Subject: Re: was the universe/earth created in 6 solar days ?
Date: 14 Sep 1999 00:18:28 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Organization: University of Queensland
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
"Rick" <deckard20> writes:
>I would like any feed back ,
>was the earth truely created in 6 days 6000 years ago. My christain frinds
>beleive so.
>Yet I know other Chritains that disagree and beileive that the earth was
>created much longer ago and not 6 days but each day reffering to millions of
>years.
>every christan tells me that they get there facts from th bible..
>any facts would be appreciated

For the *scientific* facts you should start with newsgroup
talk.origins, and the archive with vast amounts of *scientific*
information.

The idea that this is the only acceptable interpretation of the first
chapter of Genesis comes from Ellen G. White, the "prophetess" of
Seventh-day Adventism. In the 1850s she pushed this line.

It was atken up by another SDA, George McCready Price, who wrote a
book "The New Geology", puyblished in 1923. This was ignored by
geologists. In it he argued that all the rocks were laid down in
Noah's flood.

This book was read by Henry M. Morris, who wrote "The Genesis Flood"
in conjunction with John Whitcomb, pushing the same line: and the rest
is history.

Evangelical theologians, in general, do not support this view.

Of moderns, John Stott in "Understanding the Bible" and Ronald
Younblood (on the translation team for the NIV) in his commentary on
Genesis come out against it. James Orr in an essay in the booklets
"The Fundamentals" published in 1910-1915 is against it.

Charles Hodge, evangelical theologian from the last half of the 19th
century opposes it in his "Systematic Theology", though he was not
particularly struck by evolution.

And at the Reformation John Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go
elsewhere."

Go to the Bible for information about God and his relationship with
human beings.

Go to a scientific textbook if you want information about the physical
universe in which we find ourselves.

Ken Smith

>Rick
--
Dr Ken Smith <> 

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

Subject: Re: was the universe/earth created in 6 solar days ?
Date: 14 Sep 1999 02:12:14 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Organization: University of Queensland
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Commenting on just some of this posting.
"Taco Man" <> writes:
>Hi Rick,
>Your question is good and points out a major misunderstanding many
>Christian's have about Genesis. I believe that everything was made in six
>literal days and not Million's of years.
>The main reason I believe this is that a Million-year day creation is not a
>traditional doctrine of any Christian Church. If God really created the
>world X billion years ago, why wouldn't he tell someone?

But neither is creation is six days of 24 hours each (together with
the SDA idea that Noah's flood was universal in the modern sense of
"universal") part of "traditional doctrine" of the vast majority of
Christian churches.

Some time ago I looked at the various creeds and statements of faith
of a number of denominations.

None of them made any mention of Noah's flood.

And the only one I could find which mentioned six days was the
Westminster Confession: it's not mentioned in the Apostle's Creed, the
Nicene Creed, the 39 Articles of Religion (Anglican), the Declaration
of Principle of the Baptist Union of Queensland, ...

>Consider 2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
>that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
>one day.
>Many "Christians" will call this verse into play and say that it means that
>the 6 days of creation in Genesis are really long periods of time and not
>(as it says) literal days. But notice how it says thousand, not million.
>Also, the very idea would have been considered idiotic up until the mid
>1800s when Darwin (an admitted Atheist) proposed the idea that the earth is
>older then the Bible says. Then Church leaders started bending over
>backward to incorporate Darwin's theory into church theology. Oh well...

There are two errors of fact in this paragraph.

1. Darwin was *not* "an admitted atheist". He described himself as an
agnostic. The most recent issue of the "Skeptical Inquirer" (USA) is
largely devoted to science and religion, and contains an article by
Martin Gardner (who describes himself as a "philosophical theist" in
"The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener") which discusses Darwin's
ideas about religion.

2. Darwin did *not* make any proposals about the age of the earth.
Scientists, manu of them ordained clergy, who were working in the
field we now call geology, in the latter part of the 18th century and
the early part of the 19th century had shown, pretty conclusively, by
the time Lyell wrote his "Principles of Geology" in 1830 that the age
of the earth was millions of years, at least.

[deletions]

>Consider the fact that if (as the Bible says) God created the planets on
>the third day (Genesis 1:9-13) and the sun on the fourth day (Genesis
>1:14-19), and if those "days" are actually long periods of time, isn't that
>going to be a little hard on your planet life to not have sun light for a
>good Billion years or so? Oh well, back to the drawing board. I mean Darwin
>obviously knew what he was talking about, being a Bible school graduate and
>theologian and not knowing anything about Science... Never mind the fact
>that there were no Scientific methods at the time that could suggest the
>Earth was older then a few thousand years, and you really need to forget
>that our current dating systems much match Darwin's geologic column before
>they can be considered "Science".

This gets worse and worse.

Genesis 1:9-13 refers to only one planet - Earth - as does the rest of
the Bible.

Darwin wasn't a "Bible school graduate" - unless you consider that
Cambridge and Oxford Universities should really be "Cambridge Bible
school" and "Oxford Bible school". He had studied theology, though -
as did all undergraduates at those two institutions in the 19th
century.

And, as I mentioned above, since Darwin was a biologist, not a
geologist, it's not his geologic column.

And since our current dating systems do, in fact, match the geologic
column, what point are you trying to make?

I really think you should read talk.origins - and lurk for a while
before trying to enter the fray.

>But hey, condoms are cheep, why bother worrying about silly little things
>like this...

Huh???

>-- 
>Taco Man
>   
>_________________________
>You wanted a "scientest"...
>"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in
>the progress of science. It is useless".
>Professor Louis Bounoure
>Former President, Bialogical Society of Strasbourg, Director of the
>Strasbourg Zoological Museum.

I haven't heard of Bounoure before.

But that's not surprising: creationists are willing to use anyone who
has even vague doubts about evolution to support their case.

Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <>