You raise an important point: Creationists don't really have a unified position on what the Biblical account of creation means.

Some creationists insist that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old, based on the genealogies in the Bible (and allowing for a generous but reasonable number of skipped generations).

Others feel that it's okay to interpret Genesis more loosely, such that much more time has passed -- maybe eons.

Finally, some are willing to accept the scientific views, and take the Genesis account on faith to be figurative in ways that are beyond our comprehension.

~~For the record~~
When I've been made the claim that scientific evidence doesn't support the literal interpretation of Genesis, I am referring to the former interpretation that calls for the universe to be only a few thousand years old.

<OhioChessFan><The same evidence that leads scientists to conclude that there was some progression of evolutionary processes can just as well lead to the conclusion that some catastrophic flood occurred in the not too distant past. It is common for people to draw drastically different conclusions from the same evidence.>

Okay, I'll agree with that. This explains why it is common for scientists to disagree on how to best explain the evidence. The scientists will develop competing hypotheses and test them to see which stands up best to the available evidence. There might be several that seem reasonable at first, but usually as discoveries are made and applied, some will fall.

Okay, I'm gratified that my argument got some credit, lol. :-)

But here's another thing to consider in your argument: You say that God created the stars visible to man, despite the fact that there hasn't been nearly enough time for their light to reach us.

But there's more to it than merely being visible: Scientists have witnessed *events* in space, such as supernovas. A supernova may suddenly appear in some distant galaxy, shine for a few weeks, and then fade away. Because of the great distance, scientists conclude that such events seen today must have actually occurred millions of years ago.

However, by the young universe hypotheses, this means that God must have created images in space that reflect events that never really happened! This would seem to be a rather elaborate deception.

My point is this: There are many Bible believers who attack science in the belief that they are defending the Bible. But it is more accurate to say that they are defending a specific, strict, literal, and human *interpretation* of the Bible.

I think we are all aware that this same sort of thing has happened in the past. In each case, it has been the side of religion that has been guilty of falsely accusing science. Religion then suffers a humbling loss of credibility, they revise their interpretations, and move on. I'm pretty sure it will happen again on the matter of cosmology and evolution, and again those on the side of religion will owe a long apology to science.

Is it so wrong to suggest that scientists are honestly doing their thing to the best of their ability? Is it so wrong to suggest that Bible believers are interpreting Genesis incorrectly, and that there might be another way?

You might be interested to know that a certain Jewish Rabbi named <Nahmanides> wrote a commentary on the books of Moses. In his commentary, he wrote his conclusions about creation, as follows:

<...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.>

This agrees quite well with the modern "big bang" theory of universe expansion, doesn't it? The "noncorporeal substance" can be energy, and Einstein showed that energy can become matter.

<I don't see science as an adversary to religion -- it's just that it doesn't intersect with religion.>

It's important to realize that if you believe in an omnipotent God who created the physical universe then unless that God is science itself science will never be able to prove God. If God could be conjured up in a test tube then God would be subservient to the laws of science. Hence, God would not be omnipotent. This passage probably comes about as close to a scientific experiment as religion can.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

There has actually been quite a few things that the Bible has been right about that science was either oblivious to at the time or had openly rejected. There's too many of them to list. Here are a few websites you can research.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/sci...

http://www.carm.org/scientific-accu...

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.c...

<<<<<YouRang>>>> Scientists are generally quite open to the possibility that their theories are wrong, and find no embarrassment if it turns out to be the case ... science as a whole, is about the pursuit of truth, and their methods work largely because it recognizes the faultiness of ego. Scientists routinely submit their work for peer review, and if a peer points out a flaw, it is received with appreciation.>

Unfortunately that's all too often not the case. Private corporations are the largest employers of scientists in the world. Oftentimes they hire their scientists to support their own interests. Scientists routinely make claims on par with "global warming is a myth", and "smoking is not bad for you." There have been scientists who have lost there careers because they presented evidence that is contrary to the accepted theories only later to be shown that they were right. The scientific community has become so biased in favor of evolution that a scientist who speaks out against it is ridiculed and discredited.

<<<<<YouRang>>>> I am certainly not arguing that scientists are incorruptable. Yes, they have egos and are capable of doing evil things ... IMO, science has been the most noble and beneficial of all humanity's endeavors.>

I wondered about this backtracking-thing though, having had a look at the first of the sites you [The Chess Express] linked.

