The only thorn in my side about Sky Angel

[TNGTony]

I really have a problem with Sky Angel when they air programming like this:
--------------------
The Dangers of Evolution (SKY ANGEL SPECIAL PRESENTATION)
Friday, March 26, 8pm-11pm ET
(Re-airs May 13, 12am-3am ET; August 11, 3pm-6pm ET; and October 29, 8pm-11pm ET)
Angel Two/Sky Angel Channel 9702

What difference does it make whether you believe in creation or evolution? Did the theory of evolution play any part in starting World War I & II? How does evolution relate to Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age movement? In this special, Dr. Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism answers all these questions and many more.
----------------------

No one has ever been able to explain to me how Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive except for the people who say they take the bible literally. And generally when confronted with several contradictory statements in the KJV, they explain (i.e. interpret) the meaning or point to the original texts (another language) therefore once again interpreting the true meaning of the Word. So literallist really do not take the bible literally all the time either.

And no one has succesfully explained how creation is a science. Science requires questioning, scrutinizing and proof. By definition the Bible is a book of faith, which means that it is to be believed without proof or question. The two are mutually explusive.

Anyway, some may enjoy this program in one form or another!

(Please keep conversation on topic and civil. Thanks)

See ya
Tony

 

[mwgiii]

I agree with you.

I believe in God, I also believe in evolution.

I do not see why I can't believe in both.

 

[Pepper]

Well, with as many programs as they offer, there's bound to be something to offend everyone! Personally, Benny Hinn scares the willies out of me.

I do take the Bible literally, yes I'm one of those right-wing wackos. However it is up to each believer to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance as to the interpretation. I believe in the literal 7-day creation as described by Genesis, however I am not a theologian and my knowledge of such matters is limited. My beliefs stand to be corrected or reinforced with additional reading and study, as should yours.

That being said, my current understanding on the matter. It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution theory than to see the natural order as indicating a Creator. "The heavens declare the glory of God"

As far as I'm concerned, if we can agree on basic doctrine (the virgin birth, diety of Christ, his atonement for our sins, and salvation thru grace by faith, not by good works, and the whole "no man comes to the Father but by me" thing) the rest of it is debatable and of questionable value.

If it turns out in the end that my understanding of the creation vs evolution debate was dead wrong, it doesn't really matter, I still ended up in the right place, sitting at the feet of my Lord and Savior.

On the other hand, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about creation vs evolution, if the debate itself distracts or otherwise causes me to reject God's forgiveness, for example if I believe that since the universe evolved and wasn't created there's nobody to be accountable to, thus nothing to be forgiven from... that is the much more dangerous alternative.

Better to spend what little time we have, gently showing the way to those who need it, instead of alienating them when they see us argue amongst ourselves about the nonessential stuff.

 

[dlsnyder]

I agree with you.

I believe in God, I also believe in evolution.

I do not see why I can't believe in both.

Assuming one takes the Bible literally (as I do)...

God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The narrative then covers God's subsequent creations on days 2 through 6, including man. There was no death on the earth until Adam and Eve committed the original sin of disobediance, at which time God killed an animal and covered them (this was also the first sacrifice).

In the theory of evolution death is a prerequisite. So the theory goes, single celled organisms over billions of years under ideal conditions could evolve into all the forms of life we see today. Creatures with partially developed eyes or hands or whatever would have to mutate, pass those traits on to their offspring, then die. Theistic evolution, which is a synthesis of divine creation and classical Darwinian evolution, has God creating that first single celled organism then standing back and letting the rest happen by chance. If one believes that the Bible is the literal inspired word of God then it would seem that the Genesis account and Darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive. The Biblical account of creation does however allow for adaptation and biological diversity. While God created dogs, for example, He didn't necessarily create both chihuahuas and coyotes on day 5. Those two varieties of canine, as well as all the others, developed slowly over time, each adapted to its own environment, thanks to God's provision of a robust genome. Creation science, as it has become known, is the study of life from a creationist viewpoint. Those who support Darwinian evolution (or so-called "mainstream" scientists) are often quite derisive of those who believe in divine creation on the grounds that trying to prove life originated from God is intellectually dishonest. Those of us who believe in God and His creation believe the same about them - the evolutionist viewpoint is intellectually dishonest because it excludes God as a first principal.

