NationStates Jolt Archive

These are sincere questions, please do not take them as a verbal assault. I am curious as to your thoughts on these matters.

Do you believe that the dinosaurs never existed? That they are an elaborate hoax? Or do you believe that they coexisted with humans, and carbon-dating is unreliable?

Do you believe that natural selection does not occur? That animals are not born with unusual qualities that make them better suited to their environment than their kin and become dominant, thereby causing a change in the nature of animals? Perhaps you believe that the field of genetics as a whole is false?

The latter questions are irrellevant, and have next to nothing to do with religion.

As for the 1st question... there are several possibilities:

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.
or
The world could have somehow been created from pieces of an older planet, and carried their fossils... afterall, the world wasn't created from nothing, it was organized from existing matter.
or
Cabon dating is unreliable?

Pick which of those you want to believe more... I don't believe the last 2, but heck, it could happen.

The latter questions pertain to evolution, which is generally regarded as mutually exclusive with respect to creationism. This, I believe makes them relevant, as they ask on which bases one disbelieves in evolution.

I have heard the idea of day being a metaphor before, and agree that it does remove some of the problems in intelligent design theory.

Thankyou for your input.

The latter questions pertain to evolution, which is generally regarded as mutually exclusive with respect to creationism. This, I believe makes them relevant, as they ask on which bases one disbelieves in evolution.

I have heard the idea of day being a metaphor before, and agree that it does remove some of the problems in intelligent design theory.

Thankyou for your input.

*sorry if this is a multiple post. NS server seems to know when it can best annoy one.

By irrellevant, I mean all that stuff in the latter question could very well be true, and has very little confict with Creationism.

Man was the biggest part of the creation... the earth and its plants and animals could have been created over a billion years, but man... man was special. man was created to dominate all else. Just look at it, nothing else even comes close to man's intelligence, except for something created by man.

The chances of evolution eventually spouting out 1 single possible species of intelligent life if is almost rediculous when you look at the big picture... man just stands out and above the rest.

Yes and yes to both of them. I'm Catholic, and describe myself as a creationist. However, I believe in evolution, and I believe it reinforces the existence of God. Those writting the first part of Genesis weren't there to witness the event themselves. At least other Biblical writers witnessed what they were writing about. Therefore, one can only assume that the first part was metaphorical.
However, the earth is nearing 7 billion years old. Is a billion years the lenght of God's day?

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I would have to disagree, being that I believe Moses wrote genesis (the original text, that is), and Moses was shown the entire plan of the earth, from beginning to end.

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.

Those writting the first part of Genesis weren't there to witness the event themselves. I would have to agree, being that I believe Moses wrote genesis (the original text, that is), and Moses was shown the entire plan of the earth, from beginning to end.
I've never heard that, but then again, I'm Catholic, and I believe you're Mormon. While I only have a basic understanding of the Mormon religion, I'd have to say that from what I know, Mormon Christianity is a little different from the rest of the groups.

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.

It's one thing to say that the Bible is a metaphor, and another to say that its words are literally true, except for the ones whose meanings we want to change because they make no sense. The message of a metaphorical Bible would be "the Genesis story shows us that God had a hand in the creation of the world." The message that Raysia seems to be conveying is "the Genesis story shows us that God created the world in seven days, except 'day' doesn't mean 'day'; it actually means a billion years--as long as it's seven of something, right?"

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.metaphorical... right... *roll*

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?... because that information comes from the bible.

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.

You can take that two ways... both seem reasonable... either that means the earth was created in 7000 years, which is still more believable than 7 days... or a thousand years is an arbitrary number that's supposed to mean " a long time"

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.

It's one thing to say that the Bible is a metaphor, and another to say that its words are literally true,

Never claimed they weren't separate concepts.

The message that Raysia seems to be conveying is "the Genesis story shows us that God created the world in seven days, except 'day' doesn't mean 'day'; it actually means a billion years--as long as it's seven of something, right?"

I believe "one billion" was merely an example, though you are correct in that the likelihood of a precise mathematical correlation between the seven days and the actual creation time of the universe is not very high.

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.metaphorical... right... *roll*

I see two possible reasons for your comment here.

1. you are arguing against yourself (day means billion years IS a metaphor)

2. you do not know what a metaphor is

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?

I think a metaphorical bible isn't that much of an unfeasible idea.metaphorical... right... *roll*

I see two possible reasons for your comment here.

