If you are talking about the human spirit, as I suspect, that is a different story. As you know, man fell at the garden. It was there we were seperated that way from God, and His life. Biological life on earth it seems was also affected. We see massive death in the fossil record.

So... nothing in the 6th day took a that much time.

dad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well Dad,

Let's start then.

We'll focus on the Bible only since you (erroneously) presume that physical evidence is unecessary and unreliable.

It is fine for where it applies, in the present. But, of course if the future, for example, it does not apply. So, unless you could demonstrate it applied to the past or will to the future, no physical evidence exists now perceivable by man for a spiritual component then!

You cite the Bible as evidence of your beliefs.

1. As demonstrated previously in this thread, you argued against days of more than 24 hours based on the activity of the 6th day. Yet, you completely missed that the sixth day chronology in Genesis 1 included Male and Female as being created on that day, arguing that the text itself made no such presentation. To your credit, you admitted you were wrong when shown your error, yet you leapt beyond digesting the implications and problems that your error present and made additional assertions.

Hey, I don't argue with the bible. I don't even argue with science that is real, testable, observable, and applicible.

Please show me that your position is consistent with the Bible by going back and interacting with the text to show how that change in understanding has modified your position and thus how your position is subject to the Bible itself, rather than your just asserting that it doesn't matter and then restating your previous assertion.

OK, here's the new improved version. Ha.

"(1) God created the higher forms of animals, [yes] (2) God created Adam, [yes] (3) God planted a garden in Eden,[maybe not] (4) God made to grow the vegetation in Eden,[yes, fast plant growth] (5) God gave Adam the responsibility for tending the garden,[yes, how long does this take a minute or two?] (6) Adam became lonely,[yes, maybe sexually, he was very virile] (7) God had Adam name all of the animals, in search of a companion, [yes, not that many animals though, since a lot came from later hyper evolution] (8.) Adam was still lonely after this, [yes, all the animals with partners, he could see none were his partner[/color]] (9) God put Adam into a deep sleep and made Eve from his rib,[yes] (10) Eve was presented to Adam as his new partner, and finally [yes] (11) God gave them instructions to multiply and care for the earth. [yes] "

2. Please show how you reconcile the time spans in the Geneology of Genesis to assert that the separation theory in terms of plate tectonics (which most reputable Young Earth Creationists reject) that you assert in Gen 10:25 is consistent with this event having taken place.

I say it happened either in the flood, or the split, in Peleg's day. Not in creation week.

Explain how you tie this to the Flood despite the Flood having taken place 120 year prior.

? Tie what to the flood?

3.

Please explain on what basis, textually you assert that there are 3 forms of separation taking place in Gen 10:25

I think it refers to the split. Also, as we know, the tongues happened here. As for the continental seperation, it wasn't far from here, even if it was the flood 101 years before this time. Whatever else happened, I think the big thing here was the split.

a) Languages and people (which are pretty much iniversally accepted)
b) Continentally (which is not accepted by a high percentage of people in your own camp)
c) Spiritually (which is accepted by an even smaller percentage of the group from b although it is in fact referenced in Gnostic scriptures, a group condemned as heretics throughout the early Church and embraced today by a Gnostic revival and New Age movement.)

Can you show a link or something about where the split was referenced? That's news to me. I think likely we are talking about 2 different things here. Mainly, I am talking about matter in the universe, and rhe world. Where the added spiritual with the physical changed everything. This is why we had rapid plant growth, fast cooling lava, light that got here quickly from far stars, no radioactive decay, hyper evolution from created creatures where needed, possibly no gravity as we know it now, and the spiritual realm much closer to the realm of men. Etc. If you are talking about the human spirit, as I suspect, that is a different story. As you know, man fell at the garden. It was there we were seperated that way from God, and His life. Biological life on earth it seems was also affected. We see massive death in the fossil record.

So... nothing in the 6th day took a that much time.

Well Dad. All you've done here is repeat your assertion. Can you show me from the text how you support your position? Can you show the context, grammar, historical understanding of the audience receiving it. I already know your opinion. You've not done much here but repeat it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
Well Dad. All you've done here is repeat your assertion. Can you show me from the text how you support your position? Can you show the context, grammar, historical understanding of the audience receiving it. I already know your opinion. You've not done much here but repeat it.

