6 days or 5 billion years ?

[caesar44]

I mean , the creation...

[edyzmedieval]

I prefer to think 6 days.... I'm truly pious, so you might understand why I chose this....

[caesar44]

votet yet ?

[lars573]

I refuse to believe in the fairy tales of any religion in regards to the creation of the universe.

[caesar44]

I think that most of the Americans (and I am not) , that is , 80% to 90% belive in the 6 days theory

[Navaros]

I refuse to believe in the fairy tales of any religion in regards to the creation of the universe.

better to believe a "fairy tale" from God than a fairy tale made up by foolish men who think of themselves as all-knowing intellectuals when in reality they no idea what they're talking about

oh yeah, the correct answer is 6 days

[Big_John]

wait.. what? what's the question? what do you mean by "creation"? 5 billion years isn't really applicable to anything. the universe is suspected to be between 12 and 15 billion years old. our solar system is suspected to be 8-11 billion years old. the earth is suspected to be ~4.55 billion years old.

of course no one "knows" (in the strictest sense) what is true, however, i believe the scientifically derived timescales and dates due to a preponderance of evidence.

[Steppe Merc]

Same questions as big John, though I don't believe in the 6 days thing, or other things that religons used to explain what they didn't know at that time.

[caesar44]

wait.. what? what's the question? what do you mean by "creation"? 5 billion years isn't really applicable to anything. the universe is suspected to be between 12 and 15 billion years old. our solar system is suspected to be 8-11 billion years old. the earth is suspected to be ~4.55 billion years old.

of course no one "knows" (in the strictest sense) what is true, however, i believe the scientifically derived timescales and dates due to a preponderance of evidence.

Your post have only one goal , that is , to show your enormous knowledge....

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

This is confusing, one figure is for how long the biblical creation took, and one appears to be for how old the Earth is...I'm not sure what to make of this.

As far as the earth being older than a few thousand years, I'm pretty sure the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away is pretty strong evidence for that. But then again, I'm not sure whether that's what the question's about.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think that most of the Americans (and I am not) , that is , 80% to 90% belive in the 6 days theory

Ive heard some false impressions of America but this one takes the cake. Yes most Americans are bible thumping Christain zealots determined to spread christianity around the world. What kind of crap do they feed you over there. Is this the impression most Israelis have of their greatest ally?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Your post have only one goal , that is , to show your enormous knowledge....

Erm, he actually raises some pretty significant points about the validity of your poll.

[caesar44]

This is confusing, one figure is for how long the biblical creation took, and one appears to be for how old the Earth is...I'm not sure what to make of this.

As far as the earth being older than a few thousand years, I'm pretty sure the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away is pretty strong evidence for that. But then again, I'm not sure whether that's what the question's about.

The biblical creation reffers to the Earth also !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[caesar44]

Ive heard some false impressions of America but this one takes the cake. Yes most Americans are bible thumping Christain zealots determined to spread christianity around the world. What kind of crap do they feed you over there. Is this the impression most Israelis have of their greatest ally?

Why do you think my post was negative ?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Yes, it does. I don't see how this affects what I said.

[Steppe Merc]

Ive heard some false impressions of America but this one takes the cake. Yes most Americans are bible thumping Christain zealots determined to spread christianity around the world. What kind of crap do they feed you over there. Is this the impression most Israelis have of their greatest ally?

Heh, I was wondering about that. Probably most Americans have at least some religon, but I don't think most of them believe the 6 days thing, at least from what I've seen. Some people I know say that they don't know how long god's days are, so it may end up being billions of years long, and it's an analogy for the scientific explination. I think I only know one person personally that believes it was litteraly made in 6 days.

edit: BKS' point is that the 6 days takes in the creation of all of the universe, while the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. It's not really compatible, as it doesn't say how long Earth was created in, or the whole universe itself.

[caesar44]

Erm, he actually raises some pretty significant points about the validity of your poll.

I AM SORRY , SORRY , SORRY

Why I did not mentioned the exact figures , why ? why ? why ?

Please take it slow , it is just for fun , my God (although I believe in the second figure , that is , 4,557,899,321 years , 11 months , 12 days , 5 hours , 32 minutes and 14 seconds , sorry 15 , no no 16 , no 17 hhhhaaarrraahh.........)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Were just trying to figure out what creation your talking about. Again almost no one takes the 6 day thing literally as it is impossible to have a day without a sun.

Why do you think my post was negative ?

