[__ Science __ ] Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[Elijah7777]

the dinosaurs were created on the same day as the first human. They lived and frolicked on the same planet at the same time that the first humans from Adam and Eve lived and frolicked.

They were created on the same day but dinosurs were the beginning and man was the end of the day. They did not live together at the same time when you consider the sixth day was 250 million years ago.

 

[daddd]

You may have convinced yourself but you have not answered how do Christians account for dinosaurs and the death we observe in the fossil record?

Once again, some creatures could leave fossil remains. Dinos were such creatures. So?

Actually, there has been no one has given an acceptable response. Some have theorized and some have challenged the faith of others. But NO ONE has answered and reconciled the question.

Actually it is simple regardless of what you accept. No sweat at all.

Obviously there seems to be something contradictory about the archeological record of dinosaur life, and the biblical record of creation which is causing everyone here to fear and come to the conclusion that those animals lived along side of Adam and Eve and were on the Ark...even though there is NO, NONE, ZERO Biblical evidence.

Nothing contradictory at all. Some creatures could leave remains in the different past and dinos were one of those. Big deal

So then, IMHO, dinosaurs did live and roam the earth. God created them.

Maybe. Or He may have created the bird or lizard or whatever the dinosaur adapted from. How would we know now?

And yes, dinosaurs and many other forms of animals and plants did live and die before Adam was ever created.

Say it all you like. God says something else. You are dreaming in technicolor. No proof.

This was also part of God’s good plan as he continued to prepare and shape the planet for the appearance of the crown of His creation, the human race.

That is a direct claim opposing Scripture actually. One you cannot back up. I kid you not

 

[KV-44-v1]

The evidence is clearly that there has never, ever been found human remains at the same level of Dinosaurs

mabye not human fossils, but human craftsmanship.

Some reasons why:
the global flood could create environmental conditions that favored preservation of dinosaur fossils over human fossils. it could deposit dinosaur bones in sedimentary environments conducive to fossilization, while human remains were scattered or destroyed.

Dinosaurs were generally larger and had denser bones than humans, which would have them more likely to be preserved. Human remains, being smaller and less dense, might have been more easily dispersed or destroyed.
geological processes like erosion and deposition couldve separated dinosaur and human fossils into different layers.
Post-flood tectonic activity might uplift and erode different layers, separating dinosaur and human fossils into geological formations.

Do we see "modern" (by OEE standards) animals with Dinoes?

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.

You "fell" for the false dichotomy. Evo, big bang T, and millions of years are NOT science. they are GUESS about HISTORY. Worldview beliefs. And false ones at that.
Keep this in mind next time someone tries to assert they are "science".

""Darwinian biological evolution is [not] observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove” them. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different conclusions, therefore, must be based on presuppositions (or worldviews). I understand that the following is a simplistic example, but bear with me.

A creationist astronomer sees comets in the universe and realizes they have a limited “existence” of at most 100,000 years. He concludes that the universe must be less than 100,000 years old. A cosmic evolutionary astronomer sees the same thing but concludes there must be a constant source of comets, because he believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He would, of course, claim that he arrived at that date due to observational measurements of light from distant galaxies. The creationist astronomer would then hypothesize an explanation for the distant starlight problem, which the evolutionist would rebut, etc.

What we contend is that observational science has many evidences that line up with a young earth or universe but seem contradictory to an old universe. Getting back to Ken’s quote, you’ll notice that he did not say “prove” but “explains the evidence.” I realize the semantics argument creeps in here, but Ken is trying to stress that observational science exhibits evidence that corresponds to a recent creation.

Historical science (creationist or secular) by its very nature is based on a worldview i.e., religion.

• Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it ex nihilo.
• Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God created life as described in Genesis 1–2.

https://answersingenesis.org/what-i...JN2FpiBIkb8oKC-00yOwv1-ghVX5VIAAAwxj8jw004ZfE​

Deceitful Terms—Historical and Observational Science

Is there a legitimate distinction between historical and observational science, or are we being misleading to use those terms? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

 

[KV-44-v1]

the sixth day was 250 million years ago.

