The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Days of creation

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Adding another section

I was wondering if it would be ok to add "God's devine intervention that created a day"? This would be comprised of showing how separation of light did this. Which also means the rotation of the earth is what determined a day. And is further backed up by the mention of the 4 parts of a day which is also what happens as the earth rotates on it's axis.[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 14:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Disputed claims in the article

The statement that the day could periods of time as opposed to literal 24 hours is not just innaccurate. The bible clearly states that "a day is 1,000 years" to God - 2 Peter 3:8; Psalms 90:4. Yet the original bible terms for day are flexible and that is a fact! Saying 'that is it,' or 'that is not,' is just guessing either way. With God thing that seem impossible can be at times possible. - Matthew 19:26 --Anaccuratesource 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your omission of words is misleading, so is your quote. You should quote more accurately.
2 Peter 3:8-9 (New International Version) 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Clearly in 2 Peter 8-9, the quote "a day is LIKE a thousand years" is a way in which God communicates His long lasting promise. The fact a day in of itself can be compared to 1,000 years implies a fixed amount time for the period of day. Namely 24 hours. --Tony 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • - 'Science and the Genesis Account:
  • - '"The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.
  • - "'Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.”"
  • - The universe and the earth have existed here for billions of years before man was here. It’s humanity which is 6,000 years old.
  • - Quoting a reference:
  • - (1) "Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
  • - (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
  • - Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation.
  • - ..."However, the Hebrew word translated “day” [יום] has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” [יום] could have been thousands of years in length."
  • - "In the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred (to Apostle Paul divine inspired indication) to the seventh rest “day” [יום] as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.” --Anaccuratesource 22:54, 21 December 2011 (PST)
  • - The Bible never stated when the (Hebrew: "Bereshith"; which in also the Hebrew name for the book of Genesis) "The beginning" was.
  • - Genesis 1:1, 2 "described things already accomplished, and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days." Saying otherwise would be innaccurate to say the least.
  • - "It helps us when we understand that, just as Bible writers used the term “day” in more than one sense, so they also used the terms “heavens” and “earth” in more than one sense". - (Jeremiah 4:25)
  • - And I took a course in Hebrew so shold know what "yom" means. --Anaccuratesource 23:04, 21 December 2011 (PST)
  • - Understanding Hebrew and the Hebraic perspective (in the case as a person stand on the surface of the earth) we can begin to understand the seemly contradiction between day 1 (light) and day 2 (sun created).
  • - A beginning (the physical universe created)
  • - Day 1.)
  • - “A primordial earth in darkness (already in existence) and is covered in water and heavy gases.”
  • - “Light” (from the sun, moon and stars) becomes visible.
  • - Day 2.)
  • - The atmosphere is formed.
  • - Day 3.)
  • - “Large areas of dry lands are formed” – Job 38:6.
  • - "Plant life." ("the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life." - comments the "Life how get here" book)
  • - Day 4.)
  • - The luminaries (sun, moon and stars) become discernable and now serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.
  • - Day 5.) “Sea monsters” and “flying creatures”.
  • - Day 6.) “Wild and tame beast, mammals” and “man.”--Anaccuratesource 13:52, 22 December 2011 (PST)
  • - The expression: "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning," see Hebraic thought on light and darkness. (Proverbs 4:18)
  • - Once again the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years.
  • - "Different examples of day:"
  • - “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” - Genesis 1:5.
  • - All period of creation described as a “day” – Genesis 2:4.
  • - The day/-s of harvest – Genesis 30:14 & Proverbs 25:13.
  • - I also find the phrase: "In an attempt to merge the Bible with the theory of evolution,"... to be very offensive! Please don't ascribe a motive that's not there! Why not just fairly represent this differing views? --Anaccuratesource 16:51, 24 December 2011 (PST)
  • - Furthermore, I resent being labeled as a "progressive creationist." I'm not part of a political party as it were. I'm a Bible believer. The Bible says God created Adam from the dust and formed Eve from the material from Adam ribs. So I don't believe God created a magic cell which spring out of some magic soup and morphed into ape-man-person then into Adam. I'm not sure how others feel on this, however I feel that "progressive" in used to suggested those in favor of the day-age model of creation have an agenda to merge with evolution. This is totally false and I consider the term offensive! --Anaccuratesource 18:51, 28 December 2011 (PST)
I don't have time to respond to every point here, but here's a few responses:
  • "Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.”"
They may not contradict Genesis 1:1, but they do contradict Exodus 20:11, which says that God created everything in six days.
  • "End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years."
They also indicate that humans have been around for much more than 6,000 years, yet you don't believe them on that. So why believe them on the age of the rocks?
  • "The Bible never stated when the (Hebrew: "Bereshith"; which in also the Hebrew name for the book of Genesis) "The beginning" was."
Would you expect it to? How would it do this? "In 4004 B.C. God created the heavens and the Earth"? That would be meaningless to any readers of it before the Julian calendar was invented. Rather, other events (such as when Adam died) would be dated according to the beginning; the beginning itself would not be dated.
  • "And I took a course in Hebrew so shold know what "yom" means."
Then surely you should know that when it is used with a number, such as "six days" (Exodus 20:11) or "the first day" (Genesis 1:5), it is being used literally, not symbolically or metaphorically.
  • "I also find the phrase: "In an attempt to merge the Bible with the theory of evolution,"... to be very offensive! Please don't ascribe a motive that's not there!"
I have changed that so that it refers to secular views of deep time rather than the ToE in particular. But I disagree that the motive is not there. I have added a quote to show that this is the motive in at least one case, and there are others here which show that this is not an isolated view. Further, I notice that much of your own argument for them not being ordinary days is taken from secular views! You don't give one single argument from the Bible. Yes, you do give arguments for how you think the Bible might allow for millions of years, but not one in which the Bible actually says anything along that line, especially anywhere it says it anywhere near as clearly as it says six days.
  • "The Bible says God created Adam from the dust and formed Eve from the material from Adam ribs. So I don't believe God created a magic cell which spring out of some magic soup and morphed into ape-man-person then into Adam."
The Bible also says that God created everything in six days, just as clearly.
Philip J. Rayment 06:43, 15 January 2012 (PST)

