Um, not to nitpick, but no one believes people have been around for billions of years-at least not any that are recognizable as human.
Because i believe in God; am a Christian.
If science proved the Bible, it wouldn’t be by faith now, would it?
Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered giving my opinions here, I am not going to debate on whether God created plants, animals and people in 6 days. I am sure of it.
Cannot prove it though, so sorry i posted.
I want to applaud you for this; it’s something I truly believe and I’m glad to see you believe it too. 
However, I don’t believe that all the stories in the bible are true-not saying you do, I’m just trying to clarify for myself.
not neccessarily, but I do believe that God created the living things on earth in 6 days.
Doesn’t harm anyone to believe this.
I think you’ve touched on the key point right there, Buck. I am a “creationist” with a small "c’, since I believe that God did indeed create the Universe, the Earth, and all that is thereon. However, I’m convinced that his methodology in accomplishing this is being progressively discovered by cosmologists, geologists, origin-of-life theorists, evolutionary biologists, and students of related disciplines.
The “Scientific Creationist” (which like the “Moral Majority” and “religious right” is a double misnomer) seems to hold that the sole valid source for knowledge is in a literalist reading of Scripture, and that any evidence that seems to contradict this reading must be refuted, while any evidence that can be bent into support for it must be focused on. This is IMHO both bad science and bad religion.
Sorry to disagree, Vanilla, but yes, it does harm people – for example, the kid who has been taught that God decided one fine October morning in 4004 BC and decided to indulge Himself in a little creation, and who is then confronted with stuff from school dating from 500,000,000 years ago (the Burgess Shale), 65,000,000 years ago (the iridium spike and the dispute about the death of the dinosaurs), flat-out evidence that Jericho was inhabited about 9000 BC, and so on. If his faith in God rests on the literalness of the Bible, then that faith is going to be badly shaken, and either he’ll reject science or his beliefs.
Sterling is going to be confronting this in a couple of years, and I hope that neither his faith nor his inquiring mind is injured by the contradiction.
That’s why it’s harmful.
Paleontologists, IIRC, tell us that living things have been around for upwards of 2 billion years, with significant life-forms on the order of mollusks appearing around 500 million years ago. For decades they thought that human ancestors began walking upright abount 3 million years ago, but new fossil evidence has pushed that back to as much as 6 mya.
sqweels: There’s now fossil evidence for upright walking from 6 million years ago?! :eek: Where can I read about this?
What exactly does Six Days mean, because if you are thinking 24 hours… I don’t see any reason why Six days can’t mean 10 Trillion years…or billion…or million…
Not that tired excuse again.
Look, if you want to claim that six “periods of time” were used for creation I insist on two things:
- Do NOT call them “days”. A day is a period of time that lasts 24 hours(at least here on Earth).
- Tell us how long these “periods of time” were, approximately.
Ah, is that what ruby was referring to…The wording was a little awkward and I was unsure of whether ruby was for or against…
I would say that if you want to wax philosophy about how much “time” a day is, biblically speaking, then stay out of a scientific discussion because specifics and measuring things are important in regards to science.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is believed by some people to have walked upright 7 million years ago.
Hm. Though i was responding to Vanilla saying she/he believed in the 6 days of creation, I believe this may not be the place for my comment and I apologize for not paying close attention to her original prompt for discussion. I don’t understand what the “excuse” is in calling a DAY some thing other than 24 hours. It’s a spiritual book. Taking it literally gets you into many, many unsolvable contradictions and problems. Actually, the whole debate on Creationism vs. Evolution seems endless to me. One presupposes God exists, the other, well, is not perfect as there are errors in “measuring things.” I’ll continue onto the Philosophy of Science threads…sorry for taking a byte outa yah.
I don’t know if you meant this or not, but it seems that you are inferring that evolution presupposes God doesn’t exist.
I think the problem with the six days=whatever you want it to be, is that it’s a convient way to explain away all the problems involved in biblical creation.
Example:
The bible says creation took six days.
We have evidence that the earth is 4 million years old (or whatever).
Well, we don’t know what a day is; therefore the bible isn’t incorrect, it’s still spot on the money.
But that’s just your interpretation.
No it’s not, it’s back by science, you just said the earth was four million years old.
I was talking about the “day” being anything other than 24 hours.
It’s a little late, I hope I just made some sense there…
I had asked:
vanilla responded:
Um. So what?
