Actually, some Creationists believe that the Bible reads that there was a creation then a “replenishing” that is accounted for in Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden account. This would allow for a much earlier creation event. I don’t know whether the 6 day account was actual or poetic. There are some pretty definite indications that poetic form was used in places of the account. That doesn’t mean that we should read the whole thing as being symbolic. Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.
The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile. Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution. Scholars who attempt to rule out creation with theories like Big Boom and evolution fail very basic and fundamental rules of science, as intelligent as they might be. We simply do not know and the secular theories have infinite gaps in them.
For either side of the issue to take a superior and derogatory attitude toward the other is ignorant. I say we leave the attitudes outside the discussion.
My personal feeling is that finding soft tissue from a dinosaur is a surprising thing. Often, when science finds something surprising, scientists will step back and ask, "Why are we surprised? What don't we know? What do we know that isn't, in fact, true?"
One of my issues with Evolution is that anything surprising that comes up is immediately met with: "What do we know? Well, we know Evolution is true. We know dinosaurs died out millions and millions of years ago. And we know the Bible is a fairy tale. Now, based on what we know, let's examine this surprising finding and squeeze it into our existing theory."
I don't really like science when it's done that way.
Using God's stated plan as presented in the Bible, the illogic of this Star Wars fantasy is mind boggling.
" Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution."
Who's 'creation' are we talking about?
God's word completely rules out evolution in over 100 places. One has to throw out almost every book of the Bible to accept that idea.
For one thing, it is not possible for an alternative explanation of the paleotologist's findings in the dig to be falsified by the scientists' findings in the laboratory.
The underlying principles are polar opposites. In the laboratory, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the dig, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And, of a truth, both sides in the debate tend to be religiously zealous. And both no doubt feel justified.
Nevertheless, the religiously zealous can walk away in good conscience after two attempts to explain his theology to a correspondent:
One major example is the 'Big Bang'. Do you know that when it was first concieved, the Big Bang was actually an epithet thrown at supposed 'Young Earth Fundamentalists' to denigrate this theory?
Well, it was. The predominate theory at that time ( and it was as recent as the 1960's) was the 'Steady State; theory, which postulated that all of the Universe's processes were proceedind pretty much as they had always been and there was never any major disruption, or catastrophe that has caused a major shift.
Well. guess what? 'Settled Scientifid Opinion' was wrong!!
Young Earther's assume that an 'implied' old age for the Universe does not preclude an actual younger age for the Universe. See: The Setterfield Hypothesis' - Google it and you will have your eyes opened.
We believe that God can create a 'mature' universe as easily as He can create a 'young' universe. All of the physical process that currently occur on this planet have not always occured.
One major expample is 'Gigantism' in which large reptiles - which could not exist on this current Earth - once lived on Earth.
These animals could not have supported their own weight! Their hearts could not have pumped blood to their brains if their heads ever rose above horizontal! Something was different eons ago.
Current science has the conceit that it knows all and only the details have to be worked out.
They are as wrong as those who said that is was mathematically impossible for man to create a craft that would fly.
“Actually, some Creationists believe that the Bible reads that there was a creation then a “replenishing” that is accounted for in Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden account.” [excerpt]Yes, there are several variations of that out there.
“This would allow for a much earlier creation event.” [excerpt]Something that is very important if you need there to be a much earlier creation event.
“I don’t know whether the 6 day account was actual or poetic.” [excerpt]There is that claim, but all the arguments I've seen are very weak.
“There are some pretty definite indications that poetic form was used in places of the account.” [excerpt]However, when taken in the context of the whole Bible, it becomes clear that the days are not poetic.
“Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.” [excerpt]A good understanding of Hebrew semantics doesn't hurt either ;-)
“The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile.” [excerpt]I disagree.
“Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist …” [excerpt]You are correct about what Evolution cannot do, but that doesn't stop people from saying it can, and did.
“… and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution.” [excerpt]Evolution asserts that all life forms evolved from a single life form.
“Scholars who attempt to rule out creation with theories like Big Boom and evolution fail very basic and fundamental rules of science, as intelligent as they might be. We simply do not know and the secular theories have infinite gaps in them.” [excerpt]Correct.
“For either side of the issue to take a superior and derogatory attitude toward the other is ignorant. I say we leave the attitudes outside the discussion.” [excerpt]An excellent suggestion.