Where is the Biblical basis for saying "250 million years ago."?? When you say "yesterday" you don't mean "5 eons ago".

 

[Rodger]

mabye not human fossils, but human craftsmanship.

Some reasons why:
the global flood could create environmental conditions that favored preservation of dinosaur fossils over human fossils. it could deposit dinosaur bones in sedimentary environments conducive to fossilization, while human remains were scattered or destroyed.

Dinosaurs were generally larger and had denser bones than humans, which would have them more likely to be preserved. Human remains, being smaller and less dense, might have been more easily dispersed or destroyed.
geological processes like erosion and deposition couldve separated dinosaur and human fossils into different layers.
Post-flood tectonic activity might uplift and erode different layers, separating dinosaur and human fossils into geological formations.

Do we see "modern" (by OEE standards) animals with Dinoes?


You "fell" for the false dichotomy. Evo, big bang T, and millions of years are NOT science. they are GUESS about HISTORY. Worldview beliefs. And false ones at that.
Keep this in mind next time someone tries to assert they are "science".

""Darwinian biological evolution is [not] observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove” them. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different conclusions, therefore, must be based on presuppositions (or worldviews). I understand that the following is a simplistic example, but bear with me.

A creationist astronomer sees comets in the universe and realizes they have a limited “existence” of at most 100,000 years. He concludes that the universe must be less than 100,000 years old. A cosmic evolutionary astronomer sees the same thing but concludes there must be a constant source of comets, because he believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He would, of course, claim that he arrived at that date due to observational measurements of light from distant galaxies. The creationist astronomer would then hypothesize an explanation for the distant starlight problem, which the evolutionist would rebut, etc.

What we contend is that observational science has many evidences that line up with a young earth or universe but seem contradictory to an old universe. Getting back to Ken’s quote, you’ll notice that he did not say “prove” but “explains the evidence.” I realize the semantics argument creeps in here, but Ken is trying to stress that observational science exhibits evidence that corresponds to a recent creation.

Historical science (creationist or secular) by its very nature is based on a worldview i.e., religion.

• Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it ex nihilo.
• Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God created life as described in Genesis 1–2.

https://answersingenesis.org/what-i...JN2FpiBIkb8oKC-00yOwv1-ghVX5VIAAAwxj8jw004ZfE​

Deceitful Terms—Historical and Observational Science

Is there a legitimate distinction between historical and observational science, or are we being misleading to use those terms? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

I wonder why you would say that tools made by man have been found along with dino bones.

The oldest tools ever found are dated at 20,000 years ago and dinos disapeared 65 Million years ago.

 

[Rodger]

and you don't seem to understand why we don't find human bodies much. OK

What a ridiculous comment! Are you thinking about what you are saying before you type it?

We do not find human bodies because people uselly do not die and fall down and lay there.
When a dead body is found, the authorities pick it up and take it to a morgue where it is later either cremated or burried.

Your thesis on this is really bad my friend.

 

[Rodger]

Their remains are in flood deposits. Some people see a connection between Noah's flood and Pangaea. They say one is a shadow and a type of the other.

Pangea was a supercontinent that existed around 250 million years ago, during the early age of dinosaurs. It played a huge role in their evolution and distribution. Since all the land was connected, dinosaurs could roam freely across vast areas without being separated by oceans. This led to similar species appearing in different regions.

As Pangea broke apart due to plate tectonics, dinosaur populations became isolated, leading to diversification—different species evolved in different continents

Not so my friend concerning remains in flood deposits.

It always comes back to the question I have asked, If a global Flood destroyed all humans except Noah and his family just 4350 years ago, why don’t we find human fossils in the same layers of rock believed to be set down by Noah’s Flood?

A similar and possibly more frequently encountered question is this: If dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time why are no human fossils found with dinosaur fossils?

NO ONE here is able to answer that question!

 

[Elijah7777]

When a dead body is found, the authorities pick it up and take it to a morgue

It’s fascinating how forensic science can initially treat ancient remains as part of a modern investigation, only to later reveal their historical significance.