I mean, Polycarp, last time I checked, is a Christian who believes in God. Yet he accepts evolution. Same with the Pope. The local skeptics group of which I am chairman had a meeting in a church to discuss with the pastor how to best fight the local creationists.
If I had time I could compile a rather large list of people who fit the same description. So I’m afraid saying “I’m a Christian and believe in God” doesn’t really answer the question of why you won’t accept the scientific evidence.
I’m not attempting to answer for Vanilla, but I did talk to a friend of mine who recently began to accept evolution. The reason he hadn’t believed in it was because it challenged his faith, if the bible is wrong in any instance, some people get shaken up by it. My friend was one of those people.
The good news is that once he had dropped the “inerrant” bible conclusion, he felt a tremendous rush of faith. He was allowed to ask questions about his faith without feeling guilty.
I think the rationale behind Creationism is that most creationists (of the anti-evolution ilk) find their faith bolstered by placing certitude in the Bible read as more or less a textbook on how God operates and what He expects from us. (Scholarly conservative Christians like lel, DDG, and Joe Cool are hereby humbly requested to critique that analysis.)
Hence that “six days” thing, instead of being a metaphor for a sequential process of creation aimed at stressing the primacy of the Sabbath (remember that we’re talking about a Jewish book here, in origin at least), becomes a shibboleth on what God “must have done” because “it says so right here in the Word of God.”
Hence there is a great deal of discussion on the Hebrew word “yom” (which like its English translation “day” can mean any of a single period of daylight, a 24-hour period, or a period of time like “in Jesus’s day they did thus and so”) with a focus on how the “six days” might actually have been 12 billion years in length, etc.
If on the other hand one takes it as a valid but poetic description of God’s expressed Will, his Word, causing all things to come into being, and be considered good, something Heaven-oriented Christians often miss, and not as a methodological statement on what He did when in a given 144-hour or 12-billion-year time span, one can understand it as the underlying truth about the why of the world’s origins, and yet not as a factual account. For that, devoid of theological underpinnings, one turns to cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology – and avoids in doing so any philosophical assumptions about chance and coincidence.
—Hence there is a great deal of discussion on the Hebrew word “yom” (which like its English translation “day” can mean any of a single period of daylight, a 24-hour period, or a period of time like “in Jesus’s day they did thus and so”) with a focus on how the “six days” might actually have been 12 billion years in length, etc.—
Of course, in English, “day” isn’t normally used to mean a long period of time when it is given explicit numerical value. You don’t say “in Jesus’ six days” (six periods of an arbitrarily long period of time). Even “in the days of the Roman Empire” (a potentially arbitrary number of days) doesn’t quite fit “days passed” (a specific number of days, which, if it were over a thousand, would seem to be a poor and awkward usage, when years or decades or whatever could suffice more clearly)
I don’t know what it’s like in Hebrew, however, in which the use of seemingly redudant numbers and poetic repetition is much more common.
Another problem is that the same word is used to describe things that clearly are explicit days later in Genesis, without any clarification of a change in meaning.
Finally, literal days are what the Hebrews seemed to believe the text meant, and they were certainly closer to whatever community wrote the source text than we are, and would supposedly know better what the beliefs of THAT community was, and thus what it meant by “day.”
Thank you for your clarification on what a “day” meant in Hebrew. I really do appreciate both of your research of the subject of Day. I may come back for more since I had struggled with the Evolution Creationish Debate in my late teens/early 20s… I need to look into the first of John I since there is something there that refers back to Genesis I that might have confused me. as you can tell… i’m new to communicating via this medium… i have an interesting group of friends, evangelicals, calvinists, antheists, mostly agnosticsetc… so this subject isn’t spoken much of outside of the town in my own little mushy brain Yah, it’s convenient to say a Day was not 24 hours, but I still lean toward the theory of epochs. will we ever really know.
Polycarp, do not worry about my son.
I will raise him how I see fit, I am capable.
He will not be harmed by my telling him that God not only exists, but died for his sins and created the earth as we know it in 6 days.
I recall that being taught a lot many many years ago; didn’t seem like everyone was harmed.
Thanks anyway.
So much for your son ever having a career in the hard sciences- but that’s no harm, right?
Vanilla, why do you believe that the earth is old, rather than being 6,000 years old? Why don’t you believe in geocentrism?