1. you are arguing against yourself (day means billion years IS a metaphor)

2. you do not know what a metaphor isI assumed by your use of the word metaphore that you were one who believes that the bible is not literal in any way, and that everrything is an exaggeration of some kind to make a point.

If I'm wrong, and took that the wrong way, then please accept my apology.

I do believe that a lot of the stories do have lessons to be learned, and represent principles, but it's not like they didn't happen.

These are sincere questions, please do not take them as a verbal assault. I am curious as to your thoughts on these matters.

Do you believe that the dinosaurs never existed? That they are an elaborate hoax? Or do you believe that they coexisted with humans, and carbon-dating is unreliable?

Do you believe that natural selection does not occur? That animals are not born with unusual qualities that make them better suited to their environment than their kin and become dominant, thereby causing a change in the nature of animals? Perhaps you believe that the field of genetics as a whole is false?

I can't speak for all creationists, but these are the most common views held.

We believe that dinosaurs did exist, and that they co-existed with humans. In fact, if you read in the Bible about the behemoth and the leviathan, some scholars believe them to be dinosaurs.

We believe in natural selection. But, natural selection works on genes that are already there. Natural selection creates no new genes, which are necessary for evolution.

If you would like something a little more scientific, check out any of the books by Ken Ham.

I assumed by your use of the word metaphore that you were one who believes that the bible is not literal in any way, and that everrything is an exaggeration of some kind to make a point.

If I'm wrong, and took that the wrong way, then please accept my apology.

I do believe that a lot of the stories do have lessons to be learned, and represent principles, but it's not like they didn't happen.

Sorry, I should have said that it is likely that metaphor was used in biblical description of events. How heavily it was used is a matter of personal opinion.

I can't speak for all creationists, but these are the most common views held.

We believe that dinosaurs did exist, and that they co-existed with humans. In fact, if you read in the Bible about the behemoth and the leviathan, some scholars believe them to be dinosaurs.

We believe in natural selection. But, natural selection works on genes that are already there. Natural selection creates no new genes, which are necessary for evolution.

If you would like something a little more scientific, check out any of the books by Ken Ham.

No, evolutionists do not believe that natural selection creates genes either. New genes are created by mutation, and the few of these mutations that are beneficial allow animals to change between generations (by a very small amount for each mutation)

I assumed by your use of the word metaphore that you were one who believes that the bible is not literal in any way, and that everrything is an exaggeration of some kind to make a point.

If I'm wrong, and took that the wrong way, then please accept my apology.

I do believe that a lot of the stories do have lessons to be learned, and represent principles, but it's not like they didn't happen.

Sorry, I should have said that it is likely that metaphor was used in biblical description of events. How heavily it was used is a matter of personal opinion.

I'm not a creationist, but I'd like to put my two cents in as it were.

1.)The Bible is meant to be taken seriously because it's like some wierd
'Reader's Digest' thing.

2.) It's all very well to say the bible is metaphoric, but that raises interesting questions about Jesus and the whole 'only son giving his life for humanity' thing. I mean could that have been a metaphor?

3.)Believing that Humanity is the epitomy of intelligence is bull. Afterall I'm sure all the other Homo something or other thought that too. But where are they now? Extinct. Besides if we are so advance why have we so badly screwed up the Earth and ourselves?

4.)For all those who don't know the Evolutionist story says it all began with a Big Bang resulting from the compression of an infinite sized cloud of gases and what not. Which is just as reasonable if not more so than a bodieless voice appearing out of the ether and commanding everything ino being.

That's all.

4.)For all those who don't know the Evolutionist story says it all began with a Big Bang resulting from the compression of an infinite sized cloud of gases and what not. Which is just as reasonable if not more so than a bodieless voice appearing out of the ether and commanding everything ino being.


Evolution and the Big Bang are separate theories. Belief in one does not necessitate belief in the other.

4.)For all those who don't know the Evolutionist story says it all began with a Big Bang resulting from the compression of an infinite sized cloud of gases and what not. Which is just as reasonable if not more so than a bodieless voice appearing out of the ether and commanding everything ino being.


Evolution and the Big Bang are separate theories. Belief in one does not necessitate belief in the other.
In fact, the Big Bang was originally theorized by a Belgian priest, and it was hailed by many Christians as a triumph in the Church's history. The big bang's main critics were open athiests.