There have been cases where forensic experts, expecting to solve a crime, instead uncover evidence of ancient rituals, battles, or even early medical practices. For example, forensic techniques have been used to analyze wounds on mummies, determine causes of death in ancient skeletons, and even reconstruct historical events based on bone trauma.

The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of intense scientific and theological debate for decades. A recent study published in the Medical & Clinical Case Reports Journal argued that the Shroud's image formation is medically implausible as an artistic creation, reinforcing claims of its authenticity. This sparked controversy, with critics challenging the methodology and conclusions, leading to a wave of responses in academic and religious circles.

 

[hawkman]

A similar and possibly more frequently encountered question is this: If dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time why are no human fossils found with dinosaur fossils?

NO ONE here is able to answer that question!

You can continue to beat that drum till you break all your drum sticks or you can read a link and learn , up to you .
Text from link in post #249 .
***********************************************

Human Fossils—Extremely Scarce!​

Humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. In a 1981 New Scientistarticle, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table” (89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). In 2004, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are among the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

 

[Elijah7777]

Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different conclusions,

God uses them to gather the evidence but we do not have to listen to their opinion about what God gives us.

 

[Rodger]

You can continue to beat that drum till you break all your drum sticks or you can read a link and learn , up to you .
Text from link in post #249 .
***********************************************

Human Fossils—Extremely Scarce!​

Humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. In a 1981 New Scientistarticle, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table” (89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). In 2004, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are among the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

Thanks for your opinion.........I will!

The facts are that dinosaur deposits have no dogs, deer, bears or bunnies.
Not a single dog, deer, bear or rabbit fossil has ever been found in any rocks that YECs agree were produced during the Flood!

In fact, the absence of these fossils within rocks containing dinosaur fossils only accentuates the problem they face with the lack of human fossils. Thomas should have gone further. Rocks that contain dinosaur fossils also never contain the following types of animals: kangaroos, koalas, sloths, anteaters, mice, rats, monkeys of any type, squirrels, horses, giraffes, elephants, pronghorn, hyenas, raccoons, rhinos, hippos, etc. … I could go on, but you get the idea.

Fact is....There are no fossils from any modern groups of mammals found with dinosaurs.

Are we to believe that mammals also didn’t live near any dinosaurs before the Flood? Or that all mammals were somehow killed late in the flood and instead swept into continental shelf deposits. You see, the problem for YECs is far bigger than a lack of human fossils.

 

[Elijah7777]

You see, the problem for YECs is far bigger than a lack of human fossils.

Time is relative, depending on the observer's frame of reference. While most places on Earth experience day and night cycles in roughly 24-hour intervals, the North Pole operates quite differently due to Earth's axial tilt. There, the Sun rises once per year and sets once per year—resulting in roughly six months of daylight followed by six months of night.

 

[miamited]

Time is relative, depending on the observer's frame of reference. While most places on Earth experience day and night cycles in roughly 24-hour intervals, the North Pole operates quite differently due to Earth's axial tilt. There, the Sun rises once per year and sets once per year—resulting in roughly six months of daylight followed by six months of night.

So, you believe that time is experienced differently by people who live near the poles because the cycle of daytime and nighttime are different? Why do you believe that?

 

[Elijah7777]

So, you believe that time is experienced differently by people who live near the poles because the cycle of daytime and nighttime are different? Why do you believe that?

While the passage of time is constant, the way people perceive and experience it can be influenced by their environment. Near the poles, the dramatic shifts in daylight—months of continuous sun in the summer and prolonged darkness in the winter—can certainly affect people's sense of time.

Without the usual rhythm of a 24-hour day, people might feel time passing differently. For instance, during polar day, when the sun never sets, it can be harder to keep track of when to sleep, leading to a sensation that time is moving faster or blending together. Conversely, during polar night, the prolonged darkness can make time feel slower or heavier. Studies show that disrupted light exposure can even influence mood, energy levels, and circadian rhythms.

So while the clock ticks at the same rate everywhere, the way people live through time near the poles is shaped by their surroundings in a unique way. It makes you wonder—how much of our sense of time is rooted in habit rather than something absolute?