Gen 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Sons of God marrying women, and right here we see a cryptic warning. Seems to be concerning flesh (physical) and Spirit. It isn't till verse 6 we see also the warning about the flood. Peleg was 101 years after the flood, so it fits. We know when the division came. Of course at that time we even see that men tried to build a tower to heaven. Almost as if it wasn't that far away then, the spiritual realm.
Looking around the bible, we see a new heavens coming, and New Jerusalem. God lives there as do we in our ressurected bodies. Both the spiritual and physical, eternal, unlike the present heavens that will pass away. Looking to the past we see that it also must have been both, for the bible to be literally true, in my opinion. Plants made on day 3, man and beast eating then by day 6. Things just don't grow that fast now. Many things indicate the same thing. It is not one verse somewhere. That just helps with the timing of it.
In that different past, day 6 was a breeze. Plenty of time.

dad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
Well Dad. All you've done here is repeat your assertion. Can you show me from the text how you support your position? Can you show the context, grammar, historical understanding of the audience receiving it. I already know your opinion. You've not done much here but repeat it.

Gen 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Sons of God marrying women, and right here we see a cryptic warning. Seems to be concerning flesh (physical) and Spirit. It isn't till verse 6 we see also the warning about the flood. Peleg was 101 years after the flood, so it fits. We know when the division came. Of course at that time we even see that men tried to build a tower to heaven. Almost as if it wasn't that far away then, the spiritual realm.
Looking around the bible, we see a new heavens coming, and New Jerusalem. God lives there as do we in our ressurected bodies. Both the spiritual and physical, eternal, unlike the present heavens that will pass away. Looking to the past we see that it also must have been both, for the bible to be literally true, in my opinion. Plants made on day 3, man and beast eating then by day 6. Things just don't grow that fast now. Many things indicate the same thing. It is not one verse somewhere. That just helps with the timing of it.
In that different past, day 6 was a breeze. Plenty of time.

Strive does not equal "exist with." Can you elaborate on the word used in Hebrew to show something in the original language that is being missed here?

You've got a pretty big leap to defend here. You're seeking to establish Gen 10:25 as more than a separation of languages and peoples and arguing for 2 more concurrent interpretations namely a separation of continents by accelerated plate-tektonics and then a separation of the spiritual realm from the physical realm.

In terms of Plate-tektonics you are in a minority position in your own YEC camp and in terms of the spiritual separation you are in an even smaller minority with clear parallels to the heresy of Gnosticism.

Is there more you can give me in terms of the biblical passage to support your contention? Do you have a source where you learned this system? Is this original with you?

I obviously don't agree with you, but I'm trying to help you here. These are the questions you should be able to answer if you want your position to be taken seriously.

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
Strive does not equal "exist with." Can you elaborate on the word used in Hebrew to show something in the original language that is being missed here?

strive
to act as judge, minister judgment
to plead a cause
to execute judgment, requite, vindicate
to govern

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi ... &sr=1&l=en

So, with the spiritual so close and together with the physical, with man in sin now, it was a striving. The spiritual could not cohabitate directly, or rule, really, sinful man, -flesh. Makes sense.

You've got a pretty big leap to defend here. You're seeking to establish Gen 10:25 as more than a separation of languages and peoples and arguing for 2 more concurrent interpretations namely a separation of continents by accelerated plate-tektonics and then a separation of the spiritual realm from the physical realm.

The main thing I think would be the split. Whether it meant the continental seperation, as well as the tongues, it isn't really spelled out. Here is where we could look to any evidence we do have, to see if it could help. One clue may be, in favor of a post flood seperation of the continents, the animal distribution in the world. Like Australia. If the continents divided before or during the flood, seems to me, there is a problem there? If it was later, then we can sail the kangaroos and stuff all over the world, and isolate them after. If not, what did they do, swim there?

In terms of Plate-tektonics you are in a minority position in your own YEC camp and in terms of the spiritual separation you are in an even smaller minority with clear parallels to the heresy of Gnosticism.

This seems big in your mind, although you have given not a thing to back it up. They preached no split on a universal level I ever heard of. AS I say, I thought it was more to do with man's spirit with them, no?

Is there more you can give me in terms of the biblical passage to support your contention? Do you have a source where you learned this system? Is this original with you?

I obviously don't agree with you, but I'm trying to help you here. These are the questions you should be able to answer if you want your position to be taken seriously.

