Einstein got a lot right, first was the twin principle, if one twin stayed on earth while another traveled near the speed of light away from the earth for a year, then back again, that latter twin would have aged 2 years, while the twin on earth would have aged 30+ years. This has been proven, scientifically.
Second, Einstein was proven correct that according to science, if it were possible for someone to travel at the speed of light and he had a clock with him, that clock would slow down to a stop - meaning the time portion of the space-time fabric, would stop.
Third, Einstein said nothing with mass can travel at the speed of sound because it's mass would expand and it would take an infinite amount of energy to move it to that point. This is true except for an exception that was shown by science:
That exception was the Big Bang Theory where in the initial stages of the creation that was the Big Bang, objects and their mass were moving FASTER than the speed of light - this was possible because they were entering a non-mass area, thus the expansion principles were excepted.
Put it all together: For SIX 24-hour days, God's creation was travelling faster than or at the speed of light, thus allowing unimaginable opportunity to get much work done in those 24 hour periods. God exists beyond space and time and Einstein only scratched the surface.
It is easy to see by anyone that has a rudimentary physics understanding, that it is possible for one actual day, to last billions of years - if you can just have the opportunity to move as fast as light.
People seem to think that it is a fact that the world was not created in 6 literal days. However, historical events cannot be "proven." We can look at the evidence and make decisions for ourselves. I have looked at the evidence. I'd say that the earth was created in six literal days. Genetics, fossil records, and the issue of star birth is what drove me to the Creationist side of the argument.
In the original Hebrew the word used to described how long it took God to make the world is "yom." Yom is described as either a 24 hour period, or a period of light between dawn and dusk. And nobody knows the true meaning of why mankind was created, but we are here, and we should make the most of it.
Those who aren't out to rationalize the Bible with modern science believe scripture clearly states the world was created in six literal days. There is certainly no way to prove this issue one way or the or the other, but it is a myth to think that only ignorant people believe the 6 day "story." Many highly educated Christians have gone to great length to demonstrate the truth behind the belief.
The Bible, being the word of God, is inerrant. In the first book and chapter of Genesis the world is described as being created in six days in successive unit of creation (light, water, animals, etc.). If the world were not created in six days, then the Bible would not use this language to refer to the time period in which the world was created.
When the Bible states the six days of creation, it states that there was morning and night, constituting the first day. The word for "day" (yom) is used elsewhere in the Bible and always means a literal day. Changing scripture to fit personal desire infects us slowly until we even doubt the rest of the Bible's accuracy as bein God's holy word.
It requires a supreme amount of scientific ignorance to say yes. Wikipedia has an entire page dedicated to listing scientific organizations explicitly rejecting this notion. This is not actually an opinion, but a fact. The proponents of the other point of view are simply uneducated. It's like asking who supports the stork theory of reproduction, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Firstly, literal interpretation of the Bible is always ridiculous, as much of it is written as an allegory, and as a way to explain great gaps in human knowledge. It also works on the premise that human beings have managed to interpret "God" and his ways, and have therefore been able to record it in the form of the Bible. Already the fact that human beings are involved makes the reliability suspect. More importantly, it works on the premise that there is an all powerful being that has taken prime interest in a speck of blue dust in an endless cosmic stream.
The world (planet Earth) -- and biological life -- was not a product of "creation" but of emergence. The time frames in this process of emergence are in the billions of years, not a handful of days. Cosmologists generally agree that the best estimate of the age of this universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. Biologists generally agree that life emerged on Earth about 3.5 - 3.9 billion years ago in a process of evolution and emergence which continues to this day.
My principle claim is that science offers a better explanation of "the world" than the Bible, especially when the Bible is taken literally. This is due to the openness of science to the examination of evidence found in nature (E.g., the fossil record, etc.).
As a follower of Jesus I love scripture and trust it with God's help to shape me into a better reflection of God image. I do not discard scripture in favor of science. Good accepted science has been proved wrong time and time again. So I limit my trust in science and my trust in having the right biblical interpretation.
There is much in Scripture that is true but not historical. The story of the prodigal son, didn't happen but speaks of deep rich truths. I consider the story of Job in a similar light. There are other ancient Job type stories to help explains the gods and suffering of good people. I think the Job story is told to comfort people going through hard times like the Israelites who were stuck in slavery in Egypt for 400 years, I also think it serves as a way to contrast the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from other gods.
There are other ancient creation stories. Without going into great detail, the 3 creations stories found in Genesis seem to be setup to show how the God of the bible is different than any other God. The only one worth devoting your life to.
If God wanted to create the world in a literal six days and confuse what has become scientific data to mess with people so they will trust God more than their own understanding, I have no doubt God can do that.
What I am saying is I do not think that is what is going on. I think people full of fear, afraid of a domino effect on trustworthiness of scripture have erected a wall around it. I do not think scripture is so weak it needs our protection. The danger of the wall is you may miss what it was actually trying to do. When it was first written context and culture informed the understanding. For me the best understanding of the context, culture and biblical clues in the text itself makes me believe the creation accounts are true but not historical. They tell us about God and ourselves but are not based on historical events.
My view of scripture requires me to respect it so much that I let it help me determine how I am to understand it with the best tools available to me today. Maybe tomorrow there will be a even bigger discovery than the dead seal scrolls that will fuel better understanding. Until then with God's help I will try to understand God and myself better day by day.
Peter said that a day to God is as a thousand years to us. Creation could have taken place around 6,000 years total, give or take a bit. Language in the bible is not always literal. This takes nothing away from God as many think. God is not in a hurry, He takes His time.
No, the world was not created in a literal six days. These days are merely representations of the divisions of the world's creation. There were six periods, each with different creations, but it took much longer than six twenty-four hour periods. For example, the creation of animals took as long as it took to evolve and adapt, not just one day.
The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.