I didnt say it was negative I said it was ludicrous and asked where you got such an idea.

[caesar44]

Yes, it does. I don't see how this affects what I said.

If both theories mentioned are talking about the creation , what is to explain , or you are just playing wise

[Big_John]

no one is "playing wise", we have real questions about your strange poll. 5 billion years doesn't really refer to anything specific, afaik.. and why exclude the last 5000 years? you need to define your terms.

for example, what do you mean by creation? creation can be defined as the action of coming into being, and as such, relating a scientific timescale for "creation" to 5 billion years is somewhat nonsensical. according to the big-bang theory (the best model for the data, thus far) space, matter, energy, and time came to exist instantaneously, as such creation took exactly no time.

i think it would be better if you asked the question, "how old do you think the earth is?" or maybe, "how old do you think the universe is?".


edit: i'm not sure when matter actually came into being, according to the big-bang theory. it may be something like the end of the "plank era". but matter and energy are interchangeable anyway...

[Redleg]

Does anyone know what the time of 6 days for creations refers to in the Bible?

Is it six days of 24 hours as measured by man? which by the way is false since the rotation of the earth is slightly more then 24 hours.

Or is a metaphor for a something else that spans over greater time then mere humans - especially early man - when the writings of Genesis was suppose to happen.

For me - in the context of my faith - the six days is a metaphor - and does not mean six days as we measure them today.

[caesar44]

no one is "playing wise", we have real questions about your strange poll. 5 billion years doesn't really refer to anything specific, afaik.. and why exclude the last 5000 years? you need to define your terms.

for example, what do you mean by creation? creation can be defined as the action of coming into being, and as such, relating a scientific timescale for "creation" to 5 billion years is somewhat nonsensical. according to the big-bang theory (the best model for the data, thus far) space, matter, energy, and time came to exist instantaneously, as such creation took exactly no time.

i think it would be better if you asked the question, "how old do you think the earth is?" or maybe, "how old do you think the universe is?".


edit: i'm not sure when matter actually came into being, according to the big-bang theory, it may be something like the end of the "plank era", but matter and energy are interchangeable anyway...

1. I meant the creation of the Earth (6 days for the Earth and 5 billion years for the Earth , the bible did not refer to the universe but only to the "aretz" , that is Earth
2. 5 billion years as a round figure
3. "strange poll" , as I said , take it easy , you are not in the academy here...
4. 5,000 years of history (6,000 for you)
5. And you know how old the earth is according to the bible ? (I know)

[caesar44]

Were just trying to figure out what creation your talking about. Again almost no one takes the 6 day thing literally as it is impossible to have a day without a sun.



I didnt say it was negative I said it was ludicrous and asked where you got such an idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science in Christian Perspective





Creation/Evolution Page

No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source of biological diversity. The pages of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) reflect the tensions for a community which claims to value both the Bible and science yet finds it difficult to forge a view on origins that takes into account both areas of revelation. The spirited debates on the ASA listserv demonstrate the current paths of this discussion.

This page points to PSCF and other sources that focus on the religious significance of the creation/evolution issue and concerns over the evidence that supports evolution. The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity. Advocates and foes of evolution alike have often gone far beyond the science of the subject to advance various causes. Despite the claims of those who claim a corner on the Truth, the importance of "beliefs" and "feelings" on all sides reduces the chances for consensus. Too often, would-be authors are not familiar with current research. Scientists, philosophers and theologians are rightly concerned with those who would speak learnedly about fields with which they have only a surface knowledge. A team approach seems most appropriate for such a multidisciplinary enterprise.

Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist when it comes to points of interpretation. The public debates over education and the "culture wars" keep the pot boiling. We offer creditable resources from which the reader can draw his/her own position.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fifty plus years of ASA publications reflect the paths that American evangelicals have taken on biological origins. Times have changed for the cultures of science and American Christendom. Yet many issues raised in the19th Century are relevant today.

Darwinian Politics
Which statements reflect your views on the origin of human beings?
1. We evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process.
2. We evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process.
3. God created us in our present form.