If the idea was popular it would be good? As for bible, I have shown that the future and past were different. This is all we need. I think you must admit the future here at least is more than physical only.
As for the past, I haven't heard of a better idea yet to leave God's word as true and real, and man's wisdom as the thing that was actually lacking. Other flood geology type ideas I have had in the past didn't seem to be able to stand up to science, neither cosmology. This does.

dad wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
Strive does not equal "exist with." Can you elaborate on the word used in Hebrew to show something in the original language that is being missed here?

strive
to act as judge, minister judgment
to plead a cause
to execute judgment, requite, vindicate
to govern

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi ... &sr=1&l=en

So, with the spiritual so close and together with the physical, with man in sin now, it was a striving. The spiritual could not cohabitate directly, or rule, really, sinful man, -flesh. Makes sense.

You've got a pretty big leap to defend here. You're seeking to establish Gen 10:25 as more than a separation of languages and peoples and arguing for 2 more concurrent interpretations namely a separation of continents by accelerated plate-tektonics and then a separation of the spiritual realm from the physical realm.

The main thing I think would be the split. Whether it meant the continental seperation, as well as the tongues, it isn't really spelled out. Here is where we could look to any evidence we do have, to see if it could help. One clue may be, in favor of a post flood seperation of the continents, the animal distribution in the world. Like Australia. If the continents divided before or during the flood, seems to me, there is a problem there? If it was later, then we can sail the kangaroos and stuff all over the world, and isolate them after. If not, what did they do, swim there?

In terms of Plate-tektonics you are in a minority position in your own YEC camp and in terms of the spiritual separation you are in an even smaller minority with clear parallels to the heresy of Gnosticism.

This seems big in your mind, although you have given not a thing to back it up. They preached no split on a universal level I ever heard of. AS I say, I thought it was more to do with man's spirit with them, no?

Is there more you can give me in terms of the biblical passage to support your contention? Do you have a source where you learned this system? Is this original with you?

I obviously don't agree with you, but I'm trying to help you here. These are the questions you should be able to answer if you want your position to be taken seriously.

If the idea was popular it would be good? As for bible, I have shown that the future and past were different. This is all we need. I think you must admit the future here at least is more than physical only.
As for the past, I haven't heard of a better idea yet to leave God's word as true and real, and man's wisdom as the thing that was actually lacking. Other flood geology type ideas I have had in the past didn't seem to be able to stand up to science, neither cosmology. This does.

This doesn't frankly.

You're playing so fast and loose with the text it isn't funny.

All you're doing is spiritualizing everything, claiming that because things were different in the past (your claim based on an extremely tenuous torturing of the text), you can't use science to disprove what you're saying and then claiming that you're interpretation is the equivilent of the Bible.

I think you're missing a key concept and understanding. The Bible and Nature are both forms of revelation. One is Specific and the other is General. As both find their source in God as their author there is every reason to believe that they are consistent with each others.

The problem comes in with Science and Theology. Science is man's interpretation of nature. Theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. As both have the common denominator of imperfect, finite men seeking to understand the infinite there is a need for humility and willingness to adjust in both areas if evidence and logic dictate the need.

Frankly all you are doing is eliminating science, and then equating your interpretation as the equal of Scripture and then your defense is just so weak as to be embarassing.

I'll digest what you're saying later tonight or tomorrow and spell it out better and hold myself to the same standards I'm asking of you.

I respect that you're trying. I'm not saying I know it all, but Dad, this just doesn't measure up. You're spiritualizing things way beyond what the text does, you're way outside the general understandings of even mainstream YEC and frankly I don't think you see what you're doing.

I'll give you more specifics when I have time to do it properly. More soon.

Bart

If we did a carbon test on Adam right after he was made I wonder how old it would say he was? Maybe it would say he was, I don't know, 25 to 40 years old? So, going on this premise, if God could make a mature man and a mature woman and mature animals, trees, mountains, planets and stars etc, and they were tested 6000 years later how old would they be?

God certainly could have made an earth that for all intents and purposes tested as being billions of years old. I'm proposing that scientists are getting false readings.

Just a thought
FCC

FFC wrote:If we did a carbon test on Adam right after he was made I wonder how old it would say he was? Maybe it would say he was, I don't know, 25 to 40 years old? So, going on this premise, if God could make a mature man and a mature woman and mature animals, trees, mountains, planets and stars etc, and they were tested 6000 years later how old would they be?

