I’ve never understood that either.
It is not necessary, IMO, to assume the “days” of Genesis refer to 24 hour periods.
Or, FTM, that the days must all be of the same length.
Or to decide that God is incapable of using the evolutionary process as part of his Creation.
Except for that "evening and morning" thing ...
It’s clear that there’s a lot of genetic information in all creatures and that their attributes can change based on the environments they find themselves living in. Adaptability by life to live under different conditions is not something anyone rejects.
However just because life adapts and you get more specialized animals that can live in a certain environment better than their predecessors, that doesn’t mean they ever had the genetic information to change from bird to lizard, or from one type of animal to another. Instead we see more specialized animals of the same kind being generated. And we also know from genetics that this specialization actually decreases the amount of genetic diversity in those animals than their former predecessors. So the variation you are celebrating as evolution is giving us less genetically robust, specialized species. They get to a point where a mutt can give you many different types of dogs (but they are all dogs) but if you get to a certain purebred and that’s the only kind of dog you’re going to get.
The evolutionists have yet to show one species (macro-evolution) coming from another. And having a second one that exists at the same time that the new species can mate with. Variation within a species nobody disputes because no matter what attributes vary, you still get a bird, or pig, or cat. If macro-evolution was true, we’d have seen it by now, and we’d also never be able to be sure that our animals would give birth to the same kind of animal they are. We don’t sit around and think the cat may have something other than kittens THIS time. We occasionally get an animal with two heads or an extra leg, but in all those cases the animal is not better off and the extra appendage is useless - a defect rather than a benefit. The mutation never creates a part that wasn’t already in the genetic code of the animal - the cow doesn’t get a wing, or scales, or a thumb. They get another part they already had the information to build. Their code contains information to adapt to be different types of cows, but not different types of animals. They will always be a cow because their genetic information does not and never had the information to become a bird. If you never had that information to begin with, there’s now way you’re going to develop it because life requires stability and our chromosomes and the cellular replication processes are designed to maintain that life form. We know what happens to life forms when that mechanism gets damaged - ever hear of cancer?
No one has ever seen macro-evolution (new species from existing species, ex. no bird from lizard), never recorded, some say some theories say you can’t ever see it because everything is now too specialized, some say it happens too gradual, some say it happens extremely fast when it does but the gaps it occurs at are wide apart, yet we’re told this is evolutionary gospel.
Right except that us YEC tend to believe that God did not lie to us in His Inspired Word - The Bible.
The 6,000 years comes from adding the OT lineages of approx 4004 years from Adam upto Jesus.
The 6 days comes from a literal reading of Genesis - in other words - exactly as it is written without any metaphors, similes or analogies.
Except that Genesis uses the word ‘day’ uses a time period of light and dark in connection with the word ‘day’.
IF you allow tha book of Genesis to be discredited, or held up as untrue, then that opens the door to the rest of the Bible.
SCIENCE says that three Hebrew children thrown into a fire will die, yet they did not.
SCIENCE says that dead bones will stay that way, yet Ezekiel witnessed the re-fleshing of bones into an army.
SCIENCE says a burning bush will, well burn, it did not.
SCIENCE says that a man dead 3 days will saty that way, yet Jeasus rose on that 3rd day.
How for will you let SCIENCE push you away from the word of God?
For the record, Science is a very useful method to try to interpret the physical world. It has many uses and fields. But I’ll go on the record here and say the Theory (THEORY) of evolution, of a billions of years old earth are two non-starters. They are just theories. I’ll trust the Bible.
Further on evolution.
I am a happy owner of an 8 1/2 foot Yellow Anaconda. His name is Ducky. He has, near his tail (yes snakes have tails), spurs that look like little ‘claws’. If you were to look at his skeleton, thos spurs are connected to small bones one could call ‘vestigial legs’.
As a small lad, I was steeped in evolutionary ‘lore’. I could have and would have told you that is evidence that snakes used to have legs.
I told my wife about this, and we talked some, about it, then decided to see what the Bible, specifically, Genesis might say. You know the story I presume, Eve, the serpent, she eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil based on the serpents lies. Here it is:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
So, Genesis was written by Moses, inspired by God. I would imagine that Moses knew little if anything at all about the idea of “evolution’, yet he wrote of a major change in form for the serpent - “upon thy belly shalt thou go”.
This was Gods curse to the serpent. Why would God curse it to ‘belly-going’ unless it didn’t currently do so, the serpent HAD legs, God cursed them away.
Moses wrote of a change of form that could be labelled ‘evolution’, not knowing anything about evolution, but rather knowing it was God that did that.
Further, Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Notice it says ‘after their kind’. Meaning that like kinds produced like kinds. Same thing later in Genesis about the land animals.
God did not say that He created a few ‘basic’ animals, telling them to change forms and multiply. Nope.
Adaptation is real (look at all the different types of dogs), but evolution is not (dogs do not, cannot produce birds, even over millions of years)
It is not necessary, IMO, to assume the “days” of Genesis refer to 24 hour periods.
But it makes Exodus 20:11 or 31:17 seem silly if you don't.
Or to decide that God is incapable of using the evolutionary process as part of his Creation.
Then how do you deal with the plants yielding "according to its kind" (Ge 1:11) and birds and fish reproducing "according to their own kind" (v20,21) and "cattle and creeping beast according to the own kind." (v24,25). Evolution says that one critter must produce another critter of a different kind.
It would probably be pearls before swine to talk about man as a special creation rather than finding a common ancestor with an ape. (v27)
Or, FTM, that the days must all be of the same length.
Good luck explaining "day" three plants growing for eons without sunlight which arrived on "day" four.
I submit that those who have zero problems profaning Scripture to somehow make it compatible with atheistic evolution are exactly who Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 3:5