No, evolutionists do not believe that natural selection creates genes either. New genes are created by mutation, and the few of these mutations that are beneficial allow animals to change between generations (by a very small amount for each mutation)

"As the late Prof. R. Goldschmidt of the University of California has said, 'It is good to keep in mind. . .that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation on micromutations.'"-- "Have You Been . . .Brainwashed?" by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?... because that information comes from the bible.

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.

You can take that two ways... both seem reasonable... either that means the earth was created in 7000 years, which is still more believable than 7 days... or a thousand years is an arbitrary number that's supposed to mean " a long time"

That's a bit of a stretch, Raysia. If the Bible really reflects literal truth, then why wouldn't God say what He means? Why make people jump through these hoops, only to arrive at what is essentially a meaningless answer (i.e. that God created the earth in 7 really long units)?

Furthermore, if we accept your theory, then we have to believe that each of the steps that happened in the Bible occurred within a fixed amount of time. That is, you have to believe that it took the same amount of time to create birds and fish as it did to create vegetation. I'm pretty sure that if you lined this up with what we know about the development of life on earth, it wouldn't match. Unless, of course, you think that each "day" is a different length, in which case you're abusing the meaning of these words even more to fit your agenda. (Or if you're willing to deny all scientific evidence that contradicts your theory.)

My advice is that you shouldn't go down this road. Creationism, at least in its most literal forms, is a dead end. You can believe that Genesis is a "metaphor" for the creation of the earth and life if you want (i.e., that God had something to do with it). But if you try to argue that Genesis is "true" in a more literal sense--scientifically accurate--then you're just fooling yourself.

a "day" (of the 7 days) could be a billion years, allowing time for dinosaurs etc.

I don't even know why creationists bother with arguments like this. If you're willing to torture the meaning of Biblical language so that "day" doesn't mean "day," then why bother trying to defend the truth of the Biblical account at all?... because that information comes from the bible.

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.

You can take that two ways... both seem reasonable... either that means the earth was created in 7000 years, which is still more believable than 7 days... or a thousand years is an arbitrary number that's supposed to mean " a long time"

That's a bit of a stretch, Raysia. If the Bible really reflects literal truth, then why wouldn't God say what He means? Why make people jump through these hoops, only to arrive at what is essentially a meaningless answer (i.e. that God created the earth in 7 really long units)?

Furthermore, if we accept your theory, then we have to believe that each of the steps that happened in the Bible occurred within a fixed amount of time. That is, you have to believe that it took the same amount of time to create birds and fish as it did to create vegetation. I'm pretty sure that if you lined this up with what we know about the development of life on earth, it wouldn't match. Unless, of course, you think that each "day" is a different length, in which case you're abusing the meaning of these words even more to fit your agenda. (Or if you're willing to deny all scientific evidence that contradicts your theory.)

My advice is that you shouldn't go down this road. Creationism, at least in its most literal forms, is a dead end. You can believe that Genesis is a "metaphor" for the creation of the earth and life if you want (i.e., that God had something to do with it). But if you try to argue that Genesis is "true" in a more literal sense--scientifically accurate--then you're just fooling yourself.Or I just don't know, and I'm spouting off random interpretations, and you're taking them too seriously :)

No, evolutionists do not believe that natural selection creates genes either. New genes are created by mutation, and the few of these mutations that are beneficial allow animals to change between generations (by a very small amount for each mutation)

"As the late Prof. R. Goldschmidt of the University of California has said, 'It is good to keep in mind. . .that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation on micromutations.'"-- "Have You Been . . .Brainwashed?" by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

Sorry, but this actually made me laugh. As I said, single mutations make very little difference. It is only large numbers of mutations, which occur over millions of years, produce significant change. It's not something you can do overnight in a lab.

That's a bit of a stretch, Raysia. If the Bible really reflects literal truth, then why wouldn't God say what He means?

I would guess because, being all-knowing, God would be aware that the simple peoples of earth (as they were when the scriptures were written) would be unable to understand.

That's a bit of a stretch, Raysia. If the Bible really reflects literal truth, then why wouldn't God say what He means?

I would guess because, being all-knowing, God would be aware that the simple peoples of earth (as they were when the scriptures were written) would be unable to understand.our ways are not his ways. deal with it. There's a lot we don't know, and will not know until the apocalypse... thaty's WHY it's called the apocalypse... apocalypse literally means the revelation

I think some aspects of the Bible are metaphorical, and also God could have created Ancient llife as well.

That's a bit of a stretch, Raysia. If the Bible really reflects literal truth, then why wouldn't God say what He means?