So to sum it up, I believe in the Genesis account of creation. I also believe that God has allowed for a great deal of genetic diversity. I believe that chimpanzees, lemurs, apes, and the like may have come from a common simeon ancestor. I do not believe that mankind came from that same simeon ancestor, nor that that first ape was descended from some sort of ocean-dwelling ancestor. IMHO that is where creation and Darwinian evolution part ways.

 

[Cliff498_2]

I've always questioned how the different dating methods work. I mean, first the earth is 4 billion years old, then 15 billion, now maybe 20 billion. Seems like there would be a big difference between dating the planet, that is rocks, mountains, oceans, etc., and then the dating of living things like people -- how long people have been around.

Personally, I also believe in a literal 6 days of creation (with one day of rest, making 7) since if God is God, he could do it however (fast or slow) he wanted.

However, I also think the earth is maybe 20 billion years old. How? My opinion is that we may not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they were kicked out. If Adam and Eve spent 20 billion years in the Garden of Eden, that would be some paradise! Then, when they had to live on their own, on the "Earth" the population started growing. Or there could be other explanations for why the planet seems (or is) so old. I just don't know, but I guess I'm saying that perhaps the creation of the world could have been a different time than when God put men and women on the Earth as it is today.

Just my thinking,

 

[TNGTony]

Wonderworld posted the folloing on http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?p=83768#post83768

I don't understand why them not believing in evolution and stating it is so bothersome to you. It's what Christians believe and so they say it. There's nothing wrong with that. I understand if you disagree but I dont know why it bothers you when that's what they believe. They believe God created man and in his current form, not from monkeys. It says in the bible "God created man" so it's what they believe.Wonderworld.

I have no problem with them saying that "according to scripture, the universe and everything in it was created and that is what we believe". As a matter of fact, I wish they would JUST say that.

What I have a problem with is creating a pseudo-science and trying to debunk REAL science in order to PROVE creation is correct and evolution is not. By definition NOTHING in the Bible needs to be proven. It's an article of faith. You either beleive it or you don't. If one requires proof, that, by definition, means one DOESN'T believe in the Word. Creation "Science" is the biggest sham ever. Scientifically it doesn't hold water. However, my point is that theologically it doesn't have to.

So again, I have no problem with creationist saying "we believe in creation". I have a problem with creationist with such weak faith that they need to prove something that cannot be proven and never needed proof in the first place. I have a problem with people with NO scientific meathod using scientific terms to attack a theory that has been pretty much proven even to the cellular level (DNA). As the DNA strands are mapped, we can see exactly where and how species mutated to become all the wonder of our planet.

And not all Christians believe in a litteral creation either. It is a fairly small, but significant percentage. But not all.

See ya
Tony

 

[TNGTony]

I've always questioned how the different dating methods work. I mean, first the earth is 4 billion years old, then 15 billion, now maybe 20 billion. Seems like there would be a big difference between dating the planet, that is rocks, mountains, oceans, etc., and then the dating of living things like people -- how long people have been around.

The Earth (Heaven and Earth) according to current observation is still dated at about 4 billion years old. That has stayed the same since I was in school 30 years ago. The Moon created a little more than 3.5 Billion years ago when a planetoid collided with Earth spinning off the lighter matedials to form the Moon.

The age of the universe from the "big bang" (let there be light), is the time fram that is still hotly debated. Current consensus is 12 to 15 billion years old. But now with some amazing observations with the Hubble Space Telescope, some scientist have theorized it's closer to 20 billion.

The science involved in figuring out the age of the universe is amazing. Boiled to its bare bones it works something like this:
if you look at a soap bubble, you know that it came from "nothing". You theorize, by obsevation of the last 1 billionth of a second watching the bubble grow, that the bubble is growing at the rate of X. You theorize by obseving the size of the bubble for the last billionth of a second that the bubble is X size now. So, you work backwards and theorize when the bubble was created.

Now, one trillionth of a second later, you realize that some paramaters you thought were correct before are off. You change the old information for the new and you get a new time of creation of the universe.

How long have people been around? Homosapiens (same species as us) for several hundred thousand years (don't remember a more exact figure). The "homo" genus has been recorded as old as 3 million years old. The oldest tool-maker foscils and their tools have been recorded at about 2.4 million years ago. The "ancestor" to chimps and ourselves is theorized to have existed about 10 million years ago. The theory is by looking at DNA and working backwards. We (humans) are 98.5% IDENTICAL to chimapzees (DNA-wise). The development of a human baby and a chip is nearly identical up to the age of 2 or 3. Chimps have more DNA in common with humans than Chips and any other great ape or primate and vice-versa.

