Theistic evolution makes no sense

[Calypze]

alhoon,

Moses was given the task of putting in writing how we got here and in what time, why? Because many in the tribes wanted to go back to Egypt and carry on worshipping the Egyptian gods. Therefore since God more or less dictated what was to be written and as He was the only witness to creation the account had to be accurate and true if this people were to obey, worship and follow Him. So, Genesis is as logical and truthful because it comes from the mouth of God our Creator. The very first words give us time, space and matter is that not scientific enough?

Moses was not a historical person, but a mythical person. Also, modern scholarship does not consider the Exodus as narrated in the Bible to be a historical event.

[basics]

Moses was not a historical person, but a mythical person. Also, modern scholarship does not consider the Exodus as narrated in the Bible to be a historical event.

Calypze,

According to God our Saviour Jesus Christ, Moses was very much an historical figure who personally had close interaction with Him. Indeed God's very word was on the subject of Moses " Before Moses was I AM." Modern scholarship consists of whom and what? Supposed learned men who know nothing of God whose place is reserved for them already. " Thinking themselves wise they became foolish," is how God sees them and their wisdom. How do they explain how it is that the KJV Bible has outpublished any other book in history even adding modern bibles to their lists. " Heaven and earth may pass away but my word shall never pass away," and it is so for any scoffer dead or alive.

[Akar]

So you don't care what anyone else's interpretation or the scholarly and religious consensus on the bible might be? You're just going to ignore everyone's points and keep rambling on about how "the bible says X". I would give anything to see you start debating properly and providing sources outside of the bible.

[basics]

So you don't care what anyone else's interpretation or the scholarly and religious consensus on the bible might be? You're just going to ignore everyone's points and keep rambling on about how "the bible says X". I would give anything to see you start debating properly and providing sources outside of the bible.

Akar,

Well if you take McArthur, Sproull, Zakarias, Metcalfe, Begg, Luther and Calvin as being religious scholars which they are, I think you'll find that every word written in Scripture to them is the word of God, why? Because like me God intervened in their lives to change them from what they once were to what we know of them today. It's a joy to see and hear their preaching of God's word so there's nothing to debate. Every human being who was born again of the Spirit of God are the sources and evidence of what is written for their knowledge like mine only came after our regeneration simply because the Bible was the starting point by its message of their change of mind and heart. As God says, scripture is His power unto salvation, that is leading to salvation because it reveals Jesus Christ to the unbeliever whereupon the hard heart is broken and their condemnation under sin revealed. It's then that they realise what Jesus Christ did for them at the cross, unworthy as they are, that the cry of repentance steps in and so God by the Spirit renews their lives. It's not debateable. It's a pure act of God for all them brought to belief in Jesus Christ. An unbeliever on his or her own intuition can see that nor bring themselves to believe it so debating it without God is profitless.

[alhoon]

So, Genesis is as logical and truthful because it comes from the mouth of God our Creator.

It is truthful but it doesn't have to be literal to be truthful. We cannot understand His plans nor His methods, and that goes to the creation of the world. As such, while Genesis is Truth given to us by God, it should not be taken as an explanation of the process the world was made, but who made the world.

The very first words give us time, space and matter is that not scientific enough?

It is, at the time, in complete agreement with what science says. But Genesis was true 300 years ago that we had no idea about those concepts and it would be true in 300 years that were will be different theories explaining more and more of this wonderful world God created for us. Because Genesis was, is and will be more than a simple text telling us a version of the creation that our human brains could, can and will be able to understand. Even in 50000 years (if humanity makes it that long), Genesis will be true but science would have advanced much much much more and would have explained more of the world down to things that are as incomprehensible to us now as the notion of the big bang was to a few nomads travelling the desert millenia ago.

Well if you take McArthur, Sproull, Zakarias, Metcalfe, Begg, Luther and Calvin as being religious scholars which they are, I think you'll find that every word written in Scripture to them is the word of God

Leaving aside that many of this scholars disagree with each other, each one of them, and us, and every person and theologian scholar in the world that ever lived, is wrong as we cannot comprehend God. The difference is that a great many of these scholars realized their own limitations.
The scriptures are not literal but instructive and metaphorical. Jesus was using parables for a reason: They were easier to understand and pass His message. The Bible is there to help you become saved, not explain every detail of God's plan. That's the job of scientists.

