# I'm a Christian evolutionist, and I say that evolution is consistent with the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 28, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993 "2008-12-28T21:03:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/61 "2008-12-29T04:30:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As any good Star Trek fan knows, it’s always possible to fanwank your way out of a conundrum. I’m an atheist, and I don’t think any of the mystical stuff in the Bible is true. I don’t think it’s any different than any of the other myths different religions have clung to (some of them remarkably similar to the events in Genesis - the epic of Gilgamesh, for example). > > That said, let’s try a little physics translation… > > **In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.** > > The Big Bang happened. > > **And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.** > > For the first 400 thousand years or so of the universe’s existence, there was no light. It was opaque. The temperature was too high for free electrons to bind to atomic nuclei, and therefore there was no light, and no form. > > **And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.** > > When the universe cooled to a certain point, then almost like a light switch going on, there was light. The universe became transparent. Nope. Photons came onto the scene long before the earth was formed. We “see” photons about 3 minutes after the BB. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/62 "2008-12-29T04:35:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.** > > For the first 400 thousand years or so of the universe’s existence, there was no light. It was opaque. The temperature was too high for free electrons to bind to atomic nuclei, and therefore there was no light, and no form. > > **And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.** [Dark Matter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) + [Dark Energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy) makes up 95% of the universe. It’s obvious that we’re still in Genesis 1:2 “darkness over the surface of the deep”. We’re not quite to Genesis 1:3 yet. That’s what Zyada doesn’t get. Zyada is being too literal with the Bible. If he can’t properly interpret 2 verses Genesis 1:2 & 1:3, then I wouldn’t trust him to interpret the rest of the 800,000 words of scripture either. Cites: [File:DarkMatterPie.jpg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DarkMatterPie.jpg) (I see the smiley face in the URL, but I don’t know how to get rid of it.) [Dark matter - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) [Dark energy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy) Once Dark Matter + Dark Energy go away, then we can start intepreting Genesis 1:3 with some confidence. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/63 "2008-12-29T06:57:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You could argue that God spoke of this period of light and dark as a ‘day’ to make it comprehensible to Moses, who doesn’t begin to have the knowledge required to grasp the real explanation. You could argue anything you wanted, but could you really believe it? Saying, “It was dark before, and then it was light” is simple enough for a child to understand and accurate enough that only the most pedantic skeptics or skeptical pedants would take issue with it. Calling the light day, or morning, and the dark night, or evening, and saying that together they make up one day, and repeating this six times, makes it _less_ simple and understandable as well as less accurate. [/quote] If you can interpret it all as allegory or as a story retold from the mind of a pre-technological human, you can pretty much explain anything. [/quote] Of course you could, but then you can explain away earth, man, and God as well, and after a while you have to ask yourself, what’s the point? [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/64 "2008-12-29T07:15:21Z")
Damn those extra quote tags. Damn them to hell. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > From the Wikipedia cite in my last post: > \ > Gen 4:14-16 After killing Abel, Cain is worried that anybody who finds him will kill him, and then leaves to father many children, implying that there were many people to be afraid of, and that there were women to bear his children, and his sons’ children. A literal interpretation would imply that the only humans alive were himself, Adam, and Eve. His next sibling is not born until later in the story (verse 25). > \ I stated upthread that the Bible is full of contradictions, but this example is nonsense, no matter how often it is repeated. A literal interpretation would not imply that the only humans alive were Cain, Adam, and Eve; it clearly implies that the are not. It does not say when Adam’s daughters were born or how much time passed before Cain became a father. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/65 "2008-12-29T08:12:42Z")
