The Genesis account of creation stands literally for 24 hour time periods

1) Starlight and time Con raises the question of what frame of reference is used in Genesis. To answer this question, one must understand the concept of observed time vs. calculated time. Calculated time is the amount of time it takes the speed of light to travel a defined distance. To explain observed time, imagine that you had been present during the creation. It says that on day 4 God created the sun and the stars. So we get the impression that if we someone had been there to observe the creation, he would have seen what was happening, millions of light-years away. Of course, this implies some creation prior to day 4, perhaps before even day 1 or before time itself existed (time, by the way, is not a strictly defined quantity as some think it is). Of course, a full explanation of this is impossible due to character limits. I must therefore reference another article that will provide a much clearer explanation of what Con is asking. [1] 2) Evening and morning My point was that since the language used in the original Hebrew indicates that the Creation occurred over 24-hour periods, evening and morning existed simply as abstract concepts and were not associated with the physical observation of the rising and setting of the sun. Another point: remember that light and dark were created on the first day. As to Con's options that you can base the definition of a day off of the earth's rotation or a reference point outside of the world, also remember the very second verse of the Bible: "And the EARTH was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep....." So we see that the earth existed, though it had no form. Since the creation obviously occurs within the reference point of the earth, we can therefore conclude that the word "day" refers to one Earth day, or 24 hours. This point can actually tie into the previous section. The reference point, strictly defined, is from Earth. Again, the cited article will make this clearer. 3a) Potassium-argon dating Thank you Con for elaborating on these points. To start here, I'll go over K-Ar dating. G.B. Dalrymple, a leading proponent of K-Ar dating, sang praises for the reliability of K-Ar dating. He said that it does not depend on a daughter isotope, since 40-Ar is inert and does not chemically combine with other elements. This would allow 40-Ar to escape a molten rock while 40-k is decaying. [2] Dalrymple's own work contradicts his claims. He dated 26 subaerial lava flows, and 20% of them had excess argon, which flies in the face of the key assumption of K-Ar dating, which is the absence of 40-Ar in a sample. The dates he came up with expose the true "reliability" of the K-Ar method. Take a look. Haualalai, a formation in Hawaii- has a known formation date of 1800-1801 AD, and was dated to be 1.6 million years old. Mt. Lassen, California- formation date of 1915 AD, dated to be 0.11 million years old. Sunset Crater, Arizona- formation date of AD 1064-1065, dated to be 0.27 million years old. [3] So we see that rocks of a known age are dated to be much older than they should be when we use the K-Ar method. A strong testimony to the unreliability of this method. 3b) At Con's request I will not go into the details of the flood and the "one level" of strata claim he brought up, since he says he is not prepared to go into the flood at this time. If you decide you would like to discuss the flood, let me know and I will provide an explanation for the next round. Conclusion I am glad to hear that Con is enjoying the discussion. I am as well. I hope I have shown so far that being a young-earth creationist does not mean that I totally reject science and throw out anything that happens to contradict my religious beliefs. On the contrary, it is indeed possible to come to an honest, open-minded conclusion that God is indeed the Creator, and this is the conclusion I have come to in my search for the truth. In fact, the more I learn about science, the more I am convinced that God is real and is the author of Creation. Again, I apologize if referencing an article is an inappropriate way to argue. I realize that it is impossible for Con to address all of the points from one article. Con need not worry if he cannot do this. Sources [1] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [2] G.B. Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (1991, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press), p. 91. [3] G.B. Dalrymple, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, Vol. 6, p:47-55 1969