uds prevented the heavenly
>>lights from being seen. Dense vapor clouds surrounding the primitive
>>warm earth might not have cleared enough to enable the sun, moon, and
>>stars to shine through, and so they could not be used for telling time.
>>Is it possible that cloud cover could have lasted four billion years,
>>until after land plants appeared? Maybe not, but clouds are only a
>>water vapor barrier which inhibit terrestrial creatures from making
>>celestial observations. No land animals existed until the fifth day of
>>Sea creatures also cannot make celestial observations due to a water
>> barrier in liquid form. So for whichever reason, the presence of an
>>obscuring barrier, or the lack of observers, the sun, moon, and stars
>>beginning to function as timekeepers on the fourth day of creation in no
>>way contradicts the flow of events projected by naturalists.
>Are you saying that there was someone around 400 myr (or 195 million if
>you use the seed bearing plants) ago who could tell time? This is
Let's use the Bible's rationale: for "signs," "seasons," "days," and
"years," all of which we measure in time (except for signs).
>... I view Genesis 1 as a set of
>proclamations made prior to the foundation of the universe. This is when
>God set in motion the laws of the universe and the events which led to us.
>Thus the order God proclaimed things does not have to match the order
>they were fulfilled. Thus I within my view I don't have to worry about
>the order of events in Genesis 1. You do, but I don't.
Very convenient. Makes it much simpler that way. Had my book come out
a year ago, I would have stated the age of the universe at approximately
15 billion years. After new data from the Hubble Space Telescope, I used
a figure of approximately 12 billion years. Isn't it amazing that the
entire universe got 3 billion years younger in just one year? Science,
the fossil record, and dating is an ongoing process.
Dates and sequence of appearances of various life forms as it stands today
is not etched in stone. No, birds will never precede reptiles, but flying
insects surely do. You can't blame Moses for that one. He used the right
word. We just didn't know how to translate it in 1611.
>The Biblical order does not match the fossil data.
As an apologetic device, if God commanded in one order and the events
transpired in another order, that would cover almost any discrepancies
you could name. My position would be that once obvious corrections are
applied, any possible discrepancies that still exist would be minor in
nature and could be explained by either Hebrew mannerisms and grammar,
scribal errors, mistakes in translation and interpretation; or by a
fossil record that is continually revised as new evidence surfaces.
If I had to retreat from that position, due to more difficulties than I
have seen raised thus far, a fall back position is the overlapping days
method, which I think fully eliminates any difficulties. God creates
heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) which has to include the surrounding universe,
galaxy and solar system. He commissions the heavenly bodies for the
sighted creatures that appear after plant life appears. Day three, five
and six could overlap.
My opinion is that the order of events in Genesis 1 is too good to give up
on it altogether, which is how I would view your approach. It's the same
way I feel about progressive creation. If God used progressive creation,
why does it look like evolution?
I think you have pointed out flaws in geologic scholarship correctly, but
nothing that negates the entire methodology which has considerable
advantages over anything else competing in the marketplace of origins ideas.
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION
* THE ORIGINS SOLUTION *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* Web page - http://www.orisol.com *