Researchers discover the dawn of animal vision

[Trusting Jesus]

In the bible it states that 1,000 earth years are as 1 day in Heaven so if God was in the process of creating Earth which to that point didn't exist wouldn't it be reasonable to think that he was working within Heaven time in which case is the equivalent of 6,000 earth years as we call it ??

Also from the time Adam was created to the time Noah died many thousands of years passed but after Noah passes on there doesn't seem to be a clear time table on how long after Noahs death it was until Jesus was born which we know was 2006 human years ago.

So while I personally don't believe the Earth is hundreds of billions of years old as we've always been told I think it's probably a bit older than a lot of us figure.

[Qun Mang]

I'm sorry if I made it sound as if you don't believe the Bible. That wasn't my intent.

<>< ><>

Nathele

No problem. I just got a little bristled after reading that part at the end of your response. You do make a couple of pretty big points before that though, and it makes me think: if the Earth is old, then the period before Adam and Eve sinned would really have looked much different from what we can imagine, with no death in the world.

As for the Exodus passage, I would have to look up if the same word, yom, is used here as well. It would still make sense if the specific section read, "for in six time periods the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh time period he rested, and was refreshed." In such a case, the model He laid for the sabbath would still be there, but for His people to follow week-by-week instead.

Again, I am not trying to sway anyone here, and I still lean toward a young Earth myself.

Also from the time Adam was created to the time Noah died many thousands of years passed but after Noah passes on there doesn't seem to be a clear time table on how long after Noahs death it was until Jesus was born which we know was 2006 human years ago.

As Nathele says, the geneologies are there. This brings up a point a friend of mine believes- that what appear to be direct lines are not always so- that is, in some cases generations are skipped. For example, where it sometimes says A son of B, A may in fact really be grandson of B or further. Consider:

Matthew 1:20 "But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

Earlier in Matthew we read: "and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."

So Jacob, not David, is shown to be the father of Joseph. In fact, Joseph is many generations removed from King David.

Of course, this doesn't change anything from a young Earth perspective- it just stretches things out a bit from 6000 years to somewhat longer. According to my friend, this makes things like historical dating of things like ancient Egyptianian structures fit in far better with a young Earth perspective.

Hmm- this last part seems to be hijacking the thread, so I would ask any reponses to this be PMed, or a link to a discussion of this pointed out either publically (no more than the link) or privately.

[forrestkc]

what a joke. They need better evidence if they want to convince anyone.

What evidence would you like then?

[Emily~Anne]

This is simply a theory. One that cannnot be proven at that. I'd pay no attention since it totally contradicts the bible and therefore is incorrect.

[kat8585]

This is simply a theory. One that cannnot be proven at that. I'd pay no attention since it totally contradicts the bible and therefore is incorrect.

Reason enough for me.

[forrestkc]

This is simply a theory. One that cannnot be proven at that. I'd pay no attention since it totally contradicts the bible and therefore is incorrect.

Only if one is in the minority of Christians and Jews that actually believes that the two creation stories as depicted in Genesis were literal scientific accounts. Moreover, the contention that was made by the researchers is observed in nature. What more proof do you want other than a literal observation? Especially when one considers that not one shred of empirical evidence has ever been published in any scientific journals in support of literal creationism. If such evidence existed in nature, you can bet a scientist would make a name for himself by publishing it.

[Emily~Anne]

Only if one is in the minority of Christians and Jews that actually believes that the two creation stories as depicted in Genesis were literal scientific accounts. Moreover, the contention that was made by the researchers is observed in nature. What more proof do you want other than a literal observation? Especially when one considers that not one shred of empirical evidence has ever been published in any scientific journals in support of literal creationism. If such evidence existed in nature, you can bet a scientist would make a name for himself by publishing it.

Gee, I didnt realize a scientist had observed the earth being created.

[forrestkc]

Only if one is in the minority of Christians and Jews that actually believes that the two creation stories as depicted in Genesis were literal scientific accounts. Moreover, the contention that was made by the researchers is observed in nature. What more proof do you want other than a literal observation? Especially when one considers that not one shred of empirical evidence has ever been published in any scientific journals in support of literal creationism. If such evidence existed in nature, you can bet a scientist would make a name for himself by publishing it.

Gee, I didnt realize a scientist had observed the earth being created.

No, they have observed the evidence of its creation. This article has nothing to do with the origin of life though, just the origin of vision. Of that, they have observed in nature the precursors to animal vision.

[Burning_Ember]

This is simply a theory. One that cannnot be proven at that. I'd pay no attention since it totally contradicts the bible and therefore is incorrect.

Reason enough for me.

The scientific use of the word theory in this context is similar to the use of the word theory in "the theory of gravitation."

[Emily~Anne]

Only if one is in the minority of Christians and Jews that actually believes that the two creation stories as depicted in Genesis were literal scientific accounts. Moreover, the contention that was made by the researchers is observed in nature. What more proof do you want other than a literal observation? Especially when one considers that not one shred of empirical evidence has ever been published in any scientific journals in support of literal creationism. If such evidence existed in nature, you can bet a scientist would make a name for himself by publishing it.

Gee, I didnt realize a scientist had observed the earth being created.

No, they have observed the evidence of its creation. This article has nothing to do with the origin of life though, just the origin of vision. Of that, they have observed in nature the precursors to animal vision.

No what they did was took a bunch of observations, and fit them together a certain way. The end picture they paint is a theory.