I would guess because, being all-knowing, God would be aware that the simple peoples of earth (as they were when the scriptures were written) would be unable to understand.our ways are not his ways. deal with it. There's a lot we don't know, and will not know until the apocalypse... thaty's WHY it's called the apocalypse... apocalypse literally means the revelation

If my biblical knowledge is correct, the revelation is where humans gain possession of all knowledge (which of course, would not be possible by any of our, limited means).

Or I just don't know, and I'm spouting off random interpretations, and you're taking them too seriously :)

Well, perhaps I am taking them too seriously. But this raises the question of why you're bothering to come up with interpretations in the first place. Are you willing to accept an account of the earth's creation that cannot be twisted to mean "God created the earth in seven days"?

By irrellevant, I mean all that stuff in the latter question could very well be true, and has very little confict with Creationism.

Man was the biggest part of the creation... the earth and its plants and animals could have been created over a billion years, but man... man was special. man was created to dominate all else. Just look at it, nothing else even comes close to man's intelligence, except for something created by man.

The chances of evolution eventually spouting out 1 single possible species of intelligent life if is almost rediculous when you look at the big picture... man just stands out and above the rest.

To be contrary, the reason why we are able to dominate is our ability to elaborately communicate. Research has shown intelligent animals, but they can't communicate like us. The intelligence doesn't factor in. We are able to speak and such because of skull shape. If you drag your tongue along the top of your mouth, near the back it goes in. That makes it so we can change the sound, with throat shape etc. Also the fact that our voice box is much farther down than any other animal factors into communication ability. Remember, first records were spoken and passed down before we could write.

I actually don't think that Genesis was meant to be taken as a scientific document. The people of that time weren't really interested in science.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

"As the late Prof. R. Goldschmidt of the University of California has said, 'It is good to keep in mind. . .that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation on micromutations.'"-- "Have You Been . . .Brainwashed?" by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

And where, exactly, did "Dr." Gish get his Ph.D? Bob Jones University? Also, since Gish is mentioning a professor who died presumably some time ago, he may very well be ignoring evidence that has emerged since the death of said professor.
But, I digress...

The Bible isn't really meant to explain to us How and When the Universe was created, that's for science to resolve. The book exists rather to explain Who did it and Why. This is according to the pastor at my church.

Genesis actually contains two different accounts of Creation:
The first, is the seven day one with "Let there be Light," and "God saw that it was good." This really is just supposed to show us how powerful God is.
The second, which comes directly after the first, has God personally creating the first man, then the garden of Eden, then animals, then woman, on a premade Earth, in a completely different order than the first account.

(I'd give the verses, but I can't find my Bible, when I get it I'll put them up.)

Genesis 1 and 2.

The Bible isn't really meant to explain to us How and When the Universe was created, that's for science to resolve. The book exists rather to explain Who did it and Why. This is according to the pastor at my church.

Genesis actually contains two different accounts of Creation:
The first, is the seven day one with "Let there be Light," and "God saw that it was good." This really is just supposed to show us how powerful God is.
The second, which comes directly after the first, has God personally creating the first man, then the garden of Eden, then animals, then woman, on a premade Earth, in a completely different order than the first account.

(I'd give the verses, but I can't find my Bible, when I get it I'll put them up.)

You make a good point.

These are sincere questions, please do not take them as a verbal assault. I am curious as to your thoughts on these matters.

Do you believe that the dinosaurs never existed? That they are an elaborate hoax? Or do you believe that they coexisted with humans, and carbon-dating is unreliable?

Do you believe that natural selection does not occur? That animals are not born with unusual qualities that make them better suited to their environment than their kin and become dominant, thereby causing a change in the nature of animals? Perhaps you believe that the field of genetics as a whole is false?

I am a Zoroastrian. I strongly beleve that faith and science can and should inner-mix. Personaly I feel that what science can prove, it is therefore apart of Ahura Mazda's creation and no matter how messed up it may seem there is a reason for everything that exists.
Im not much on teaching the faith so I suggest all that are interested to visit: http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/

I didn't know Zoroastrianism still existed.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'd like to encourage everyone who is interested in giving the literal Biblical creation story a chance to read Ken Ham. He's a scientist, and he's good at explaining such things.

I didn't know Zoroastrianism still existed.



Well now you do. I think http://www.religioustolerance.org has stuff on it.