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS ALL
Evolved w/o God 16% 9% 13%
Guided by God 28% 23% 27%
Created by God 51% 66% 55%
Unsure 5% 2% 5%

Source: CBS News/New York Times poll, Nov. 18-21, 2004

What do you think of the evidence regarding evolutionary theory? * 29716 responses
MSNBC Poll January 15, 2003
The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond doubt. 56%
The evidence is not sufficient to support the theory. 28%
Neither of the above. 16%


We offer a series of papers and books that emphasize various aspects of biological origins. They are arranged under the categories of Historical, Scientific, and Biblical/Theological papers. Next (with some trepidation) we arrange some more recent papers over a spectrum based on the creative activity of God - ranging from recent six-day episodic creation to one involving a long-term seamless process from an original event which embodied all the capacities to develop the diversity of life.

Then, a Dialogue from the Christian Scholars Review and PSCF that captures much of the current evangelical discussion and a friendly exchange in PSCF on evolutionary psychology. An earlier dialogue Theistic Evolution offers a shorter introduction. Younger surfers might enjoy Fish Wars. We close with recent news items related to the creation/evolution front.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution Basics

A wide-ranging primer on evolution basics - the science and religious implications - at the PBS website.
Another primer from the talk.origins group

Darwin and Natural Selection takes a closer look at Darwin's thinking.

John van Wyhe, The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASA Statements

Richard H. Bube, "We Believe in Creation," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (PSCF), 23 (June 1971):121-122.

ASA Executive Council, "A Voice For Evolution as Science," PSCF, 44 (December 1992): 252.

ASA Creation Commission Statement (August 2000)

Historical Papers

Jerry Bergman, "A Brief History of the Modern American Creation Movement," Contra Mundum No 7 Spring 1993.

Harry Cook, "Wonderful Life: Burgess Shale and the History of Biology," PSCF 47 (September 1995): 159.

Harry Cook, & Hank D. Bestman, A Persistent View: Lamarckian Thought in Early
Evolutionary Theories and in Modern Biology PSCF 52.2: 86-97 (6/2000).

Edward O. Dodson , Toldot Adam: A Little-Known Chapter in the History of Darwinism
PSCF 52.1: 47-54 (3/2000).

Ferngren, Gary B. & Numbers, Ronald L., C. S. Lewis on Creation and Evolution:
The Acworth Letters, 1944-1960 PSCF 48.1 28-33 (3/1996).

J. W. Haas, Jr., The Rev. Dr. William H. Dallinger F.R.S.: Early Advocate of Theistic
Evolution and Foe of Spontaneous Generation PSCF 52.2: 107-117 (6/2000).

Christopher B. Kaiser, "The Creationist Tradition in the History of Science" PSCF 45 (June 1993): 80.

Mark A. Kalthoff, A Different Voice from the Eve of The Origin: Reconsidering John Henry Newman on
Christianity, Science, and Intelligent Design PSCF 53.1: 14-23 (3/2001).

Sara Joan Miles, "From Being to Becoming: Science and Theology in the Eighteenth Century," PSCF43 (December 1991): 215.

Sara Joan Miles, Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design PSCF 53.3:196-201.
(9/2001).

Ronald L. Numbers, "Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz - Part 3." (web link).

Michael Roberts, Was Darwin a Christian? PSCF 52.2:84-85 (6/2000).

Frank J. Smith, "Presbyterians & Evolution in the 19th Century: The Case of James Woodrow,"Contra Mundum No. 6 Winter 1993.

Lectures

Dennis Lamoureux, "Beyond the Evolution Creation Debate" (2003)

Books

Peter J. Bowler, Reconciling Science and Religion: the Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Frederick Gregory, Nature Lost? Natural Science and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century. MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

David Knight, Ronald L. Numbers, Bernard Lightman and Mariko Ogawa, eds. Nineteenth Century Books on Evolution and Creation: scientific and religious debates in the age of Darwin

Ronald L. Numbers. The Creationists. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1992.

____. Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Papers

Wilbur L. Bullock, " The Origin of Species and the Origins of Disease," PSCF 44 (March 1992): 36.

Jerry Bergman, "The Functions of Introns: From Junk DNA to Designed DNA," PSCF 53 (September 2001): 170. [HTML] [PDF]

Robert H. DeHaan, "Paradoxes of Darwinian Theory Resolved by a Theory of Macro-Development," PSCF 48 (September 1996): 180.

Armin Held, & Peter Rust, "Genesis Reconsidered" PSCF 51.4:231-243 (12/1999).

David Lati, "Looking to the Birds: A Perspective on the Interpretation of Nature," PSCF 55 (March 2003): 14-21

Ronald G. Larson, "Viral Evolution: Climbing Mount Molehill?" PSCF 52 (September 2000): 169.