[basics]

alhoon,

Well if you take Genesis 1 God spoke and it was. " Let there be," and it was so, emphasising that it was He Who created something out of nothing. In the second chapter He changes the emphsis to what He created and for what reason. Now where God lives there is no darkness so we can assume that He even created the blackness of space in which to place our planet plus everything else in space why? Because He called the darkness night and with the lights of the other planets day. So, in six days and nights He created all things to a finish after which He rested on the seventh. If we jump through all Scripture to the vision of John we find that at the end in the new heaven and earth there is no darkness once again and it won't ever need to be seen again, not for the saved but also the unsaved in hell. In heaven we will have peace but those in hell will find no peace. On earth they had their darkness in which to find rest but in hell there won't be any darkness and so they'll be tormented by light, continuous light forever. There is nothing that can help them, no, not even science.

Jesus well warned the world when He said that, " man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that cometh from out of the mouth of God." Where is that word if not that which is called the Bible? What other book is there that contains His word. " Heaven and earth may pass away but my word will never pass away." His Bible was the Old Covenant and the things He said on that are in the New Covenant writings making sure they don't pass away. This is our Creator we are talking about and yet here we are trying to make science, His science, the arbiter of what's true and what is not. Adam and Eve paid a price for debating God's word and here we are centuries later doing the very same thing.

[Adamat]

It is truthful but it doesn't have to be literal to be truthful. We cannot understand His plans nor His methods, and that goes to the creation of the world. As such, while Genesis is Truth given to us by God, it should not be taken as an explanation of the process the world was made, but who made the world.



It is, at the time, in complete agreement with what science says. But Genesis was true 300 years ago that we had no idea about those concepts and it would be true in 300 years that were will be different theories explaining more and more of this wonderful world God created for us. Because Genesis was, is and will be more than a simple text telling us a version of the creation that our human brains could, can and will be able to understand. Even in 50000 years (if humanity makes it that long), Genesis will be true but science would have advanced much much much more and would have explained more of the world down to things that are as incomprehensible to us now as the notion of the big bang was to a few nomads travelling the desert millenia ago.

Genesis isn't in agreement with what science says at all. It is a story that can be interpreted in many many ways, and precisely because you can fit just about every scientific theory to some aspect or interpretation of it, it tells you nothing about the truth of it. If a theory can explain every possible observation, it's entirely useless. It cannot be falsified. Freud's model of psychology suffered from the same issue: It had enormous 'explanatory' power but absolutely no predictive power as it could not be falsified by any observation. As such, it was discarded. We see the same in the biblical origin story: When we knew next to nothing about the world, it was taken to be a literal account (and still is, by some), now that we know more about how the universe actually works it has shifted from a literal to an allegorical work, and whatever new insights future science may bring, it's unlikely that the theory "god made the world" can ever be falsified because it's such an incredibly broad blanket statement.

Genesis isn't an explanation of who made the world or how he did it, it's a story that can be bended and reinterpreted to fit any and all observations. That means you have absolutely no way of verifying whether it's true without invoking faith, and of course faith holds very little sway in determining the truth of anything.

[chriscase]

What troubles me about Young Earth creationism, along with other forms of Biblical literalism and fundamentalism, is the elevation of “belief” in opposition to reason and evidence. This kind of ”belief” increases in value as its claims become more extraordinary, and brings greater stature to the believer when the belief is promoted in spite of ever greater reasons not to hold with it.

This creates a culture where truth is held hostage to the will of the group and there is effectively no congress with reason or science. To me this is where the ability to adapt really breaks down and all you are left with is varying degrees of fanaticism.

[Muizer]

Genesis isn't in agreement with what science says at all. It is a story that can be interpreted in many many ways, and precisely because you can fit just about every scientific theory to some aspect or interpretation of it, it tells you nothing about the truth of it.

It's actually very specific and unbending when it comes to the order in which different aspects of creation happened and that order, no matter how metaphorical you want to look at it, is not compatible with the chronology of the formation of our solar system according to science.

[Akar]

To be specific though I don't think the problem is with "belief" but with "faith", which is the belief in something without evidence. I agree with the rest of your argument though. It's a dangerous sort of anti-intellectualism that's really started to poison the discourse in America lately. The idea that an individual that reads the bible somehow has a better grasp of the workings of the universe than the entirety of the scientific community is really astounding. But I suppose that's what you get when you discard the prerequisite for evidence in your beliefs.

[basics]

It's actually very specific and unbending when it comes to the order in which different aspects of creation happened and that order, no matter how metaphorical you want to look at it, is not compatible with the chronology of the formation of our solar system according to science.

Muizer,

Well if one looks at what He did in six days in making an up and running planet with life on it and only some six thousand odd years ago one can see where our interpretation of the science differs. He made things matured to be up and running meaning that much of creation looked older than it actually was. There was nothing dead in what was created. We once thought and many still do that coal takes a long time to be made yet that's not true. We once thought that diamonds took ages to form yet that's not true. We once thought that rocks took ages to be rocks yet that's not true. The same can be said for stalagtites and mites yet proved wrong. So yes, science in our hands makes for a different outlook and especially the evidence to question God's creation but as science itself is a result of that creation is it any wonder that man has used it as a weapon against the Creator? Were Adam and Eve not brought down by the very same method?

[Akar]

We once thought and many still do that coal takes a long time to be made yet that's not true. We once thought that diamonds took ages to form yet that's not true. We once thought that rocks took ages to be rocks yet that's not true. The same can be said for stalagtites and mites yet proved wrong.

Please show me the articles and journals in which any of these claims have been proven.

[Muizer]

Well if one looks at what He did in six days in making an up and running planet with life on it and only some six thousand odd years ago one can see where our interpretation of the science differs. He made things matured to be up and running meaning that much of creation looked older than it actually was.

I'm just pointing out that the sequence of events as told by Genesis is in no way reconcilable with science. You're entirely right that assuming god did create the universe and he did create it in the sequence genesis tells us about, then he must have created it to appear the way it does to science. Moreover, he must have created it to function in that exact same way after creation, to the point where we cannot scientifically determine whether creation happened 4.5 billion years ago, 6 thousand years ago or, who knows, ten seconds ago.

[alhoon]

We once thought and many still do that coal takes a long time to be made yet that's not true. We once thought that diamonds took ages to form yet that's not true. We once thought that rocks took ages to be rocks yet that's not true. The same can be said for stalagtites and mites yet proved wrong.

Please show me the articles and journals in which any of these claims have been proven.

No, no, no... don't go there, have mercy.
Please, I am a mineral resources engineer. I have worked with coal for 10 years. I have friends that work in diamond mines in Canada and I was considering applying there (except the cold... soooo much cold; it's NORTHERN Canada).

No, Those things are false. Coal takes ages to form naturally. Diamonds take ages to form naturally. Nobody ever said that rocks took ages to become rocks; volcanic rocks become rocks very quickly and we know that since antiquity. Stalagmites and Stalagmites don't take ages to form, they take years and it is measurable and we also know that since antiquity.

Please, no... this is pure torture. Please talk about how the dinosaurs didn't exist and leave my field alone. Reading that post brought me grief and physical pain.

[Prodromos]

What troubles me about Young Earth creationism, along with other forms of Biblical literalism and fundamentalism, is the elevation of “belief” in opposition to reason and evidence. This kind of ”belief” increases in value as its claims become more extraordinary, and brings greater stature to the believer when the belief is promoted in spite of ever greater reasons not to hold with it.

This creates a culture where truth is held hostage to the will of the group and there is effectively no congress with reason or science. To me this is where the ability to adapt really breaks down and all you are left with is varying degrees of fanaticism.

I don't think anyone would say their beliefs lack evidence - they probably just have different kinds of evidence than the ones you prefer. For example, they may place a higher emphasis on the word of God than on the word of fallible men, which is perfectly reasonable.