Personally, I also believe in a literal 6 days of creation (with one day of rest, making 7) since if God is God, he could do it however (fast or slow) he wanted.

As I stated in the above post, I have absolutely no problem with this belief. I have a problem with attempting to prove faith.

However, I also think the earth is maybe 20 billion years old. How? My opinion is that we may not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before they were kicked out. If Adam and Eve spent 20 billion years in the Garden of Eden, that would be some paradise! Then, when they had to live on their own, on the "Earth" the population started growing. Or there could be other explanations for why the planet seems (or is) so old. I just don't know, but I guess I'm saying that perhaps the creation of the world could have been a different time than when God put men and women on the Earth as it is today.

Just my thinking,

I have a whacky theory.

Adam and Eve didn't eat an apple. They ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A non-sentient being, has no knowledge of good or evil. A non sentient being lives in an eternal bliss. They don't know death. It happens, but they don't KNOW of it. They have free will, but since they are unaware of their surrounding or their impact on things around them, they live in bliss. Eat, sleep, drink, procreate.

Then one day the woman (notice the female) eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After seducing the male, she gives birth to a generation of sentient beings that realize the pain, suffering, toil of life. They know what it is to do harm. They know what is is to be kind. They realize they are naked. They have been cast out of the Eden that was ignorance.

See ya
Tony

 

[reedl]

A couple of off the wall comments from a pretty much atheist:

1) When I was in college, the joke around there was that god did not create the earth in six days. He waited until the night of the 6th, and pulled an all-nighter..

2) I have a major problem with people who believe earth is only 5000 years old, and anything older than that using pretty much scientific methods is dismissed as god "testing us"

3) The bible is not infallable at all. It says somewhere that everything rotates around the earth. We know this not to be true of course.

4) To me the bible is a rather interesting historical book, and interesting to read for some viewpoints of history, but to base ones life on it is much too much of a stretch for me. One problem I have with it is that there are other religions which are based on completely different texts. Who is to say what is the right one? Or there is even one that is right.

5) I have always maintained that the simularity between atomic particles and nucleus and rotating electrons, and planets rotating around a sun is too interesting to dismiss. But who really knows of course.

Reedl

 

[JBKing]

I still remember what my 7th grade teacher said about creation/evolution, and particulary the 7 day creation. What is a 'day' to people thousands of years ago when the biblical verses were told, retold, and then finally committed to paper? Would these people have understood that 'God created the universe in 15 billion years and on the 14,999,999,999th day He rested'?

The point is that God created everything over some period of time. Of course, my teacher and I aren't literalists. The term 'day', while not quite literally meaning 24 hours, can be taken seriously as a easily understandable term for early believers to comprehend. Time has little significance to God, having always been in existence.

Slightly off topic, but I found a sermon from several months back quite interesting. Our priest was talking about how Protestants give Catholics flack about praying for the dead. Going along with the thought that time is nearly meaningless to God, even though someone may have died today, and we continue to pray for their eternal life days and years later, God being all-knowing, is aware of the prayers in advance. Any prayers said even 10 years later help out the person at the time of their death. An interesting concept that I never thought of before. This was one part of a bigger talk on Purgatory and how he thought Purgatory can not be measured by a length of time, but as an experience or cleansing of the soul from this world to the next. This experience would be of differing levels or intensities based on the person's life, and could not be measured in days or years (or centuries for some of us ).

 

[dlsnyder]

What I have a problem with is creating a pseudo-science and trying to debunk REAL science in order to PROVE creation is correct and evolution is not. By definition NOTHING in the Bible needs to be proven. It's an article of faith. You either beleive it or you don't. If one requires proof, that, by definition, means one DOESN'T believe in the Word. Creation "Science" is the biggest sham ever. Scientifically it doesn't hold water. However, my point is that theologically it doesn't have to.

