Light years away from the truth.

[MrLuke]

Christians can get so hung up in the whole "young earth/old earth" thing that I think they forget the main part of it all: "In the beginning, God created"

Yes it would be nice to have some definate answers either way, but don't let your whole faith hang in the balance on whether it was six 24hr periods, or six vast amounts of time - so long as you recognise that God created it, then what does it matter how long He took?

I'm sure this may cause some uproar with people here about taking God's Word literally and all, but then when you look at the Hebrew and see the word "yom" for "day" which can mean either a period of time or an actual day.. which is literal?

Anyway..

In the original Bible, the word is yom, which is a 24 hour period, not a "metaphorical day".

If it was "millions of years", the Bible wouldn't refer to the evening and morning of each day.

"The Hebrew word for 'day' is 'yom' and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of time, if the content warrants. In the overwhelming preponderance of its occurrences in the O.T., however, it means a literal day

[Akiko]

Adam was not created as a baby, he was created as an adult and with age. Who says that the universe coudln't have been created with age, too?

[aftwine]

See the Light!

AiG answers the question of starlight and it's travel wonderfully. If you are skeptical to Biblical Creation please read.

[Akiko]

Adam was not created as a baby, he was created as an adult and with age. Who says that the universe coudln't have been created with age, too?

It could have been created last sunday with age, the Bible, me, you and anything else by some other god. Are you sure you want to argue for this nonsense?

With all due respect, it's not nonsense. I was simply posting a theory for the question asked. Who are you angry at?

And if you think that evolution is any more "scientific" than creation, you are mistaken.

God bless.

[Floatingaxe]

And if you think that evolution is any more "scientific" than creation, you are mistaken.

Excuse me? Evolution is an accepted fact among nearly all biologists.

You mean "accepted theory".

[Arialia]

And if you think that evolution is any more "scientific" than creation, you are mistaken.

Excuse me? Evolution is an accepted fact among nearly all biologists.

You mean "accepted theory".

Oooh, now we get into the little technicalities that scare away would-be debaters.

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

- Isaac Asimov

My copy of the OED (year 1971) says theory is:

1. A sight, a spectacle (obsolete)

2. Mental view, contemplation

3. A conception or a mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules and guidelines to be followed.

4. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account for a group of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that hasd been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted for the following facts; a statement of what are held to be general rules, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

5. In the abstract (without article): Systematic conception of or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it.

The bold is what is considered a scientific theory.

From dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

Once again, the bold is the scientific theory.

When one is talking about a scientific theory, it means an idea that has held up against scrutiny and is generally accepted. It is not, as Asimov humourously points out, an idea made on a whim or an idea without proper evidence or background. There is often a general misunderstanding of the word theory when it is used in debating purposes. When it is used in debating, the default "theory" is scientific. It is faulty reasoning to assume that a theory is not true based on its status as a theory.

Of course, evolution is not the only theory. Try the theories of relativity and gravity. Both are accepted as true; yet both are nevertheless theories. As I have said, a theory stands up to scrutiny, is not fallacious, and it is generally accepted. It is not a "rule in pending".

Edited September 26, 2006 by Arialia

[Akiko]

Taken from a strictly scientific front (meaning that I'm not going to quote Bible verses or give biblical evidence in this particular post)...

The first law of thermodynamics states that something CANNOT be created from nothing. This is a foundational belief in every single branch of science. However, something had to be there to create the universe, correctly? Zero + Zero = The Universe. That is the basic truth in the very beginning of the Big Bang theroy. Christian perspective, in a nutshell, is God + Zero = The Universe.

Science contradicts itself there... how can that be? Either the law of thermodynamics isn't true, or the Big Bang isn't true. They can't both co-exist.

In any case, it takes just as much faith to believe that something came from nothing to believe that something came from God. I don't ask them to remove evolution from the schools, but please don't teach it from the one-sided perspective. All that I've seen in school textbooks that even hints that evolution has flaws is that it is a "theroy" and "accepted by almost all biologists." Evolution has many many flaws that schools don't like to acknowledge. If you insist on teaching 'scientific' theories, please don't state only one side of the issue.

So we've determined that at the very least, it takes just as much faith to believe in, "Once, two nothings collided and made the universe" than "Once, there was one nothing and God made the universe." To deny this would be immature, given the evidence stated above.

That's just one tiny piece of flawed evidence in evolutionary theroy. ^__~ I have more, if you'd like to hear them. Or we can just debate about this post.

[Observer of dreams]

Hey lepaca long time no see

The bible doesn't say Day until after the first day. The first day didn't come till after the earth was created. This is THEOLOGICAL fact.

Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

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

[Akiko]

First things first: I'm not saying that evolution isn't accepted among almost all biologists in this world. Denying it would be an inexcusable show of ignorance, because it is. However, a theory is much different than a fact. I'm in science right now and we have just defined 'theroy' and 'fact.' For instance, a fact would be that if I drop a bowling ball from the top of my house, it will fall downward. The theroy is that gravity is pulling it downwards. Gravity is a widely accepted theory, but it is called a theroy because it can never be PROVED. Tons and tons of evidence can point towards there being something called "gravity" that pulls small masses toward other large masses, but it is never proved.

Mind you, I'm not denying the existence of gravity...

The difference between the theroy of gravity and the theroy of evolution is that evolution has several more flaws than the theroy of gravity.

If there was no difference between the word "theroy" and the word "fact," they wouldn't have different terms. Again, I'm not saying that evolution does not have evidence for it, or that it isn't widely accepted by almost all biologists. I'm just saying that it's wrong. Sorry if I stepped on your toes there.

And Observer of Dreams: Very, very good point.

[mrp1948]

Under your rationale, God created the Earth and universe ~6000 years ago, correct? God also created the laws of phsyics did he not?

My question is this: How is it that we see light from stars which are millions of light years away from Earth? If the world/universe was only 6000 years old, then wouldn't we only see the light from stars fewer than 6000 light years away from us?

What possible difference does it make how old the earth is in relation to how old the light from other places is? I'm only 58 and I can see light from stars much older. Secondly God made the earth as it is formed today Genisis states that there was already a world without form and void (possibly as in unorganized or formed)

mrp1948