To quote the philosopher R.G. Collingwood, “And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult.” Evidence is just that which convinces, which can vary from person to person. When people don't share your standards of evidence, it doesn't mean they have no evidence, it just means they have different standards of evidence, which are no less valid than yours.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sar1n]

I don't think anyone would say their beliefs lack evidence - they probably just have different kinds of evidence than the ones you prefer. For example, they may place a higher emphasis on the supposed word of God given to them by failible men without any independent proof than on the result of best system for finding objective truth invented so far, results of which you use every day, which is totally unreasonable.

Fixed that for you.

Y'know, science, legal systems and everything else depending on evidence managed to establish standards for it quite successfully. The problem is in people that refuse to see beyond their biases and accept the evidence contradictory to their beliefs.

[basics]

alhoon,

The rapid formation of coal and oil

Article Options
Back to ListBack to List
Print ArticlePrint Article

A question that I am frequently asked during the course of our presentations is, “If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then how did the fossil fuels of coal and oil come into existence?” Hopefully, I can make the answer simple to understand.

Coal and oil are found sandwiched between sedimentary rock layers. Sedimentary rock layers are basically layers of dried out mud. This means that all the layers, including the layers of coal and oil, were laid down primarily by the action of water in a flood. In addition, almost all coal and oil is derived from vegetation.

Coal (charred animal remains) and oil produced from animal remains contains nitrogen products that are not found in oil that comes from vegetable materials. Thus, it is easy to tell one type of deposit from the other.

Most people are startled to learn that coal and oil are basically the same thing. The only real difference is the amount of water contained within the deposits!

To understand how coal and oil are formed it is easiest to think of what happens when you cook a pie in the oven. We have all seen what happens when a pie filling is heated and spills out of the pie container and over the edge onto the oven or a tray under the pie pan. You get a gooey or charred substance that is hard to remove. The more burned the filling is, the harder and more blackened the deposit will be.

What is happening to the pie filling is that the sugar (a hydrocarbon) is being dehydrated by the heat of the cooking process in the oven. The hotter and/or longer the heat is applied, the harder and blacker the deposit on the tray. Basically, the blackened pie filling might be thought as a form of low grade coal.

Wood is made out of cellulose, a sugar. Consider what happens if you quickly bury a large amount of vegetable material in the ground. The process of decomposition produces heat that starts to dehydrate the vegetable material. The loss of water, however, causes a further heating of the deposit. The generation of heat by dehydration causes more heating, that in turn causes further water loss. If the process is contained so that the heat is not dissipated quickly, the cycle of heating and drying continues rapidly.

One of two processes will occur because of the vegetable materials being heated in the ground. If the water of dehydration can leak out of the geological formation leaving the dried and dehydrated materials behind you will end up with coal. If the water of dehydration is trapped within the geological formation and cannot escape you will end up with oil.

There is a straight line progression in the amount of water contained within (the degree of dehydration, or the degree of reduction in water content) materials as you progress from peat to lignite (brown coal) to bituminous coals to anthracite coals.

A necessary ingredient in the formation of fossil fuels is the presence of kaolin clays. These clays are a common component of volcanic activity, particularly within volcanic ash.

Coal and oil are the obvious result of the activity of Noah's Flood. During the Flood of Noah (about 4,350 years ago) great amounts of superheated water came up out of the earth and mixed with the waters that were on the surface and those that rained down from above. In addition, the hot rock and hot ash from thousands of volcanoes was available to generate many layers of heated sedimentary materials. Ground makes a very good insulator capable of maintaining heat for long periods of time.

At the beginning of the Flood thousands of volcanoes mowed down forests all over the world. Volcanic ash fell on top of huge floating log mats. When those log mats were buried in-between the heated sedimentary layers deposited by the Flood, coal and oil were formed in a short amount of time.

Laboratory research in the past few decades has shown that coal and oil may be formed quickly. In May of 1972, George R. Hill, Dean of the College of Mines and Mineral Industries wrote an article published in the Journal of Chemical Technology , now know as Chemtech . On p. 292, he commented:

“A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted. . . . These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals, . . . were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event.”

What happened was that Hill made coal (indistinguishable from natural coal); and, he did it in six hours.