I also would like to respond to some of the claims that "Anaccuratesource" makes.

Sir, you quote a reference giving the alleged time for distant starlight to reach Earth, and describing the distribution of the "end products of radioactive decay." May I remind you that you are using uniformitarian assumptions to judge a non-uniformitarian theory. That is a known logical fallacy described in detail here.

Starlight and time are not a problem anymore. Brown (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood; see also Hydroplate theory) and Hartnett (Starlight, Time and the New Physics) have shown that God stretched the sky after He created the objects in it. Stretch the sky, stretch the light. Furthermore, Hartnett shows that you also stretch time, and tremendously so. So much so that the universe cannot be any older than 6,000 years. Hartnett's math shows this clearly.

And radioactive decay? News flash: radioactive elements did not come into being during Creation. They did not come into being according to the precepts of the nebula theory. They came into being during the Global flood. Specifically, the magnitude-13-or-so earthquakes attendant upon the Flood acted on the vast quantities of quartz in the earth's crust to produce electrical potentials sufficient to produce "lightning bolts" in the ground, and, more to the point, plasma. In this environment, the heavier elements fused into the trans-lead elements we see in the earth's crust today. Also in this environment, those elements, once formed, would decay far more rapidly than they do today. So the distribution of "parent-daughter nuclides" proves nothing.--TemlakosTalk 11:42, 15 January 2012 (PST)

If I had more time, I would have given similar responses to those point myself. However, I would make a couple of comments. Creationist cosmologies such as those by Hartnett are not proven, but are hypotheses, which may or may not be correct. However, that doesn't change the main point that one can't therefore claim that distant starlight rules out the six-day creation.
Also, I have never heard of the claim that radioactive elements did not come into being until the flood. Where does that come from? In case it's Walt Brown (given that you also quote him in regard to distant starlight), I should point out that most creationary scientists do not agree with some/many of Walt Brown's claims, which he has never subjected to peer review. So at the very least, we shouldn't be dogmatic that something is or isn't the case, such as radioactive elements being formed during the global flood. Even if this is correct, it's not something that is (yet) known to be correct. Again, however, this does not change the main point that there are many issues with radioactive dating, including the uniformitarian assumption behind it.
Philip J. Rayment 17:50, 15 January 2012 (PST)
I am getting to be more widely known on the Internet, I suppose, for joining the still-thin ranks of defenders of Walter T. Brown Jr., PhD, Colonel, United States Air Force (Retired), and the Hydroplate theory that he developed. I accept that, and its consequences. I plan to offer more detailed descriptions of the Hydroplate Theory on this site soon.
For now, I would point out, even to doubters of the Hydroplate Theory, that the RATE Group findings definitely support acceleration of nuclear decay, and also support a starting point at which the proportion of daughter nuclide was other than zero. Furthermore, the finding of non-correlating and inconsistent dates was the very thing that provoked the RATE scientists to form their group. The RATE Group's conclusions are sound as far as they go, but incomplete.
I also appreciate your comment that the starlight-and-time problem has been under attack for decades, and is rapidly becoming a non-issue. The only remaining question is what model will prove the best one. --TemlakosTalk 18:02, 15 January 2012 (PST)
I don't think that the ranks of Walt Brown's "defenders" are that thin; his ideas seem to be reasonably popular (Indeed, Jonathan Sarfati writes that "This model of Dr Walter Brown has many passionate supporters").[1] Except, that is, among other creationary scientists. Sarfati also said in that article that the idea "has failed to attract the support of many creationist geologists and geophysicists, many of whom have no reason to reject a successful flood model."
I see that the Hydroplate theory article does include a reference to him publishing about it in the CRSQ, so my comment about his idea not being peer-reviewed may not be entirely correct. However, Jonathan Sarfati (in the linked article) wrote: "The Journal of Creation has published an article about various Flood models, including the hydroplate, which was treated neutrally. But for the creationist community to take it further, Dr Brown should publish it in a journal such as this, and respond to criticisms from creationist experts in geology..."
Anyway, one of the points I was trying to make was about not being unnecessarily dogmatic (which, incidentally, was the point of Sarfati's article), such as claiming that "radioactive elements did not come into being during Creation" (my emphasis). That is one proposal, not a known fact. Of course, as I also said, none of this supports the secular view. The main point is that there are feasible explanations within a biblical creation model, even though we cannot be certain which explanation (if any) is correct, because Scripture hasn't told us every detail. And of course secular views also don't have revelation supporting them, and are simply human attempts to explain things without God.
Philip J. Rayment 06:10, 16 January 2012 (PST)