Tony

I don't think that creation science is out to prove anything, except that the historical record left to us in nature can be just as adequately explained, if not more so, by creation as it can by evolution. Its as if people in the scientific community expect Christians to check their brains at the door when we go to church. If God really did create the earth and all that is within it as the Bible says than the natural world and the fossil record should support that. Christians have the same desire to have some hard evidence to support their position as anyone else does. The difference is that those who refuse to believe in God also refuse to admit that the natural world around us is best explained by a creator outside of our reference of time and space. They begin with an assumption that there is no god and set out to explain nature through any and all other means. As to the age of the earth, it depends on your point of view. Time moves in relation to the gravitational field in which you find yourself. I am no scientist but I am not sure how a reasonable calculation of the age of the universe could be made from earth, given how relativity works.

 

[DaveM]

Evolution is a Theory

I studied evolution at a "Big Ten" university and did well in the science classes. And mostly, I remember being impressed by the brilliant minds who had worked at NASA, or had other remarkable credentials.

However, when all was said and done, evolution remained a "theory." And that's the key word.

Some (not all) evolutionists try to erase the word "theory" as though they have first-hand knowledge of fact.

Until evolutionists perfect their franchise, I see no problem with other forms of speculation, whether it is called Creation Science, etc. Over the last hundred years many things have been accepted by the scientific community, only to be discredited, later.

Personally, I wish I had seen those dinosaurs mutate into Canada Geese. I wish I had the photos to sell to The New York Times.

 

[Wonderworld]

.

As Dennis Miller (a non-Christian) once said. "If evolution is true, and apes evolved into human beings, why are there still apes?"

Current apes and humans have common anscestry. Apes came from earlier forms of primates just like we did. There have been many species found in our genus alone, most commonly known as Neadrathals, Homo Erectus, Astraliopithicus and others that all died out. Dead ends.

There are chimps because that branch of our ancestry found a nitch in the world, and they thrived.

Even more importantly, most people know who Charles Darwin was and a little bit about him. However, something the science classes don't teach or tell you in any way, in most cases is that just before Darwin died, he dismissed his own theory. The reason that evolution is still the talk today is because the teachers do not teach it and most don't know about his dismissal.

The reason is simple. He didn't dismiss his theory. He, in a political move to be published, publically rejected that evolution applied to humans. Whether he believed that for real is lost to history and really irrelevant because there is physical evidense supporting it.

This is also very important, he also NEVER EVER EVER dismissed the existance of God either. He saw no conflict in his observations and this belief in God.

Some have posted that Evolutionary theorists (again look at the post above before dismissing the word) are all atheistic preachers attempting to prove there is no God or supreme being. This his for the most part HORSE HOCKEY! The scientists are trying to understand the way we got from here to there by looking at the physical evidense in front of them. The conclusions of whether there is a God or not is irrelevant. NO I didn't say God was irrelevant. I said God is not the subject of the scruteny here.

Yes there are scientists that PERSONALLY are atheists or agnostics. But many of them are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc and have not abandoned their faith.

If you study up on him, probably even through the internet, you will find this.

A word of warning...find out WHO wrote the artlicles and who publishes the web site FIRST. The problem with this particular subject is that so much misinformation, misunderstanding of fact and sometimes pure deception is posted as "truth". You have to know where the info comes from to weigh it properly (from both sides).

See ya
Tony

 

[TNGTony]

I studied evolution at a "Big Ten" university and did well in the science classes. And mostly, I remember being impressed by the brilliant minds who had worked at NASA, or had other remarkable credentials.

However, when all was said and done, evolution remained a "theory." And that's the key word.

The term "Theory" is a scientific term to describe the process.

The pothagorean theorem is not labeled as fact. But it is.

BTW just in case some one wants to question syntax www.dictionary.com
Entry: theorem
Function: noun
Definition: hypothesis
Synonyms: assumption, axiom, belief, deduction, dictum, doctrine, formula, fundamental, law, postulate, principium, principle, proposition, rule, statement, theory, thesis

A²+B²=C²

Why isn't it called a fact even though it is the most basic equaston in geometry? Because not every single number has been tried. It works for every number tried since Pothagerus. But the infinite number of posibilities can never be explored. So...it remais a theorem.

The Theory of Probability is still a theory. But you know what? The entire global economy is based on it. It can't be called a fact because by definition, the variables are too many to confirm with 100% certainty. Still, we treat is as such.

The theory of relativity (E=MC²) is STILL a theory. This is after an atomic and hydrogen bomb pretty much confirming that Energy DOES equal Mass times the speed of light squared. The way we understand physics is based on it.