Over 20 years ago British researchers invented a way to turn household garbage into an oil suitable for use in home heating and for use in electric power plant generation. On February 26, 1982 , a reporter for the Sentinel Star quoted Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University.

“We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.”

While I completely disagree with his belief in a time period that existed 150 million years ago, his statement that oil was formed in only 10 minutes is the key point.

Natural coal may also be formed quickly. Argonne National Laboratories has reported on research proving that under natural conditions coal may be formed in only 36 weeks.

In an article published in Organic Geochemistry Vol. 6:463-471, 1984 (Oxidative Degradation Studies and Modern Concepts of the Formation and Transformation of Organic Constituents of Coals and Sedimentary Rocks, Ryoichi Hayatsu, Randall E. Winans, Robert L. McBeth, Robert G. Scott and Leon P. Moore, Chemistry Division Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 USA.) it was reported that all that was required for coal to form was that wood with kaolin clay as a catalyst must be buried deep enough that there is no oxygen, with a ground temperature of 150 degrees Celsius, and you will get coal in only 36 weeks. Further, it was noted that if the temperature were higher, the coal would form faster.

More on rapid formation of natural oil? Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal and Bruner reported in Journal of The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia , No. 24, 1996, pp. 6-12:

“Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and natural gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary [dried out mud layers] basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations.”

The hot wet mud layers that existed after the Flood of Noah would have provided the perfect locations and conditions for rapid coal, oil and gas formation.

What is even more intriguing is that natural oil and gas may not be the finite limited resources that so many have believed them to be. On April 16, 1999 , a staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal wrote an article entitled “ It's No Crude Joke: This Oil Field Grows Even as It's Tapped .” The article started:

“Houston - Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana , was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly . . . Eugene Island 's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by Pennz-Energy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.”

So, oil appears to be still forming in the earth; and, it is of a better grade than that which was originally found. The more research that is done, the more we are finding out that natural forces are still at work producing new oil!







Creation Worldview Ministries Designed by Centella Consulting
Trusted Web Site VeriSign Identity Protection

[alhoon]

As a mining engineer, allow me to say that your interpretation of those sources is very wrong.

- Coal contains some elements that you can find in oil. Not many and not in high percentage.

- when George R. Hill talks about rapid heating aiding the creation of high rank coal, he means "just" a few hundred centuries in their 300 million years of history, not minutes. Yes, 5000 years is a short period in 300 million years. If you go above the correct temperature (like being close to a geothermal event), the hydrocarbons and carbon chains start cracking. You need a lab to do what Dr Hill did and it may well not work if you don't do it well.

- Using cracking on organic garbage to create oil is not possible in nature.

- IF what you say about the article in Organic Geochemistry Vol. 6:463-471, 1984 is correct... these guys are wrong, you can't create coal by burying wood in anaerobic conditions for 36 weeks. Well, not what we call mineral coal, i.e. neither lignite, bitumen coals or anthracite. IF things go well, you will get something like charcoal but not that good.
HOWEVER, I found that article and I didn't see them suggesting that you can bury wood and get coal in 36 weeks. I saw nice stuff about the creation and oxidization of coal and how it would take millions of years, so they had to do it in the lab accelerating the process. Here's the article. You can see how they sped the process using the lab.
And the reason you need the lab is that if you go above the right mix of temperature & pressure, the fuel is ruined. As such, it would be impossible in nature to do the right combinations for the right time. Simply put, the high temperatures from a volcano etc would have cracked the organic components and ruined the coal.


Long story short: Yes, the formation of coal is like cooking a pie. And you can make pies in your furnace but good luck baking pies by burying the dough in random places in nature, hoping for the right conditions. It will take you millions of years to get them.
Meanwhile, in the lab you can cook lignite if you follow the recipe. Because science works.


And yes, of course oil is being produced by Earth as we speak, with well understood procedures. But that compressed crust of dead bacteria, plankton and organic matter requires millions of years to turn to oil/natural gas. As such you can tell the age of the reservoir. That's how well this is understood.
There are "immature" fields that will perhaps (small chance, it's always a small chance) become proper oil in millions of years.
As such they are "finite" in the form that we remove billions of barrels of oil per year, while earth needs millions of years to recreate what we burn in a month.


Of course, if oil price is above 70-100$ then cracking lignite to create oil becomes a possible, viable alternative. When the oil prices were in the 100-120$, I met a German guy that was working in Nikaia, outside Constantinople, investigating whether the Turkish lignite could be turned to natural gas.
We can create liquid hydrocarbons. And not just from coal.
That wine your uncle is drinking? With enough money you can turn it to oil. The problem is that it is too expensive (compared to oil prices) to do that, especially with wine.4

The hot wet mud layers that existed after the Flood of Noah would have provided the perfect locations and conditions for rapid coal, oil and gas formation.

Nope, because if we take the most probable explanation, that the Flood of Noah was the ice age or something similar, It was too recent for "rapid" coal, oil and gas to form. Not to mention that coal was already done by that time.
And I tell you that as a scientist that has studied mineral resources engineering more recently than the 70s and is an academic. You need more than 60,000 years for all those to form, even in optimal conditions. Simply put, "baking that pie" in earth takes much longer.

But, let me ask this: The wet mud layers after the Flood, if we take the Old Testament literal... how long do you think they will take to dry? Have you seen the earth after a few months of heavy rain? It dries quite fast. It doesn't take years.
Before you say that it was a lot of water, I would remind you that to make oil, you need a waterproof sedimentary cap like limestone else the oil would not form (because the organic components will escape to the surface). You need to trap the organic components under the correct formations, else they will migrate and not transform.
Thus, no, the Flood could not have accelerated the formation. The "wet mud layers" would not have done anything for the organic components you mention.

[basics]

alhoon,

I've no doubt that what you are saying is quite correct under the circumstances you quote but the problem is in the interpretation of what is humanly possible and what is Supernaturally possible. For example Jesus turned water into wine in the matter of a conversation which humanly is impossible. Now I am no scientist but I am happy to listen to what others have to say especially those that have something about what they witnessed whatever the probabilities. To say that God could not have accelerated His creation is based on your knowledge based on science which is a result of creation is like falling off the bus before the destination is reached. The thing is that one has to believe there is a God quite capable of anything and I am one of them, why? Because there is too much written about Him to be ignored.

[alhoon]

To say that God could not have accelerated His creation is based on your knowledge based on science which is a result of creation is like falling off the bus before the destination is reached. The thing is that one has to believe there is a God quite capable of anything and I am one of them, why? Because there is too much written about Him to be ignored.

I didn't say that God could not have accelerated His creation.
God can do everything. However, He didn't accelerate the creation of coals and rocks and oil. He set the rules Himself, He made the rules. He is the one that made the principles science is studying and trying to interpret and it's an infinite task.

Jesus turned water into wine and He fed 5000 thousand with a few fish and bread. He chose to do it.
From what we have seen, God for reasons we don't know and don't understand decided in His infinite wisdom that coal would take millions of years to be developed from dead plant matter and a few hours to be made under very specific conditions in the laboratory. That was His decision, not my decision, nor science's decision. Science simply unearthed God's decision and I am telling you what I learned from science.
I am sure there are more ways to make coal than the few science knows at the time. Again, all those are God's decisions, not something Science did. Science cannot "one-up" God, it's foolish to even consider this. It's not like a kid trying to compete against his father, it's like a kid trying to move the stars with his thoughts. It is simply impossible.
All science can do, is use the rules God set in place and that's what you read in those papers you quote about how to make coal in 36 hours. We play by the rules God set in place, we follow His decisions. How much rocks, coal etc take to form and under which conditions, how evolution works and under which conditions, why Venus is completely inhospitable to life (as we understand life) etc etc etc are all God's decisions.

The thing is that one has to believe there is a God quite capable of anything and I am one of them, why? Because there is too much written about Him to be ignored.

I am one of them too. I just disagree with you on what God, that is able to do anything, chose to do in His infinite power. I don't think He literally made Earth. I think He made the rules that led to the formation of matter in a way that billions of years after He made the rules led to the formation of Earth and billions of years after the formation of earth, led to the formation of you and me.

As such, He made the Earth and you and me but not in the way you decipher from the Bible by taking the Book literally.