Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

No amount of twisting and distortion can concoct evidence for a young, flat earth under a solid firmament dome.

The days of creation are 24 hour days, per plain analysis of the text. The question we YEC ask is, what took so long? God did not need 6 days. Six days was there for man and in fact is our work week today, well for a lot of people. Six days and a day of rest. I realize you professors on university campus have a lighter schedule. Moreover, the Big Bang is starting to collapse under its own weight and from the forum it will be Biologos last to this party. From the time horizon problem, to the sea salt problem, to the total and utter lack of a transitional form, to a geologic column that only exists in text books, to the undeniable evidence of Mt St Helens for rapid layer formation, to the need to say that iron can now preserve a blood vessel for 65 million years, to the almost uncountable counterfeit evidences brought forward that still appear in “science” books, to this final fact, when we get to heaven and I say to the Lord creator who spoke everything in existence that I believed His word as written and authenticated it was 24 hours and the order in which he did it supports the redemptive plan for man, I’m feeling real confident in my position. Besides reviewing all of the facts from God’s point of view. Have a good 24 hour day.

1 Like

A good article touching on several of your points relating to biblical interpretation:
https://normangeisler.com/does-believing-in-inerrancy-require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism/?fbclid=IwAR0RaKSSutwPVYVXzNz6YCj4eakhQVlrCew6nEIhO6vMUt2G0aVyAEGGYUQ
The rest have been addressed and refuted many times, so no need to do so again.

2 Likes

Given the evidence, it isn’t possible. The evidence directly contradicts a recent global flood.

You YECs keep making a lot of noise about believing God’s Word as written, but are you obeying God’s Word as written? In particular, are you obeying this?

13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16

Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years or that evolution is a fact, MUST obey these verses. Any such challenge or doctrine of creation that does not obey these verses is not scientific, is not Biblical, and is not honest.

Do any of these claims of evidence for a young earth obey the Bible’s demands for accurate and honest measurement? From what I’ve seen, they don’t.

To claim that an “uncountable” number of evidences must all be counterfeit is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists would all have collaborated together in tight collusion with each other to fabricate vast swathes of extraordinarily detailed and self-consistent evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened, at the cost of trillions of dollars to their employers and the taxpayer? Are you seriously saying that none of the retired scientists, former scientists who had left the industry and no longer had any skin in the game, or Muslim scientists in Middle Eastern countries would be blowing the whistle on such a thing? Are you seriously trying to tell us that Wikileaks is complicit in it, and that investigative journalists—whose job it is to blow the gaff on shenanigans like that—are complicit in it too? Are you seriously suggesting that scientists working in other fields, competing against it for funding and government grants, would not be kicking up a stink about it either?

To suggest that such a vast conspiracy could possibly have a shred of a basis in reality would make NASA faking the moon landings, 9/11 being an inside job, MI5 being behind the death of Princess Diana, chemtrails, alien spacecraft in Area 51, and the US Navy covering up the existence of mermaids all look like child’s play by comparison. If this really could be happening, then it is difficult if not impossible to think of a conspiracy that could not.

I’m sorry, but conspiracies on that scale simply do not happen. It’s as simple as that.

1 Like

Get back when YEC’s have a clue as to why the CMB even exists, let alone why it is close to isothermal.

2 Likes

Those ancient rabbis must not have read Exodus 20:11 or 31:17, where God made it abundantly clear that the Israelites were to rest on every literal seventh day BECAUSE God created for six days and rested from that work on the seventh.

Your options are to either reject physical evidence or to reject the Bible as a literal historical account. I accept the Bible as a literal historical account without rejecting any physical evidence.

Or perhaps Genesis is written that way as an example for man to follow, not as a ritual to be re-enacted. One might say that the Sabboth was made for man, not man for the Sabboth.

1 Like

Surely you don’t truly believe that scientific investigation is void of assumptions, that “consensus” means there is no disagreement by other scientists, or that historical sciences can make predictions that can be empirically tested, do you?

1 Like

I believe that what you insist are accurate and honest weights and measures are anything but. My assertion is that you are deceived into believing they are, when they’re clearly not.

Take the “official peer reviewed journals” for just one example. Are YEC papers by bonafide scientists allowed, so the scientific community can scrutinize and consider their research for themselves? Or are the scales tipped so that only papers by those who promote the “consensus paradigm” are allowed?

James, does blatant censorship against those who don’t conform to a particular narrative really sound like accurate and honest weights and measures to you?

And that is just one example.

The evidence is an extremely finely tuned word full of extremely complicated living things that Richard Dawkins admits, “have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”.

So one interpretation is that things which clearly appear to have been created for a purpose were created for a purpose. The other interpretation was brilliantly summed up Fred Hoyle:

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.”

With the major difference that I have rationality and Occam’s Razor on my side… Things which clearly appeared to have been designed for a purpose more likely than not were designed for a purpose.

The evidence is abundant and irrefutable. The twisting and distortion belongs to your side of the argument, not mine.

Maybe they were analogous days or figurative days, like the workday in The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). You are elevating science above the intent of scripture by insisting that the Bible has to be scientifically correct. (And I’m a ‘sabbatarian’.)

1 Like

Thanks for your brilliant post, Robert. I tried to bring up the collapse of the Big Bang Idea (not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination) in my last thread, but as with every thread I’ve started here, some censorious moderator shut it down just when things were getting good (aka: when the evidence being presented was unable to be refuted or even explained away by the professors who run this joint). It seems that cognitive dissonance and unabashed zeal for a preferred paradigm might indeed cause them to be the last to know.

@Hercnav – Likewise:  

The assumptions don’t control the outcomes as the assumptions in Biblical interpretation do. That is why you can take the Bible and end up with hundreds of different conclusions. Each conclusion started with slightly different assumptions.

Yes there are disagreements between scientists and sometimes those disagreements end up with new science. I have never seen a Calvinist convince an Arminian they were wrong, or vice-versa.

Depends on what you mean by “historical sciences.” Geology is certainly one historical science and yes it does make predictions that are tested all the time. Otherwise geologists wouldn’t never be able to find oil and gas.

You might want to take a look at this and see why the Big Bang Theory counts as a scientific theory.

1 Like

That the Earth is a sphere has been known for over 2500 years. It is a fools errand to attempt to reason with someone that far out of date, and is that impervious to evidence, to discuss modern cosmology. Feel free to parody yourself. If it makes you feel better to state I am the one who is blind, fine.

1 Like

Nope – they said those days were “divine days” because there weren’t any humans yet to measure them by human measurements.
God ‘rested’ after six divine days, humans rest after six human days. They would say that claiming God rested after six human days was belittling God.

2 Likes

False dichotomy. The other option is to read the Bible as the ancient literature it is, starting by identifying what kind of literature each portion was meant to be by the writer, then to understand the culture and worldview of the writer, then coming to understand what the original audience would have understood that portion to mean.

Nothing in the Bible says we have to take it as 100% historically and scientifically accurate; that idea actually comes from the humanistic philosophy of scientific materialism which asserts that to be true a thing must be 100% scientifically and historically accurate. That means that reading it literally when that contradicts what God has told us in His other “book”, the “Book of Creation”, is foolish because it requires adhering to a view of truth that does not derive from the Bible.

1 Like