Lahti, David, Evolutionary Theory Misunderstood PSCF 52.3:215-217 (9/2000).

Gordon C. Mills, "A Design Theory of Progressive Creation." A series of five papers from 1995 - 1999 describing Dr. Mills' views.

Keith B. Miller, "The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms," PSCF 49 (December 1997): 264.

Keith B. Miller, Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record (ASA website, 1997).
Glenn R. Morton, "Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla," PSCF 53.1 (March 2001): 42-51.

Rogland, Robert, Pre-Programmed Descent with Modification: Functional Integrity, Intelligent Design, and Natural History
PSCF 52.2:98-107 (6/2000).

Peter Rust, "How Has Life and Diversity Been Produced?" PSCF 44 (June 1992): 80.

Richard Thornhill, "The Panda's Thumb: Design and Optimality from Plato to Endo" PSCF (March 3003): 32-35.

J. Raymond Zimmer "The Creation of Man and the Evolutionary Record,"PSCF 48 (March 1996): 16.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical/Theological Papers

John Jefferson Davis, "Is "Progressive Creation" Still a Helpful Concept? Reflections on Creation, Evolution, and Bernard Ramm's Christian View of Science and Scripture - A Generation Later," PSCF 50 (December 1998): 2

Dick Fischer, "In Search of Historical Adam: Part 1," PSCF45 (December 1993): 241

Dick Fischer. "In Search of Historical Adam: Part 2," PSCF 46 (March 1994): 47

CONRAD HYERS, "Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts." JASA 36 (September 1984): 142-148.

Merideth G. Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," PSCF 48 (March 1996): 2

Karl Krienke, "Theodicy and Evolution," PSCF 44 (December 1992): 255.

Keith B. Miller, "Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation," A condensation of PSCF 45 (September 1993): 150.

George L. Murphy, "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity," 7 - 13.

Peter Ruest, "Creative Providence in Biology," PSCF 53 (September 2001): 179. [HTML] [PDF]

Howard J. Van Till, . "Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation's Functional Integrity." Science & Christian Belief 8, No. 1 (1996): 21-38.

Davis Young, "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisted," Christian Scholar's Review XXIV:4, 380-396 (May, 1995)


Books

Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America, 2000) A balanced and thorough examination of Genesis 1-3 by a conservative reformed denomination.
Analytical Key to the Old Testament: Genesis, by John Joseph Owens (New York: Harper & Row, 1978)
The Anchor Bible: Genesis, by E.A. Speiser (New York: Doubleday, 1964)
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture [ACCS], Old Testament I, Genesis I-II (edited by Andrew Louth, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001)
A Handbook on Genesis by William D. Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry (New York: United Bible Societies, 1997) - (Available at 1-800-322-4253 or at http://www.americanbible.org). An outstanding resource.
The International Critical Commentary: Genesis, Second Edition, by John Skinner (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910). An excellent resource.
The Old Testament Library: Genesis, Revised Edition, by Gerhard Von Rad (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) An excellent resource
Genesis 1-15 by Gordon J. Wenham (Waco, TX : Word Books, c1987.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spectrum of Views

All Christians in the sciences affirm the central role of the Logos in creation and maintaining the universe.

In seeking to describe how the incredible universe has come to be a range of views has emerged especially in the last two hundred years as biblical and scientific scholarship have enabled deeper understanding of God's word and God's world. We offer a range of views on natural history that have developed out of a 'Christian' world view. They vary according to the place of scripture and science in the telling of the story. The place of direct actions of God and 'so-called' secondary causes are key features of each story. Vocabulary and inconsistent use of terms often obscure which category to place a paper. How one reads the Bible, the place of theology, and philosophy of science color our thinking. The listing:

Young-earth special creation: God directly creates all things in six days. (with some qualifications)
Genesis 1- 3.

