Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Y Six Days?

There is much debate regarding the age of the earth. Some have concluded the earth is millions of years old based on fossils, science, and other physical records. Some conclude the earth is thousands of years old based on a Biblical time line, fossils, science, and other physical records. Evolutionists tout the theory that man developed from a single cell organism over processes of change over millions of years. Biblical scholars debate whether one day in Genesis was a literal day. Some believe that the day was not a literal day given that one day to God is like a thousand days to man. The debate rages on. Old earth; new earth; evolution.

God is alive and is the Creator of the universe. He is active in His Creation even to this day. The days in Genesis are literal twenty-four hours days, for this was the creation of time and days. The old earth, the new earth, and maybe even evolution in its pure sense, which is change over time, may be reconciled without conflict according to the Point in Time theory.

The basis of the Point in Time theory is the creation of man. When God made Adam, He took some dirt from the ground and created a man. The process was not like the aging of Kal el in the Superman movie, where Kal el starts out as a baby and quickly grows into a man. When God made Adam, he created an adult male who had never been a baby or an adolescent. He started as and was a man.

If our scientists arrived in the Garden of Eden just after Adam had been created, God would say, “Today, is the sixth day. This is the Creation I made today.” The debate would have begun. The atheistic scientists would deny God’s existence and the fact that God had created Adam. Instead, they would look at Adam, himself, and examine him. After studying him under the most rigorous testing, they would declare, “This man is 26-years-old.” His cells were 26-years-old cells. His size was that of a twenty-six year old. The evidence of aging was that of a 26-year-year old; he may have the formation of wrinkles, a touch of a receding hairline, the beginnings of receding gums, etc. The “fossil” record supported the conclusion that the man was 26-years-old. Based on the evidence, it would take 26 years to get an Adam in the state that he was in on the sixth day. His physical body supports the theory that Adam was 26-years-old on the sixth day of creation.

The old earth scientist would look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusion that Adam is 26-years-old. However, they would say, God created man on the sixth day, and it took Him 26-years to do so. From this they would conclude that the sixth day was not one literal day, it must be at least a 26-year-long day.

Finally, our young earth scientists would say. God said it took today, a literal day, to make this man. From the evidence we see, this man has been living for one day. Looking at Adam’s body, they could see evidence of the day’s life. Dirt under his fingernails, fresh scratches, and other evidence of the day’s activities. They would concluded that Adam was one-day-old.

When God made Adam, he made a man at whatever physical age he was, and science would bear out that he was that age. The same reasoning can be applied to the age of the earth. When God created the earth, He created what would appear to be a millions of years old earth because that is how long it would take for it to form over time according to the natural processes that He created. The earth bears evidence today of continual changes occurring - Erosion, Earthquakes, Floods- in the Creation God made. Because the earth that God created was a fully formed earth, the evidentiary record should contain evidence that supports an age of millions of years. There should be evidence that the mountains were once part of an ocean floor; there should be striations in the earth’s surface; there should be a fossil record dating to millions of years. That is how God made it. God did not need time, he just needed to speak. Examining the earth should lead to the conclusion that the earth is millions of years old. It is evidence of His creation and His authority over it.

God created the earth in two days (Days two and three). This point in time is the earth’s birthday, so to speak. As a result, the evidentiary record should contain evidence of a new earth. Fossils dating from the time of the Garden and beyond. Evidence of changes over time. Chemical and physical evidence that the earth has only been in existence for a short period of time - because it has. Thousands of years? - probably.

Therefore, evidence that the earth is old and evidence that the earth is young do not conflict. It is a matter of perspective. Is the questioner trying to determine how long the earth has been in existence or how long it took to form? There is a point in time, the beginning of time, where the two questions meet and do not conflict. However, if one does not believe in God the time-line is continuous. There is no point of demarcation for an atheist or one who does not believe that God created the earth. The time it took to form the earth and the age of man merge into one time-line. However, when the Creator is recognized the issue is clear. God made the earth on days two (heaven and earth) and three (seas and land) and it has been existence since then. The earth that God created would take millions of years to form, but he spoke it into existence in six literal days, from start to finish, including stars, moons, creatures of the seas, creatures of the land, and man. This millions of years old earth was formed on the literal days of creation and has been in existence for thousands of years since that point in time, from the time of Adam to today, throughout the period of the history of man.

Y Palin?

I do not believe in big government. I believe the Federal government has morphed into something the founders did not intend. I believe it should shrink rather than grow. I believe that we should be paying a lot less taxes, not more. I believe agencies should be cut and states should have more authority. I do not believe in most entitlement programs; I believe citizens should be given more incentives to give to and care for those in need. I do not believe in the federal education standards. I certainly do not believe in federally mandated full-day kindergarten or Federal involvement in early childhood education. (I do not support No Child Left Behind.) I believe in giving tax breaks to small businesses and big business. I believe that working hard to become successful should be rewarded and incentives given to “give back.” I believe in trickle-down economics. Without those risking to create business, none of us would have a job (except those employed by one of our governmental institutions). I am a social conservative. (As an aside, I believe evolution is statistically impracticable.) I believe in cutting through the crap!

Given this statement, I believe that Sarah Palin lines up pretty well with what I am looking for. She is a strong woman. I believe she is intelligent and her record supports my belief that she will cut through the crap of the white male establishment (she has a history of doing this - making people angry in her wake) and will seek to shrink the federal government. I think she can achieve what she sets her mind to. (And I think that is what really scares the liberals.) And I believe her agenda is best for this country because it is what I think is best for this country. And she, not her parents, are middle class and have dealt with real economic issues in raising a family. None of the other three candidates meet this criteria.

I would certainly vote for Palin first. Obama is certainly not an option, and McCain is not ideal. But that’s what we have. Both voted for the bailout, and that is a strike against both.

I must add that I support her in part because she is a woman. Although I do not agree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, I was leaning towards her in this election because I think it is time. But I am psyched that a woman who is in line with my views is on the ticket. As the girls can sing: I am strong; I am invincible; I am woman! I want my girls to know that they can have conservative values and matter. They can do anything! That is why we talk about Palin a lot around here. Ground has been broken, whether Obama or McCain wins.

ShareThis

Followers