Again, I’ll quote - or at least paraphrase - Dr. Robert W. O’Neal from http://onealclan0.tripod.com/index.htm (www.onealclan.com) and Dr. Michael Behe (paleontology):

Concerning the seven "days" of creation: Genesis is not in conflict with scientific knowledge concerning the creation of the universe. When the Torah was translated to English, the translaters chose to use the word "day" when translating from Hebrew. The Hebrew letters are pronounced "yom." Yom is most often used in Hebrew for a day, but the same word is used more than 60 times in the Bible to mean a long, indefinite period of time.

As to the order of creation (earth before stars), we know that Earth’s atmosphere has completely changed three times during its formation from creation through modern times. When the planet first was filled with flammable gases and volcanic eruptions, the sky was darkened with smoke. When this inferno cooled and the atmosphere became livable for plants and animals, stars were visible. From any view point on the Earth, the stars may be said to have come later, although of course they existed beyond view.

Beyond that, the order of creation as outlined in Genesis and as understood by modern science is precisely the same.

Finally, Dr. Behe points out - and Dr. O’Neal concurs - that as researchers go back in time through geo-layers, it is clear that 500,000 years ago all life seemed to have exploded into being at once. It was almost as if it was planted here.

Neither denies the estimated age of the earth as some 3 and a half billion years. Yet both conclude that advanced Darwinian theory (positing that all life originated from a single celled entity to ultimately become plants, animal and marine life forms) is clearly in conflict with modern paleontology findings and modern logic. Such a change would have required many millions of years for that to occur, and such a period has not been found within the geo-layers.

This is a major reason why many scientists are retreating from the 1800’s conclusions, as recently reported in National Geographic. The brilliant logic of Charles Darwin made sense from the 1800’s through much of the 1900’s, but the fact is that the latest scientific knowledge cannot support the theory. Scientists have long recognized that outdated theories remain the public consciousness long after science has rejected the theories because the general public is unaware of the most current science. The clearest example of this phenomenon is that of "global warming." Science has determined beyond any doubt that the warming in some parts of the world is not occurring worldwide. Most countries, like all cities within the contiguous U.S., have experienced not climate change whatsoever in the past 100 years. Yet, the public at large continues to hang on to the outdated theories of the 1970’s. (The "regional warming" and "regional cooling" has been determined to be a result of continuing change that has occurred on the planet for millions of years.)

Both men have noted that not a single transitional fossil from ancient to modern fossils has been found anywhere on earth and that paleontologists and geologists are excellent at what they do. The failure to find such fossils certainly hasn’t been from any lack of efforts.

Finally, Dr. Francis Crick, agnostic recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work in DNA, says that although he may not admit that the Creator placed life here, presented a theory 30 years ago that life was planted here by aliens. The "alien" argument is often used by people who reject the whole of Darwinism and was used by athiest and NY Times/Wall St. Journal reporter Michael Drosnin who says he believes in the Bible Code (hidden encodings in the Torah) but doesn’t believe in God.

I don’t want to pound this into the ground, but the latest postings seemed to require a response. I frankly don’t know how to make this any clearer.