 

[miamited]

While the passage of time is constant, the way people perceive and experience it can be influenced by their environment.

For instance, during polar day, when the sun never sets, it can be harder to keep track of when to sleep, leading to a sensation that time is moving faster or blending together.

But it isn't moving faster in reality, right?

So while the clock ticks at the same rate everywhere,

While I fully agree that one's perception of what is happening around them may change with the rising and setting of the sun, time is not affected in any way whatsoever... right? It doesn't really change the passage of time just because someone may not be able to tell when they should go to bed or wake up. So it would seem that your argument is about how we may perceive things and not about any actual changes to the passage of time. Keep in mind that some people perceive that the earth is flat. Their perception doesn't actually make the earth flat. Neither does one's individual perception of the passing of time make any actual change to the passage of time.

 

[Elijah7777]

But it isn't moving faster in reality, right?

There is no north pole. But even at one nanometer a rotation still takes around 24 hours, just like it takes 24 hours at the equator. The smallest measurable distance in nanometers, a nanometer (nm) is one-billionth of a meter. So, theoretically, the smallest possible movement from the North Pole would be 1 nm, which is 0.000000001 meters.

In Earth's early history, a day was much shorter than the 24 hours we experience now. Scientists estimate that around 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after the Moon formed, a day may have lasted just 6 hours!

Over time, the Moon's gravitational pull has gradually slowed Earth's rotation, stretching the length of a day. About 1 billion years ago, a day was around 19 hours long.

So, Earth's days have been getting longer as time goes on—meaning if you ever feel like there aren’t enough hours in the day, at least you have more than ancient Earth did!

 

[miamited]

There is no north pole. But even at one nanometer a rotation still takes around 24 hours, just like it takes 24 hours at the equator. The smallest measurable distance in nanometers, a nanometer (nm) is one-billionth of a meter. So, theoretically, the smallest possible movement from the North Pole would be 1 nm, which is 0.000000001 meters.

In Earth's early history, a day was much shorter than the 24 hours we experience now. Scientists estimate that around 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after the Moon formed, a day may have lasted just 6 hours!

Over time, the Moon's gravitational pull has gradually slowed Earth's rotation, stretching the length of a day. About 1 billion years ago, a day was around 19 hours long.

So, Earth's days have been getting longer as time goes on—meaning if you ever feel like there aren’t enough hours in the day, at least you have more than ancient Earth did!

No, I didn't mean that distance traveled isn't more or less, but time isn't more or less at the poles than at the equator.

 

[Free]

This showed up in my YouTube feed:

 

[miamited]

In Earth's early history, a day was much shorter than the 24 hours we experience now. Scientists estimate that around 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after the Moon formed, a day may have lasted just 6 hours!

Over time, the Moon's gravitational pull has gradually slowed Earth's rotation, stretching the length of a day. About 1 billion years ago, a day was around 19 hours long.

And to believe that you must also believe that the earth is billions and billions of years old. I don't. I believe the earth was created on day one of God's creative work to build this realm of existence for man to live. That's the entire and only reason that God created this existence in which we live. And His testimony is that He did it about 6,000 years ago. And for all anyone can prove, the days of the creation event were likely not any longer or shorter than the days we live right now... because that 4 billion years that you believe that the earth has slowed down hasn't even come into existence yet. We've still got another 3.95 billion years to go before any of what God has created in this realm of His creating a place where man might live and love Him and honor and serve Him, will be 4 billion years old. And frankly, I don't think that God's plan is that this realm of His creating ever gets to be even 1 billion years old. The times of the Gentiles is coming to an end.

You see, that's the part that you don't get. This realm of existence never came to be because billions or trillions of years passed in which physical properties of the matter of the universe came to coalesce and become what it is today. Despite what scientists tell you that they have proven concerning this matter, God's testimony is that He just commanded things to exist, and they did. Fully formed and fully grown. Even the man that He created was fully formed and fully grown on day one of his existence. He didn't evolve from some other living creature that had lived upon the earth for billions of years. No! God's testimony is that He scooped up dirt from the surface of the earth and formed it into the first man, and He then blew the breath of life into that first man which has continued to reproduce life for some 6,000 years now.