Old-earth Creation - Ruin - Reconstruction:
Christian Geology Ministry

Old-earth progressive creation: God's direct role in creation as consisting of separate creative acts spread out over several billion years of time. Davis, Mills, Morse, Tooley

Theistic evolution: God creates the first simple life forms and governs random mutation and natural selection as secondary causes. (the evolution of life is closely interwoven with specific creative acts of God) Miller

One Time Creation: God has created a universe which depends continually upon God, but which has been endowed with the ability to accomplish what God wants it to accomplish without any "corrections" or "interventions." van Till, Murphy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dialogues

When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible

Theistic Evolution

Evolutionary Psychology

College Course

A college course with many links to all sides of the discussion (web link)

News

Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins Scientists are speaking about the potential of two ancient skulls to reveal crucial insights in the evidence-disadvantaged field of human evolution. JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, NY Times

Fossil Hints at How Pterosaur Hunted...Scientific American

Earth's early battering revealed Detailed analysis of the oldest rocks on Earth throws new light on one of our planet's most violent phases. BBC News

In the Beginning ... Cosmologists are beginning to converge on what they call a "standard model" of the universe that is towering in its ambition. DENNIS OVERBYE, NY Times

A Fossil Unearthed in Africa Pushes Back Human Origins French scientists digging in Central Africa have uncovered a skull, almost seven million years old, that belonged to an individual about the size of a chimpanzee. John Noble Wilford, NY Times. See also Toumaï, face of the deep Nature and 'Astonishing' skull unearthed in Africa BBC News




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to P. Rust, P. Garrison, D. Fischer, K. Miller, G. Murphy, R. Miller, D. Campbell, T. Davis for their helpful advice (JWH).




WELL ? crap ?

[Big_John]

1. I meant the creation of the Earth (6 days for the Earth and 5 billion years for the Earth , the bible did not refer to the universe but only to the "aretz" , that is Earth
2. 5 billion years as a round figure
3. "strange poll" , as I said , take it easy , you are not in the academy here...
4. 5,000 years of history (6,000 for you)
5. And you know how old the earth is according to the bible ? (I know)

i get an extra 1000 years? sweet! why? and no need to worry, i'm taking this as easy as anything else.

anyway, following your #1, the question to ask would have been "how old do you think the earth is?". not "5 billion years [for] the creation?" or whatever. i don't think the bible mentions an age for the earth. it talks about the length of creation, afaik. i'm certainly not well versed in the bible though. i do know that others (e.g. usher) have come up with schemes to place the age of the earth using the bible. is this what you mean to ask; "does one believe the earth is ~6,000 years old (usher's interpretation) versus ~4.55 billion years old (several radiometric dating experiments)"?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow such a long post that proves nothing youve said.

Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist when it comes to points of interpretation

Even Christains cant agree yet you seem to think the most in fact 80 or more percent of Americans believe that everything was created in 6 days. Again the only ones who believe that are strict fundamentalists. The population of the US is not made up of 80% christain fundamentalists in fact I doubt its even 10%. All this stuff you hear about us being overly religous is a bunch of crap. Yes most of us are religous but only in as most of us believe that there is a god or a higher power than man in the Universe . Its more propoganda like we have bad health care and dont take care of the poor.

[caesar44]

To ask "how old the earth?" is less intriguing then to ask "do you belive in 6 days creation or in the 5 billion years creation?" , why creation ? because the Earth is still in the process !

Now , in judaism the Earth is 5,765 years old , so simple

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now , in judaism the Earth is 5,765 years old , so simple

Then you believe the same as the christain fundementalists.

[Quietus]

That's a good question ( there are no stupid questions only stupid answers).

And only valid answer there is approximately 4.5 billion years (so choice b).

1. We evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process.

The first statement is true. And there's no proof of god at all, in any form or theory.

The next time the word 'nonbeliever' is thrown around they should add "of the unbelievable".

Hence, you can call me a "Nonbeliever of the Unbelievable".

[Steppe Merc]

Red, my mom and some of my other relatives believe the same thing as you do, that it's a metaphor. Not my cousin, but she's a born again...

[caesar44]

Wow such a long post that proves nothing youve said.



Even Christains cant agree yet you seem to think the most in fact 80 or more percent of Americans believe that everything was created in 6 days. Again the only ones who believe that are strict fundamentalists. The population of the US is not made up of 80% christain fundamentalists in fact I doubt its even 10%. All this stuff you hear about us being overly religous is a bunch of crap. Yes most of us are religous but only in as most of us believe that there is a god or a higher power than man in the Universe . Its more propoganda like we have bad health care and dont take care of the poor.

Did you read it ? 82 to 12 are believing in God !!!!!!!!! , well , now the logic
1. 82% belive's in God
2. God is represented by the.............Bible
3. in the Bible it is written.....6 f***n days
4. He who belive's in God , must belive in the Bible therefore , he belive in the 6 days creation

Capish ? (and please don't use the word "crap" to describe my argument , I did not used it , and won't use it in a honorable forum)