The theory of flight is a required course for pilots. Eventhough I'm sure many of us have flown in airplains, it's STILL called a theory.

How about Gravitational Theory? Gravity has not been proven as existing because we don't know how it works! Does that make what we call gravity less real?

There's a raft more "theories" out there we depend on for most of our technology and understanding of the way things work. The word "theory" when used in a scientific context does not make the process less real. It means we haven't figured out all the variables. It is a specific scientific term for a defining a process with TANGIBLE available observations. It is a word that is often misused and widely misunderstood.

See ya
Tony

 

[TNGTony]

A couple of off the wall comments from a pretty much atheist:
3) The bible is not infallable at all. It says somewhere that everything rotates around the earth. We know this not to be true of course.

Reed... No. It didn't. This was a Church doctrine based on Aristotle and Ptolomy. The Bible never said the Earth was the center of the universe, unchanging and unmovable. It WAS an interpretation though. Everything in Genesis revolves around Earth. Not litterally, but figuratively. Everything seems to have been created around Earth. But, unlike the creation of Man and the Heavens and the Earth, it never specifically SAYS the Earth is the center of it all.

Take a quick look at Genesis 1 here
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+1&language=english&version=NIV

This is the New Intenational Version. Some people may call me a heretic for even suggesting this version, but it is written in a way that it can be understood by modern English speakers. If you want the King James go here http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...xref=on&language=english&version=KJV&x=17&y=8


See ya
Tony

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Just FYI,

Tony accidently hit "edit" instead of "reply with quote" on Wonderworld's post and ended up editing Wonderworlds post by Mistake (when he thought he was replying to it.)

I checked out backup and could not recover Wonderworlds origionaly post.

I do appologize for the inconvience.

 

[TNGTony]

I must apologize DEEPLY for this egregious error on my part. I had no intention of modifying anyone's post, let alone removing half of it in order to get the sound bite for the "quote" boxes. I will be sure never to repeat this little stupidity.

See ya
Tony

 

[DaveM]

The term "Theory" is a scientific term to describe the process.

The pothagorean theorem is not labeled as fact. But it is.

Tony

I, Dave, am using the dictionary definition of theory: "A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

When I go to court, a matter of actual fact is this:

The judge says, "Dave, did you personally see the dinosaur evolve into a Bald Eagle."

If I didn't see it, I cannot testify to it.

Therefore, I say, "No, I didn't see it, myself."

All I really have is second-hand information at this point based on the opinions of others. All I can say is that I "believe" the process happened.

For the record, I could also add, "I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows." It would all be the same to the judge.

Believing is an act of faith. Evolution requires faith.

A quote from drreevesonline.com for the science people:

"The Laws of Thermodynamics are arguably the best accepted laws across all disciplines of physical and natural science. The 2nd Law says that the complexity of a structured system becomes more disorganized over time. Evolution proposes that the complexity of a structured system becomes more organized over time. The ability for a non-designed system to become more complex over time has never been demonstrated in any field of science."

The Laws of Thermodynamics are one reason why Evolution is still just conjecture. To believe Evolution, we must suspend the 2nd Law.

Therefore, my main point is that I have no problem entertaining other points of view, including those that use the phrase "Creation Science" or "Creation Evidence." Creation Science, measure for measure, is no more flawed than Evolution.


Dave M

 

[TNGTony]

Okay, let's say I take your judge conversation and apply it to something more tangible and you tell me if it holds water?

A person sees skid marks and sees 2 cars smashed up. One has severe front end damage. The other halfway across the street with severe side-inpact damage and skid marks leading to that spot. He can theorize the cause path of the vehicles and conclude with near certainty that the two cars collided, how they collided, the speeds they were traveling and more than likely WHY they collided (who was at fault)! Tell me you haven't seen a car wreck and pretty much seen the hows and whys.

Judge: Did you actally see the cars crash?
person: No. If I didn't see it I cannot testify to it.

Conclusion, the two cars and skid marks and damage MUST have been created in place! Or it's an act of faith to believe it one way or another.

I don't think so. One is a conclusion brought by observation. The other is faith. And you know what? They aren't mutually exclusive. "It's all Gods plan" goes the saying when people have ill fate wrested on them, right? Well...God DID create the car wreck and it did happen the way it was observed! That is if we as Christians really beleive what we are taught.

I'm not trying to diminish the presence of God. I am just making a point.

