The article was moved here out of sight with this disclaimer:

Some material moved to Talk for work. While POV and not focused, it is useful material as it proposes some arguments for the day-age interpretation.

I moved it back.

The very nature of Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Placing an article out of the way is a good way to take it out of its proper progression. I do not subscribe to the ideas in this piece, and I agree that it is somewhat thick. Nonetheless, it is clearly well thought out and includes very good detail and citation. There are much worse articles in Wikipedia right now.--Administer 21:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, actually - this is a good start. Personally, I'd like to see comments about who was the first person to present this hypothesis, and perhaps some notable followers of Day-Age Creationism. I'm glad to see this article complementing the others in the Creationism series. :) Martin 00:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Could god have lied?

As an agnostic, I don't actually hold the day-age creationist view myself (I feel the theory of evolution fits the facts the best), but in arguments with creationists I often offer the day-age viewpoint as a compromise, including evolution as a tool used by god to complete his work. It surprises me to see so much debate over the meaning of various Hebrew words for "day". When I thought of the day-age model I always simply assumed, in the model, that god lied to the writer of the Bible because he felt they would grasp a metaphor better than the truth. Am I the only one who feels a blatantly deceptive god is an acceptable branch of the day-age theory? -Kasreyn

yes.  :-) More seriously, the most important issue is not how old the earth is, but the connection between Adam and Jesus. Serious theologians tend to admit that they could be wrong about the whole "day" thing, but are not willing to let go of the special creation of Adam as the first and representative man because of his parallel to Jesus as the representative of his people. jrcagle 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that Eveolution is a bowl of crud!

This is a pretty good page/argument for day-age creationism. Infraredeclipse 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a journal page or something? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that YECs state that "yom" always means 24 hours (granting it does in Genesis) when either a number or the terms "evening or morning" are attached.... as they do not state that yom always means 24 hours in any context.

DarthSidious 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Forgive the rant... Following the KJV of the bible, I see how the Day-Age theory could come about, but how some of it's by-products stayed around for so long is curious. Yes, one could argue the translation of "Yom" and, frankly the possibility is there for a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but how Yom translates and the idea of a gap between man's creation and fall are quashed in the very Bible that the people are studying. (Forgive me and if I am missing something that is in another translation, or something is disputable about my comments, please tell me) but, those two divisions of the theory (Yom and creation-fall gap) are both put down by the fact that Adam lived 930 years---period. See Genesis 5:5. One full day passed between the creation of man and the Sabbath- or, following the 1day=1,000years theory, Adam would have lived 1930 years. And, supposing "yom" was meant to be translated as something else, you could add that sum to the 930 years. However, you can't. Nine hundred and thirty years. No more. The dating of the world will continue to be a debate until it's very end. Whether you are able to ascertain the date of the earth should not determine your faith. Creation, or the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang. They are all theories - unproven speculation. It's your choice, but no matter which, it's all on Faith. Heather.salvatore 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Adam was created near THE END of Day 6 (humans come very late according to the evolution chain of events), and so far Day 7 hasn't finished. You can certainly refer to evolution as "speculation" in many areas, but "theory" (in scientific terms) actually means a well substantiated explanation of data. You should look at this page:Arguments Creationists should not use.

However I wasn't really trying to start a debate on the issue, but pointing out the response to claims that "yom" can just as easily mean an indeterminable period of time as it can mean 24 hours, which the article seems to promote.

DarthSidious 08:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

I think this following paragraph which I tried to add to the lead on Aug. 19, 2007, expresses a division in Day/Age Creationism where some see Genesis creation days as symbolic for ages, but others see ages of time as real 24-hour days when relativity theory is applied. I don't think there is a name coined for this kind of "Day/Age Creationism", but maybe there should be because it is an important distinction. You saw it first right here! :)

Proposed lead paragraph 4: "While this Biblical debate (detailed following this section) seeks to ascertain whether time references rendered as "days" in Genesis can be properly understood as equivalent to "ages" or "eons" of Earth's evidently very great age, recently Scientific theory is being applied to show that the Genesis "days" are more than merely symbolic of long ages. By using relativity theory, some have explained that a 24-hour day as observed from the cosmos can be equivalent to an eon as observed on Earth. So, a debate solely on Biblical texts may tend to say that creation "day-ages" are not truly 24-hour days, but the scientific argument could counter, "Oh yes, they are!" Examples of this position are Physicist Gerald Schroeder's ^[1] argument ("The Science of God", 1998) that six "days" of "cosmic time" may correspond equivalently to six eons on Earth in an exponentially-based sequence. He cites relativity theory saying that a day may equal an age depending on the position in time and space of the observer. Similarly, in 2007 Physicist Samuel A. Elder (Further reading, below) theorized that the Universe experienced a periodic alternation from darkness to light, as it unfolded over billions of years, that may correspond to the six evening-mornings of the Genesis creation account."

24.35.41.145 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Peter 3:8 says: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....

But wait, that's just the more recent translation, let's look at the original Greek:

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β΄ 3:8: εν δε τουτο μη λανθανετω υμας αγαπητοι οτι μια ημερα παρα κυριω ως χιλια ετη και χιλια ετη ως ημερα μια

The original Greek uses "και" to mean "and", but "και" can be used as a multiplier in this sense -- in the same sense that I could say a year is 365 days and 24 hours are in a day, therefore a year is 8,760 hours.... so what Peter is saying there is that 1 day to God is like a thousand years, and each day of each of those thousand years is like a thousand of our years....

So, a day to God is 365,000 intermediary days, and each one of those 365,000 days is like a thousand of our years!! So, one day to God is 365 million of our years.... and seven of God's days (remembering that other than the Creation events, none of the events in Genesis take place until after the seventh day) is 2,555,000,000 of our years (give or take 6,000)....

Remembering also that Genesis begins with God separating the land from the waters on a pre-existing planet (and that Earth may have been created aeons after the rest of the Universe), this is not particularly far out of the context of our science of when life began.... Pacific PanDeist 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]