Topic Ender: Evolution is based on Science, which is constantly advancing.
Creationism is based on faith, whioch is a tool to gain knowledge.

Just pick one :) You can't argue creationism to an evolutionist, because there are no facts. You can't argue evolution with a creationist because their faith is too strong.

You can't argue creationism to an evolutionist, because there are no facts.

Not quite. There are no facts in evolution (or any theory), just a greater amount of supporting evidence than alternative theories.

You can't argue creationism to an evolutionist, because there are no facts.

Not quite. There are no facts in evolution (or any theory), just a greater amount of supporting evidence than alternative theories.there is little or no evidence supporting creationism, other than revelation and scripture

These are sincere questions, please do not take them as a verbal assault. I am curious as to your thoughts on these matters.

Do you believe that the dinosaurs never existed? That they are an elaborate hoax? Or do you believe that they coexisted with humans, and carbon-dating is unreliable?

Do you believe that natural selection does not occur? That animals are not born with unusual qualities that make them better suited to their environment than their kin and become dominant, thereby causing a change in the nature of animals? Perhaps you believe that the field of genetics as a whole is false?

I am a creationist and I believe in the litteral 6 days of creation. The Dinosaurs did exist, that is why there are so many dinosaur fossils, but i believe that they did coexist with humans. Human and Dinosaur footprints have been found right next to each other, in the same rock, the dinosaur and the man had to have crossed over the same mud within a few hours of each other, before the mud hardened into rock. That being said, i do believe carbon dating is unreliable.

I also believe that natural selection does occur. But it wont result in the complete transformation of one species into another. I dont believe that genetics as a whole is false.

You can't argue creationism to an evolutionist, because there are no facts.

Not quite. There are no facts in evolution (or any theory), just a greater amount of supporting evidence than alternative theories.there is little or no evidence supporting creationism, other than revelation and scripture

Sounds about right.

I'd like to encourage everyone who is interested in giving the literal Biblical creation story a chance to read Ken Ham. He's a scientist, and he's good at explaining such things.

ken ham is a scientist like i am a russian submarine commander

As a Catholic who is going to a Catholic school, in Religion class the whole evolution thing was discussed within the textbooks we got themselves. Apparantly it is OK to believe in both God and Evolution. The belief is that God guided evolution so that we'd end up as we are today. Arguements were raised that one day is not a day literally, and because many things in the Bible have deeper meanings, who knows? We won't know till the end, which I eagerly await.

However, the earth is nearing 7 billion years old. Is a billion years the lenght of God's day?
Look, folks, Yes, I am an Evolutionist, but I'm not here to flame. I just want, as a Geology major , to set something straight. The earth is not almost 7 billion years old, nor almost 6 billion, but a lot closer to 5 or 4, with 4.55 being the accepted number today in Geologic science.

These are sincere questions, please do not take them as a verbal assault. I am curious as to your thoughts on these matters.

Do you believe that the dinosaurs never existed? That they are an elaborate hoax? Or do you believe that they coexisted with humans, and carbon-dating is unreliable?

Do you believe that natural selection does not occur? That animals are not born with unusual qualities that make them better suited to their environment than their kin and become dominant, thereby causing a change in the nature of animals? Perhaps you believe that the field of genetics as a whole is false?

New Cyprus (a Evolutionary Christian and Methodist)'s views on the Questions Asked...

Of course dinosaurs exsisted! I see their skeletal remains at museums, they didn't coexsist with humans, humans came after dinosaurs, after an ice age, etc. Humans could've very well evolved from certain reptiles for all we know (even though there is evidence again that).

Of course natural selection occurs, but to me it is God's choice to somehow alter that. And how could genetics be false! It is one of my dearest principals. I hope most things in science are true, otherwise I'd be believing something wrong. Besides, genes (unless there is some odd coincidence) have already been proven in humans. It makes sense that these work, otherwise, we'd be quite somewhere back in time with our advancements in medicine technology, etc.

My views are listed above, and trust me, I don't think many Methodists share my beliefs.

However, the earth is nearing 7 billion years old. Is a billion years the lenght of God's day?
Look, folks, Yes, I am an Evolutionist, but I'm not here to flame. I just want, as a Geology major , to set something straight. The earth is not almost 7 billion years old, nor almost 6 billion, but a lot closer to 5 or 4, with 4.55 being the accepted number today in Geologic science.

Well, um, then God's "day" must have been 0.65 billion years. Yeah, that must be it...wouldn't want to contradict Genesis.