Personally, I find evolution to be a far nobler story than any biblical creation. Humans rose to current glory after millions of years of struggle and competition, versus we’re God’s hobby project. Frankly, the latter makes us out to be a bunch of chumps, created as toys for someone’s amusement. Screw that. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/66 "2008-12-29T12:38:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I find evolution to be a far nobler story than any biblical creation. Humans rose to current glory after millions of years of struggle and competition, versus we’re God’s hobby project. Frankly, the latter makes us out to be a bunch of chumps, created as toys for someone’s amusement. Screw that. Bra-fucking-vo! ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/67 "2008-12-29T13:34:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > \ > Anyway, if you take Genesis literally, of course you can’t make it work. > \ But it’s not a question of literal versus allegorical or metaphorical or poetry or anything else. All of those are simply machinations added after the fact when the “fact” turned out to be absurd, and that’s the problem. If I tell a primitive person a story filled with magical characters and silly unscientific events in order to teach him a larger lesson, I say, “This is a story that isn’t true; it’s just to teach you a larger lesson. It’s a fairy tale.” I don’t lie to the guy and confuse him. Now if you take the position the Bible is written by humans, uninspired by divine intervention, there is no need to pretend anything is allegorical with a larger meaning (unless the Bible itself specifically labels them so–a parable of Jesus, say). Bible stories are then simply traditions that are unscientific and completely wrong, and because their author was human, he simply did not know any better. There may be good life lessons in them, but arguing over whether or not they are “literal” is meaningless since the only reason to argue they are literal is to convince someone their authorship is human, and you have already conceded that. Turtles all the way down…cute story; no one thought it was supposed to be correct. If you take the position instead that the Bible is written under a Divine guidance, but for an uneducated and primitive audience, you cannot make any reasonable argument for so many stories being so wrong, since those stories are presented as factual without any disclaimer that they are “allegorical.” There is nothing to be gained “allegorically” by telling simpletons the earth was created in 6 days when it was not. There is nothing to be gained by giving totally inappropriate timelines and cosmology. Nothing to be gained by pretending it rained so hard the whole earth was flooded over for a year and every living thing survived in a wooden boat. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If you want to inspire confidence in divine authorship, you put stuff in that was a mystery then but an obvious fact now. You say stuff like: "\*The earth and all the stars used to be tinier than a mustard seed. Then it exploded and now everything there is came in to being very gradually over thousands and thousands of years. Even animals and people came into being over a great period of time. First the very small and simple animals and then ones that looked more like people and finally Adam and Eve. The earth is a round ball floating in a sea so vast it cannot be imagined. Every star is bigger than a thousand earths. There are great lands beyond the sea waiting to be discovered.\*" None of these are literally true. They are all greatly simplified for the sake of the audience. But they aren’t crap. They aren’t so far off the mark that their author needs to be defended for promoting totally false beliefs. When science comes along it doesn’t have to deal with a ridiculously primitive paradigm, and Believers don’t have to cope with a Science which reduces their cherished traditions to the rubbish heap of primitive beliefs. The “allegory” defense falls on its face because it is obviously pasted on after the fact in order to rescue some perceived larger purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/68 "2008-12-29T23:18:45Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > **Zyada** , will you make a comment about the Flood and evolution? > > Genesis Creation is a popular topic for those wanting to reconcile evolution and the Bible, but I don’t hear the Flood problem discussed as often… > > You can look upthread and see my question, but it boils down to this: if the Ark was the starting point for animals, why isn’t a given species distributed everywhere along a path between Ararat and the location of the animal? Say, a given species of shrew or something…wouldn’t we find the distribution of that shrew to include at least all possible ecological niches between where it is now and the ark? > > \*\*Evolution says those animals developed locally, in isolation. \*\* The Bible says all living animals were housed in the Ark and started the current populations when they were saved from destruction by Noah. How do you propose to say evolution is consistent with the Bible? > > Now if you say (as do many folks with Genesis Creation): the Bible doesn’t mean those stories literally…well then you haven’t made evolution consistent with the Bible. You’ve simply taken a position that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says if what it says is different from fact. What’s the debate, in that case? Emphasis mine. This is a completely incorrect understanding of evolution. Organisms migrate, populations prosper, and populations die off. If you have something that gets isolated, like the dodo tree or the galapagos turtles, you will find that they do get specialized features based on their local environment. But that a given animal is local to only one area doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist in other parts of the world previously - just that this area is the only area where that animal managed to survive. But what you’re saying is that you are a literalist - that absolutely every word in the bible has to be perfectly, precisely true _as you understand it_, for the bible to be right. And anything that might possibly contradict **your** interpretation of the bible must be incorrect. So apparently God is not allowed to use figurative language, because then you couldn’t believe in him? Is your faith so weak that the idea that one word in the bible might not mean what you think it means enough to shake the foundation of your faith? IMO, this is is the mindset that is doing more harm to Christianity than all the groups that fundamentalist Christians like to think are against them combined. Tell me something: How do you explain DNA? Viruses? Dinosaurs? Hereditary diseases? Chicken Flu? The fact that we have nearly identical DNA to all other primates? [Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus) How about scientific nomenclature? If God created each animal independently from all other animals, why does it follow such a basic tree structure? The sort of structure that evolution predicts, but God snapping his finger and saying “I think a lion will look like this” doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/69 "2008-12-29T23:25:50Z")
**Chief Pedant** isn’t a Christian Fundamentalist. In fact, I don’t think he is a theist at all. He’s just pointing out that reconciling evolution with the Bible is silly. Just admit that the Bible isn’t a science or history book, and get on with it. Trying to fit the “facts” in the Bible to science is a waste of time. You have to interpret them so broadly to do so that they become meaningless. A day isn’t a day. It’s whatever timeframe science tells us is needed. Pffft. Just admit that they’re only fables. Christ (or the NT authors) clearly didn’t mean his parables to be taken literally, and people don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/70 "2008-12-29T23:36:20Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > So what should be read literally, and what should be considered allegory? Read it for the greater truths… Love your neighbor Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Judge not lest you be judged. You know, the phrase “The devil is in the details” has occurred to me as I read the responses here. So if you are a literalist, consider this. Just maybe, it is the devil who is telling you that the bible must be interpreted literally because when you are focused on unimportant details (really) like whether God meant a human day of 24 hours or a day on _God’s_ calendar, that you are missing the important lessons of the bible? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/71 "2008-12-29T23:52:22Z")
If you are a fundamentalist literalist, there’s a good chance you think the Pope is the devil, and he isn’t telling you to regard every statement in the Bible as being literally true. Therefore, you might be the devil, too! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/72 "2008-12-30T00:03:01Z")
> [@vison](#): > > Vlad/Igor’s excellent post ought to end any possibility of argument or discussion, but of course it won’t. > > It’s beyond my comprehension why or how anyone alive on Earth at this time, able to read and write and comprehend reality well enough to be able to post on an internet message board would even CARE about trying to “reconcile” the bible with any scientific theory whatsoever. > > If you believe it’s “true” beyond the truth of the books existing, then why would you waste your time here, trying to convince, or explain to, people who think biblical literalism is similar to the belief in a flat Earth? First, I’m not a literalist. Certainly not as I see Fundamentalists perceive the Bible. Secondly, if you think that everyone smart enough to post to an internet message board accepts evolution, you have been spoiled by the SDMB. I’ve heard of geology majors who didn’t believe in evolution (a friend of mine taught some when he was doing his post-doc). And I want to be able to debate this IRL. So, I want to know what arguments are going to be brought to the table before I get into a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/73 "2008-12-30T00:21:17Z")
> [@Vlad\_Igor](#): > > But the point is that both concepts, both ways of viewing the world, stand apart as internally consistent perceptions of the world. Genesis doesn’t need to tell of days that we then assign as discreet periods of time in order to be true. The stories of Creation in Genesis have nothing to do with our current fetish of defining truth as something tangible, measurable or calculable. **If anything, the Creation stories purposefully reflect the indescribable nature of Divine Creation that is destroyed the moment that we attempt to describe or quantify it**. It is a mysterious, occult event that remains beyond human comprehension as part of preserving our emotional and spiritual reaction to the universe. This is wholly apart from our _intellectual_ reaction to Creation, which is expressed through rational scientific inquiry and mathematical description. Emphasis mine. I just want to say that this is perfect - it is exactly how I perceive literalism to be affecting Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/74 "2008-12-30T02:33:01Z")