That's what I believe and is also what I read in the Scriptures as the plain truth as to how we got to be living here in the year 2025 A.D. God stepped into the realm of this universe. Since God is light, the moment that He did so, there was light. He commanded the earth to exist. It did come into existence, and it was covered with water in the moment that it came into existence. It was also spinning on its axis from the moment that it came to exist by God's command that it be so. So, from the very moment of the earth's existence at God's command, the earth was rotating and in roughly 24 hours the first day passed. This would have been about 6,000 years ago, as we keep time which is based on exactly what God said the stars were created for. That they may know seasons and times. After 3 days of the earth spinning in the utter darkness of empty space, and God building the earth to be a place where man could live, He created the sun, moon and stars. Once the sun was created, the earth began an orbital route around the sun and years began to pass. But all of this creating was encompassed in the 6 days, 6 rotations of the earth upon its axis, in which God's testimony says that He did all of His creative work and then rested on the seventh rotation cycle of the earth. And all of this occurred approximately 6,000 years ago... according to God's simple and, I believe, reasonably clear explanation of the timeline that He has give us. That we might all come to understand that we live in a created realm. Nothing that we see, as far as physical bodies in all of the universe, is more than about 6,000 years old.

That's what I believe and what I believe the Scriptures delineate for us. We live in a created realm of existence that an all-powerful and magnificent and wise God created in mere moments as He began building this realm in which we live. His sole purpose for creating this realm was to make a place where a special creature that God called man could live and worship and love and serve Him. That was the sole and established purpose when God commanded that there be light in this realm and that the earth and all the heavenly bodies come into existence.

 

[miamited]

This showed up in my YouTube feed:

Ok, let's roll with that. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, billions or trillions or 6,000 years ago. Remember, his claim is that it is an indefinite period of time. So, it could have been 6,000 years ago.

But to continue with this example as he makes it, this heavens and the earth hung around for an indefinite period of time before God then goes back and begins to build upon the earth and changes, according to this man's testimony, to a more precise time keeping of six literal days. While I know that's a popular understanding of the matter, I don't believe it is a correct understanding of the matter. My first question is why?

If God's intent was to build an existence for man, which the Scriptures seem to be always and only about God's desire to have communion with man, then why would He, this all powerful God wait trillions and trillions of years from His creating the earth and then creating man. I'm sorry, but believing that the purpose of God in creating this realm of existence was solely and specifically to create a place for man to live, then I have to ask why would He create all the physical forms of the universe and just let them sit around for trillions of years before He made, for example, any plants to live on it? And of course, once again we have to deal with God's word, which is said to be testimony written by His very own hand, that in six days God created the heavens. In six days God created the earth. In six days God created everything that is in them. How do we reconcile that the earth has existed for billions/trillions of years, but God's testimony is that in six days He did create the earth and the heavens and all that is in them.

So, I'm sure the man believes himself to be correct and well-studied on the matter, but I believe him to be wrong if he's trying to teach that the creation of the earth and the heavens, mentioned in the opening statement of the Scriptures, isn't the same six days in which the heavens and the earth were claimed to have been created in the law. He may be absolutely correct that the very first opening statement isn't clear on a timeline for the creation of the heavens and the earth, but the law sure is. So, after speaking of it as an 'indefinite' period in the first words of Genesis, I find that God seems to clarify that quite a bit when He then writes pretty clearly in the law, by His own hand, that in six days He created the heavens and the earth that He was indefinite about in the Genesis account.

It just doesn't make sense to me, with what I understand the whole of the Scriptures to teach us on the matter. And of course, you're free to believe what you will concerning the matter. I also believe, when we read the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus, that we're all going to get to see just how fast God can build a realm of existence. "Behold!" God's word tells us; "I make everything new". We will all be eyewitnesses to just how quickly this present heaven and earth is rolled up like a scroll and the next iteration of human existence is commanded by God to exist as our home for eternity. Where He will be our God and we will be His people. In mere moments we will see it all remade.