Assumptions lead to misrepresentation, which is why I pointed it out to you. I forgive you for your presumptions about my position. Please forgive me for being so cantankerous.
Thanks, and no problem.
God created the physical laws in the beginning, when He created matter, so there is no need for the creation of the heavens and the earth to take billions of years.
I agree God created the physical laws in the beginning. However, he most likely did it through natural processes.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Whoa whoa whoa - slow down there, Genesis. Notice how it merely says God created the heavens and earth, then jumps onward to state the Earth was formless and empty and covered in water at one point in time, before life (or while life was appearing). Does it say how or how long God created the heavens (implying the sun, moon, and stars already existed, and probably not only 3d space) and Earth? Nope. To say God instantaneously snapped the heavens and Earth into existence has really no basis in scripture.
Time is not require to create that which appears old. Adam was created as a 30 (ish) year old man. He was not created as a baby.
First, Adam was probably created younger than that. I might say in his teens, depending on the ancients' definition of 'man'.
Second, if Adam would not have been created with scars or burns. Looking at scars or burns on skin implies there was something that caused the wound. Are you applying to the appearance-of-age argument? We certainly know that scars on planets weren't just created that way. Just look at Mercury and the moon. That's practically proof of an old solar system. As I stated before, God tells us to look at nature, and we shall find answers.
You are quibbling over semantics instead of considering my point. Think about it, gravity is suspended for God to lift water up out of the Red Sea to separate it, a pillar of fire is also unnatural, requiring laws of physics to be suspended.
Actually, I believe Exodus was the result of a supernaturally-caused volcano (I think it was Thera) that resulted in boils, ocean turning blood-red, caused darkness over egypt, caused locusts and flies to swarm, killed the firstborn, and might have - might have, mind you - caused the parting of the red sea. Pillars of fire are perfectly physically possible, if God caused a fault running from Egypt to Canaan (Thera, again) and put his presence within it, that only implies God manipulated nature. You'd have to see the Exodus Decoded. It also provides evidence for geneological gaps (though it is not mentioned) and corresponds to the Hyksos and volcanic eruption of the mediterranean. I cannot debate the science behind it, as it would take up space, so I would say it's up to you to look at the documentary and weigh the evidences.
Don't get me wrong. I know that sometimes God suspends nature, but he tends to intervene/direct/manipulate it. It's his work, I think he might as well enjoy using it.
Your answer was a non-sequitur because it does not follow logically from what was previously said. God does not have to adhere to natural laws during creation, and if He did it implies that creation could not have happened, not that He would take a lot longer.
Of course God doesn't have to adhere to natural laws, but it's obvious he only manipulated nature here. Nowhere in the Bible does it say how God created the heavens and the earth prior to the appearance of life. I think we both agree.
I was wrong, you were equivocating by attempting to redefine the terms morning and evening when the context is clear.
However, I was not trying to redefine the terms 'evening and morning'. Again, I was only refuting the idea that 'evening and morning' always referred to twenty four hour days. I pointed out the verse on the grass, which disproves that statement. It is not equivocation. It's just reasoning with truth.
Remember, I think the context speaks for something else.
Six hour days do nothing to help your argument of creation needing to be created over long periods of time. That is circular reasoning: assuming deep time, days might have been six hours, which proves...deep time?
You're right, I'll admit that it's an awful lot like circular reasoning. I don't remember what I was thinking about telling you that the first days were probably six hours long. Oops.
Let me clarify: Light cannot come from a source that does not exist: therefore light cannot come from the sun when there is no sun. This does not mean that light cannot exist without a source, merely that it would be supernatural for light to exist without a source since it would be created by God in transit. E=MC^2. Light=Mass*(Acceleration Squared) Light is matter, and if God can create matter, He can create light in transit without the need for a source to radiate it.
Surely you know light needs to be moving at a certain speed in order to even be visible. Light wouldn't have just been a bunch of photons floating about in space with no direction. Then it would be no light.
God could create light in transit, but again it adheres to the appearance of age argument. Do you hold to that position?
First, we would need the light to be radiating without a source at some point in space. The Earth would be spinning on its axis in order to define day and night, unless the 'light' without the source would be rotating (somehow) around the Earth. This light would need to be in a definite part of space. Later, God describes the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. The sun governs the day, and the moon governs the night. It's the same kind of day and night that makes me think the Earth was already rotating, continually facing the 'light'.
It just doesn't make sense to say the light was 'glory-light' from God. It just doesn't...work. It's unnatural and strained. Just think about what I've said so far. You'll come to a conclusion eventually.
For the record, your argument about Pluto is more correct because the plant would freeze so far from a heat source, not necessarily because it is not close to the sun. They also require sun-like light (such as from grow bulbs) in order to make food, but not necessarily the sun. Without the sun, there would need to be an alternate source of heat, not necessarily no heat. These are all just technicalities, I am not saying they make your argument about the sun moon and stars being formed on Day 1 moot. Actually, reviewing the Bible, it does say that waters were divided by the sky, so there may have been some vapor blocking the sun. Heavy clouds? Mist?
You are 100% right on that. Genesis and Job tells us that at first there was no real firmament (space) between the clouds and the water, then God separated them. The light had already appeared, but when they were separated, the clouds became thinner and heavenly bodies became visible from the surface. Hence, the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. It's in perfect accordance with modern theories as to how the early Earth was like in preparation for life. Just thought I would point that out.