> [@Zyada](#): > > Emphasis mine. > > I just want to say that this is perfect - it is exactly how I perceive literalism to be affecting Christianity. So, remind us why you want to reconcile it with science again? ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/75 "2008-12-30T03:45:04Z")
If I have assumed you were a Christian literalist when you’re not, I apologize. If you are an atheist arguing that the Bible is worthless because some minor detail can’t possibly be correct, save your breath. You are no more going to convince me that God doesn’t exist, than I am going to convince you that God does exist by pointing to a beautiful sunset. If you think that creationists are as rare as flat-earthers, think again. Just on the first page of googling “creationism evolution”, there was a 2004 poll showing that more than 50% of the people in the U.S. believed in pure creationism, and 37% believed that Creationism should be taught _instead of_ evolution. [Cite](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:NRa3AHm4CNkJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml+evolution+creationism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a) I don’t think this has changed much since I was in High School 30 years ago. Am I being too literal? IMO, if you want to convince people to change their point of view, you don’t insult their beliefs. You find a midpoint that you might be able to move them too, then work from there. ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/76 "2008-12-30T03:59:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, remind us why you want to reconcile it with science again? Did my last post answer your question? ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/77 "2008-12-30T08:22:26Z")
> [@Zyada](#): > > I’ll start with the obvious one - the Old Testament says that the earth was created in 6 days; however, the New Testament says that “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”. I agree. I am not, currently, a Christian, but was raised in that belief system, and I know my Bible, thank you very much (which is essentially WHY I am no longer a “Christian”:dubious:). The Genesis creation tale is virtually a simplified recounting of evolution; the plants, then the water creatures, then the crawling things on land, all the way up to humans. And yes, “1000 years” is said to be as a day to God. And lest we be too literal, it is generally understood that “1000 years”, in Biblical venacular, means “a really, really, REALLY long time, like the LONGEST time we can imagine!” I could never see the reason for the debate, myself. I thought, and think, that those who argue for “creation” and refuse to accept evolution as a means of that creation are essentially saying that God is dead and no longer acting in and on creation. Bummer! ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/78 "2008-12-30T08:37:53Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > The Genesis creation tale is virtually a simplified recounting of evolution; the plants, then the water creatures, then the crawling things on land, all the way up to humans. Except the biblical order is: Day 1: Light Day 2: Sky Day 3: Earth, Oceans, Grass, Fruit Trees Day 4: Stars, Sun, Moon Day 5: Fish, Whales, Birds Day 6: Land Animals How does putting fruit trees on earth 24 hours or 1,000 years or some indefinitely long time before there’s a sun in the sky simplify things or make them easier to comprehend? > [@](#): > > And yes, “1000 years” is said to be as a day to God. And lest we be too literal, it is generally understood that “1000 years”, in Biblical venacular, means “a really, really, REALLY long time, like the LONGEST time we can imagine!” That’s great, but it doesn’t change the fact that days in Genesis are specifically and repeatedly defined as including a day and a night, one evening and one morning. ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/79 "2008-12-30T09:14:33Z")
I never suggested the Genesis version was literal, just that it was a “simplified” version which was pretty damn close to the evolution theory. For a myth, a fable, composed thousands of years prior to any scientific understanding of evolution, I think it’s fairly close to the reality. OK, so it has the creation of the sun, moon, stars a “day” later than it should be. What else is out of sequence? (other than the obvious “error” of the male being the first sex, of course;)) As for the “day” issue, you are taking it too literally. The Bible says a lot of stuff which contradicts itself. It’s a story, written with full creative license. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993/80 "2008-12-30T09:48:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That only gives us 6,000 years. > > Got anything better? (Yeah, I know, late to the party) Naaah, God is recursive. One day equals 1000 years. Each of these years is ~365 days long, which gives us 365.000 days per day, or 2.2 million days for the whole 6 days. Each of these days is \*obviously \*equal to a thousand years again, meaning the Earth’s creation took about 2 trillion years, if I’m not adding or losing zeroes on the way. Or any figure in-between 6 days and 2 trillion years, should we assume God doesn’t play dice because He sucks at basic math. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-christian-evolutionist-and-i-say-that-evolution-is-consistent-with-the-bible/478993.md?page=5)