<There has actually been quite a few things that the Bible has been right about that science was either oblivious to at the time or had openly rejected.>

But is the problem not interpretation? Bluntly put, allow me, it seems reminiscent of arguing how Nostradamus was great at predicting future events.

<>To illustrate, let me paraphrase a creation story of the Ahom [South Asia]: <In the beginning there was nothing. The water of the ocean surrounded everything thing. Earth and Heaven did not exist yet. There was no air and there were no animals. There was no land and no living creatures. Neither did the Sun, Moon and stars exist. There was only one almighty God, who hung somewhere in the vacuum like a swarm of bees in a hive.

He had no legs to walk on. He has no mouth to talk with. He was more like a lump of flesh hanging in the air. Then God thought He should rather change his shape, for who would praise his name when he looked like this? While God changed a lot of time passed.

Then God created a Goddess and took her as his bride. She laid four eggs, out of which four sons came. After that God took off.>

Would you not agree that with this story one could argue 'discoveries' as made in the Bible before science as well? Comparing to the first site you had linked; it could be argued it had found out about Space and Time; a notion of the beginning; an idea of An initial void; and my God it deals which all-surrounding water which is actually right with our current state of the world with water-surrounded continents! Wonderful is it not?

Looking a little further on through the 'The Universe'-part of the site, I can not help but feel there are some very loose quoted and interpreted parts. For instance, where it is stated that the Bible already stated <> air had a weight the quote is "When He imparted weight to the wind and meted out the waters by measure". Certainly, Job 28:25 does say that - in some translations, but for instance the 'new international version' reads "When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters". Clearly, this implies the matter is concerned with the force instead of the weight - so which is 'right' if we give it a moment of thought.

This obviously is a point where we might disagree but let me quote a portion of the New American Standard Bible, out of which was the initial quote the site used: "“God understands its way, And He knows its place.
24 “For He looks to the ends of the earth
And sees everything under the heavens.
25 “When He imparted weight to the wind
And meted out the waters by measure,
26 When He set a limit for the rain
And a course for the thunderbolt,
27 Then He saw it and declared it;
He established it and also searched it out. "

If I read this and I have to choose whether the quote is about either importating the wind with weights [as translated here] or given it's force [as in the new international version] I look at the context and I see the part is about how He knows how everything is and should be, how he rules and measures and limits everything. I do not understand how this has anything to do with <air> having <mass>; instead it seems much more like how he controls and bonds the winds.

I think that depends on the particular science. By chance I just had a class of ethics in Psychology a few days ago and the lecturer, a scientist himself, made a case that peer reviewers were not totally objective every now and then.

For example, Rupert Sheldrake has by now spend years and years trying to prove the existence of 'morfological fields'; his theory broadly is that memory is inherent in nature and 'fields of the mind', connecting living things and for instance dealing with the idea of 'knowing you are being stared at'. It seems really far-fetched and I personally do not believe the idea is correct; from what I have heard -partly from what the lecturer spoke about- his experiments are exceptionally well-conducted and he has highly significant results - the peer reviewed-magazines are not willing to publish though. Maybe they experiments have flaws after all, I could not tell for I have never read one and would not be able to judge.

Alternatively, a while ago a professor published an article which conclusions were exactly in line with what everyone wanted and expected as results, so in no-time the research was published. The professor himself was not convinced however, having the hunch something was wrong. He conducted the experiment again, in an improved fashion, and did show some major flaw in the previous research paper. This time on the other hand he had great difficulties getting it published.

1. Space

Isaiah 40:22 "... It is He that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."

Not only have we discovered that the universe is expanding, but space is now thought of as being more like a fabric than an empty void.

2. The Hydrologic Cycle

Ecclesiastes 1:6-7,

1. "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV). 2. "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV) 3. "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" .

3. The chemical make up of the human body.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We now know that we are actually made up of star dust.

4. The fact that the earth is of spherical shape.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, ...

5. Ocean currents.

Psalms 8:4-8 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is commonly known as the father of oceanography. He was among the first to discover and chart systematic ocean currents. Maury claimed that his research was inspired by Ps 8:4-8.

6. Underground springs on the ocean floor.

Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?

It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.