  • - Whatever one's theories are on the universe the fact still stands doesn't it this does not disprove the following three things?


  • - 1) That the "in beginning" occurred before the Creative days began, at which point the angelic sons of God were already created and

the creation of: the physical universe comprising of the "Heavens" and the "earth" occurred as well.

  • - See: (Genesis 1; Job 38; Proverbs 8)


  • - 2) The Hebrew word "yom" is not limited young-creationist 24-hr day interpretation. It has many meaning and can signify a period or segment.
  • - See: (Genesis 2:4; Genesis 30:14, Proverbs 25:13; Isaiah 17:14, compare with: 2 Kings 18:9-10 (3 years) and Zechariah 14:7-8) and compare with 1 Corinthians 4:6)


  • - 3) The Bible's own internal interpretation: "In the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, God's word referred quotes the Apostle Paul who under Divine inspiration said that the seventh rest “day” was still continuing. So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and therfore we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”
  • - See: (Hebrews 4:4-6) --Anaccuratesource 03:01, 29 July 2014 (EDT)
"Whatever one's theories are on the universe the fact still stands doesn't it this does not disprove the following three things?" A theory does not disprove a claim; it merely seeks to explain an accepted position. Your three things, however, are contradicted by Scripture at least.
  1. Exodus 20:11 is crystal clear that the six days of creation include everything, not just everything after the beginning. Job 38 refers to the angles shouting for joy when the Earth's foundation was laid, which indicates that they were created before the Earth was created; not that they were created before the start of the six days. The order of events on the first day could have been this:
  • Space-time universe.
  • Angels
  • Earth
  1. There is no such thing as a "young-creationist 24-hr day interpretation". As you say, the word has a number of meanings (not "many", but at least three). However, that does not mean that they can be used interchangeably. The point that YECs make is that the particular use in most cases in Genesis 1 is that of a normal (24-hour) day. Simply pointing out that it can mean other things in other contexts is not a refutation of this point.
  2. You are wrong about Hebrews; it does not say that the seventh day was still continuing. In fact, it mentions the seventh day in the past tense, as though it was not still continuing. Rather, it indicates that God is still resting, but that can just as easily mean that He is still resting beyond the seventh day. You are reading the reference to his continuing rest as though it is the day that is continuing. For more, see http://creation.com/is-the-seventh-day-an-eternal-day
Further, there are many other reasons for believing that they were normal days. For one, the idea of deep time comes from the idea that the rocks were laid down slowly over many millions of years, and that the layers of rocks record that process, and that the fossils in those rocks are evidence of life and death throughout that period. Those fossils include evidence of diseases such as cancer, animals attacking other animals, and of thorns. However, the Bible records that after the appearance of man, God pronounced His creation "very good". But that "very good" creation must therefore have included death and suffering, as recorded in the fossils. Further, the Bible explicitly records that thorns originated after the Fall. The only way to reconcile these observations with Scripture is to accept that the rock record is not evidence of millions of years before man, but of the flood afterwards.
Finally, you have not refuted the answers or answer the questions to your previous comments here. For example, I asked "They also indicate that humans have been around for much more than 6,000 years, yet you don't believe them on that. So why believe them on the age of the rocks?" It is poor form to make some claims, have them answered, then ignore the answers and make further claims along the same line.