The point is that evolution does NOT require faith. It requires observation. Faith is required to believe that God was the creator that put it into motion and at the point that Eve gave Adam the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (sentience), separated us from the beasts.

Evolution is a conclusion brought out and verified many times over in fosil record and even in current species and in the DNA sample of live animals and humans today. The thing is that the exact process is still in question. Therefore a "theory"

And as to the Second Law argument, just like all creation "SCIENCE" arguments formed to debunk evolution is BAD science. In this case, as in most cases, taking a scientific law (which if you look at an earlier post is a synonym to "theorum" and scientifically is not much different than a theory in itself) and intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting/misunderstanding what it says. The psuedo-science over-simplifies extremely complicated principals and draws whatever conclusion to which the speaker was predisposed to believe.

The key words missing in the quote aboive are "A CLOSED SYSTEM". Evolution is not a closed system. People who understand it much better than I have extensive articles in the following links.

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp

Again, I am not saying creation didn't happen. I'm still maintaining that without God, nothing would have come to being on it's own. But the "science" used to prove a litteral seven day creation is BAD "science".

Again, science is a search for an explanation of observations made. If the obsevations lead a certain way, you theorize the whys and wherefores. Science, in pure form, never sets off to PROVE anything. It merely interprets the info in front of it. Creation science is an agenda-driven entity, looking for facts to fit a conclusion and by definition NOT science.

See ya
Tony

 

[dlsnyder]

A person sees skid marks and sees 2 cars smashed up. One has severe front end damage. The other halfway across the street with severe side-inpact damage and skid marks leading to that spot. He can theorize the cause path of the vehicles and conclude with near certainty that the two cars collided, how they collided, the speeds they were traveling and more than likely WHY they collided (who was at fault)! Tell me you haven't seen a car wreck and pretty much seen the hows and whys.

Judge: Did you actally see the cars crash?
person: No. If I didn't see it I cannot testify to it.

Conclusion, the two cars and skid marks and damage MUST have been created in place! Or it's an act of faith to believe it one way or another.

Tony -

Your analogy is flawed. We can conclude from the evidence that the two cars collided but the evidence says nothing about how the cars came to be in that place at that time. Let's take another look at it and see if we can make it fit. Let's say that the accident was observed by someone who didn't know what a car was. All they see are these two wrecked pieces of metal on the side of a long ribbon of asphalt. Some might conclude that this was some sort of natural mineral deposit of a previously unknown type. Others might conclude that these objects were intelligently designed and were placed there intentionally for some unknown reason. Which explaination sounds more reasonable? If you begin with the mindset that such things cannot happen through the agency of some intelligent designer then you must conclude, however ridiculous it might sound, that it must have occurred through some "naturalistic" process.

 

[Chris Freeland]

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I do not believe that each individual word that the various authors used is inspired however. I do believe that each of the many authors of the Bible were inspired by God but they were human, they sometimes made mistakes, however I believe the ideas that they were trying to teach were inspired by God. To understand what the Bible is teaching it is important to keep things in context and it is necessary to study what the Bible teaches about a particular subject you need to know the whole Bible. I also believe that most of the historical parts of the Bible can be confirmed by archeology and historians, the historical parts that can not yet be backed up this way I believe as time goes buy if Christ does not return soon will be. I also believe in a literal 6 day creation, I too feel that too many conclusions have been made based the assumption that their is no God or that God just kick started the whole thing. Many assumption also assumes that conditions in the world today have always been the same, unless we lived thousands or millions of years ago and were eye witnesses we do not know. As far as these timeliness that supposedly go back millions of years ago, one possibility is that when God created a living earth, it and all living things in it were created as adults which would make things appear to be older then they are. Also from my reading of Genesis is that life on earth was created in 6 days, not necessarily the raw materials that God used to create a living earth with an atmosphere. The Bible starts out by stating that the earth was without form or void and latter when land is created it states that he separated the land from the water, this indicates to me that their was something here already, probably a large rock covered with water floating in space, which God could have possibly made millions of years earlier or started the process millions of years earlier or he could have done it in an instant, who knows and neither contradicts the Genesis account. I believe that when it comes to a Christian who believes in the Bible only as the word of God who happens to be a scientist, it is his or her duty to figure things out in the context of a creator God and what the Bible teaches, creation science is just as much science as the the more socially accepted conclusions, in fact it is my belief it is more so.