[Rytwyng]

Intelligent Design... it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.

An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well.

Testable Creation Model

[HairOfTheDog]

Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days.

I also think that we could assume that God knew more about Creation than he outlined in Genesis. It isn't a recipe... it doesn't describe ~how~ it was done, only that it was. What did he leave out? - everything man at that time couldn't understand. Perhaps he would explain more today, with our relative advancements in Science, and perhaps he would still have to talk to us as if we were children in our relative comprehension.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Is the Hebrew word for "days" used in Jonah 1:17 the same as the one used repeatedly in Genesis 1?

[dangus]

>>>>Intelligent Design... it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.<<<<

>>Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.

An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well. <<

Oh, I totally agree