God certainly could have made an earth that for all intents and purposes tested as being billions of years old. I'm proposing that scientists are getting false readings.

Just a thought
FCC

The Apparent age theory is quite a thought. It's more than just that. If you were just talking about geologic records I maybe could buy it. You then have to explain a fossil records. Did God put them there to deceive us? You also have astronomical bodies millions and billions of light years away which would have to have been created with light already in transit for our benefit to see.

You can pick and choose if you want and build doubts in isolated areas, and that is what young earthers tend to do, but the overall preponderence of the evidence is overwhelmingly an old universe.

I don't think God is a deceiver in that regard.

Just my thought.

Canuckster1127 wrote:...
All you're doing is spiritualizing everything, claiming that because things were different in the past (your claim based on an extremely tenuous torturing of the text), you can't use science to disprove what you're saying and then claiming that you're interpretation is the equivilent of the Bible.

Are you suggesting the future is just physical like the present?

I think you're missing a key concept and understanding. The Bible and Nature are both forms of revelation. One is Specific and the other is General. As both find their source in God as their author there is every reason to believe that they are consistent with each others.

Being temporarily seperate is consistant. Otherwise, why would this heavens pass away?

Frankly all you are doing is eliminating science, and then equating your interpretation as the equal of Scripture and then your defense is just so weak as to be embarassing.

Only eliminating it from being applicable to the future and past. No evidence exists to suggest otherwise. Why stick it where it doesn't belong? Should I attribute decay to heaven just because it now exists? Should I attribute death? Should I attribute our present physical universe and it's light speed to the future and past? No. Science needs to be put in it's place!!!!

I respect that you're trying. I'm not saying I know it all, but Dad, this just doesn't measure up. You're spiritualizing things way beyond what the text does, you're way outside the general understandings of even mainstream YEC and frankly I don't think you see what you're doing.

It isn't the one verse, it is a predominant theme of the bible, how different things will be, and even were. Why be afraid of the wonderful truth.

"The Apparent age theory is quite a thought. It's more than just that. If you were just talking about geologic records I maybe could buy it. You then have to explain a fossil records. Did God put them there to deceive us? You also have astronomical bodies millions and billions of light years away which would have to have been created with light already in transit for our benefit to see.

You can pick and choose if you want and build doubts in isolated areas, and that is what young earthers tend to do, but the overall preponderence of the evidence is overwhelmingly an old universe."

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I don't have to figure out or understand how He did it, but I do have to take His word literally unless it's otherwise indicated.

FFC wrote:

"The Apparent age theory is quite a thought. It's more than just that. If you were just talking about geologic records I maybe could buy it. You then have to explain a fossil records. Did God put them there to deceive us? You also have astronomical bodies millions and billions of light years away which would have to have been created with light already in transit for our benefit to see.

You can pick and choose if you want and build doubts in isolated areas, and that is what young earthers tend to do, but the overall preponderence of the evidence is overwhelmingly an old universe."

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I don't have to figure out or understand how He did it, but I do have to take His word literally unless it's otherwise indicated.

The thing I have against the "apparent age theory", "God could have caused everything to happen on day 6", "God could have sped up the plant growing process", and so forth is it begs the question that YEC is taught in Scripture. True, God could have done all these things but the question is whether Scripture actually supports God doing it this way, or whether YECs are simply adding more ideas to Scripture one needs to accept in order to hold onto their YEC interpretation. Now given Scripture alone, all these further questions raised within a YEC interpretation that need hypothesising over, means they have to add more ideas to Scripture which aren't there rather than simply accepting what is plainly stated. This to me makes it highly suspect as an interpretation, especially when other interpretations just as literal exist such as the Day-Age interpretation.

Kurieuo

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

I respect your conviction on this issue. You are obviously passionate about it and that it good. I still hold to my argument that God made it clear...literally clear that the days he created were 24 hours long.

He says it 6 times by telling us each time that there was evening and there was morning. The last time I checked that was a 24 hours day. If it was otherwise than He sure did not make himself very clear did He? God is not a God of confusion.

You have just added to my previous point that YEC interpretations raise more questions one needs to hypothesise over. For if this literary phrase means literal evening and mornings (as many YECs interpret them), then how did the first three days have literal (and not pseudo) evenings and mornings if our sun wasn't created until day four?

I also recommend reading what was written earlier on in this thread regarding the "evening and morning" phrase (see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=72).

Kurieuo