Young and Old Earth creation beliefs and origins

[Rory Roybal]

(Moved here from 'Theology Post 6' thread by request)

Long ages are a relatively recent phenomenon to justify evolutionary philosophy. I used to believe the day-age and/or gap models were credible, until I realized they had a number of linguistic and logical problems, and that my view was not based on the Bible’s language or historical views thereof, but simply to accommodate long age concepts. These models were constructed in the nineteenth century in an attempt to harmonize evolutionary dogma with the Biblical text. Long ages were touted as ‘proven’ by science, and therefore it seemed necessary to force the Bible’s language to conform to this supposed scientific fact even if this created linguistic, logical and historical inconsistencies.

No naturalistic evolutionists (at least none I’ve read about or encountered) accept this theory and its supposed harmony with evolutionary astronomy, geology, or paleontology. If imaginable, it has been treated with even more intense scorn that young earth creationism, because evolutionary atheists well recognize its inconsistency with Scripture, even if many Christians will not.

The Creation account is very specific. As you are almost surely aware, Heb. bara (to create) is used only of God, never of men, and refers to His unique ability to create ex nihilo , out of nothing. In the Genesis creation account, bara is used only three times, for unique creation of physical and plant life with body (Gen. 1:1), for unique creation of animals with body and soul (Gen. 1:21), and unique creation of man with body, soul, and spirit (Gen. 1:27, I Thess. 5:23).

There is no basis for selectively using the term asah (to make) for making of the sun, moon and stars to mean “appear”. In the creation account, asah consistently refers to making things out of pre-existing materials, like man does, but does not refer simply to the appearance of already made objects, and God used the term ra’ah (to see) when this was His purpose (Gen. 1:9). Note that God refers to both ‘creating’ (out of nothing) and ‘making’ (of pre-existing materials) in the creation account: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). If one consistently uses asah in the creation account to mean “made to appear”, with everything fully made in advance but just revealed at a certain time, the entire account would cease to make sense.

The belief that the world would last 7,000 years appears to have been almost universally accepted by the early church. The early church writers based their teaching on the days of Genesis 1, Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8 and the biblical genealogies. They reasoned that as God created in six days and a day is as a thousand years, therefore the earth would last for 6,000 years. After this would come a thousand years of rest, equivalent to the seventh day. The same idea is found in Jewish literature. The Babylonian Talmud refers to a chronological scheme by which history is divided into three ages of 2,000 years each: an age of chaos; the age of the Law, and the age of the Messiah. A thousand years of rest would follow. Because the origin of this teaching cannot be dated accurately, we cannot say with certainty if the belief was widespread within Judaism or at what time it originated. The early church fathers did not believe that the creation had taken place over six thousand years, but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation. The widespread acceptance of the creation week pattern for earth history implies the acceptance by many of the church fathers of two important points:

1) The earth is young (less than 6,000 years old).
2) The Biblical genealogies provide an accurate chronology.

The following early church ‘fathers’ wrote specifically about this same topic. “Day” means “day”, and it takes substantial convoluted linguistic contortionism to twist the Scriptures to attempt to make it mean anything else. Those who want to make “day” mean something other than an Earth day in the creation account indirectly accuse God of misleading us from the obvious meaning of the text, which is consistently used throughout Scripture.

Church Fathers Who Believed that This World Would Last 6,000 years:

Pseudo Barnabas - Epistle of Barnabas 15:1-4, 70-135 AD
Irenaeus - Against Heresies 5.28.3, c.115-202 AD
Gaudentius of Brescia - Tractatus 10.15, d. after 410 AD
Hippolytus - Commentary on Daniel 4.23, d.235 AD
Hilary of Poitiers - In Matthew 17:1; 20:6; Tract Myst. 1.41; 2.10, c.315-367 AD
Lactantius - Divine Institutes 7.14-27, d. after 317 AD
Firmicus Maternus - The Error of the Pagan Religions 25.3, c.346 AD
Sulpicius Severus - History, 1.2.1, c.363-c.420 AD
Tyconius - Book of Rules, 5, c. 400 AD

Church Fathers Who Stated Belief in 24 hour Creation Days:

Theophilus of Antioch - Autolycus 2:11-12, c.180 AD
Methodius - Chastity 5.7, d.311 AD
Lactantius - Institutes 7.14, 240-320 AD
Victorinus of Pettau - Creation, d. c.304 AD
Ephrem the Syrian - Commentary on Genesis 1.1, 306-373 AD
Epiphanius of Salamis - Panarion, 1.1.1, 315-403 AD
Basil of Caesarea - Hexameron, 2.8, 329-379 AD
Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lectures 12.5, d. 387 AD
Ambrose of Milan - Hexameron, 1.10.3-7, 339-397 AD

Even those who rejected literal 24-hour days still believed in a young earth as the following list demonstrates. Origen believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old and Clement thought it was still younger. The early church fathers did not believe that the creation had taken place over six thousand years, but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.

Specific Statements Made by Early Church Writers Concerning the Age of the Earth:

Clement of Alexandria – 5,592 BC, Miscellanies 1.21, c.150- c.215 AD
Julius Africanus – 5,500 BC, Chronology, Fragment 1, c.160-240 AD
Hippolytus of Rome – 5,500 BC, Daniel 4, 170-236 AD
Origen - < 10,000 BC, Celsus, 1.20, 185-253 AD
Eusebius of Caesarea – 5,228 BC, Chronicle, 263-339 AD

I am unable to find any credible reference to a theologian prior to the 19th century who specifically suggested that the Genesis day was longer than 24 hours, or that the creation week was longer than seven days. It wasn’t until Darwinism started to take hold that this phenomenon occurred.

[mmmcounts]

How do you reconcile the extreme differences between Creation Story Number 1 in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Creation Story Number 2 from 2:4-3:24 with the idea that it's a historical account just like what we might find in, say, the Gospels? They contain many examples of different authors giving multiple accounts of the same events, but when two different Gospels tell the same story, the differences between the two stories are nothing like what you see in the first three chapters of Genesis. I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two very different situations.

Quite frankly, I think you press so hard on this point because you insist on using the Bible as your means of measuring the age of the Earth. I'm going to suggest that the Bible doesn't contain anything that allows us to know the age of the Earth, but there are quite a few ways of knowing it from other sources. And there's dozens of ways to prove that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years old.

If you decide to consider looking at some of these methods, this would be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

And if you want to get into a forum dedicated to this specific topic, this would be a good place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Rory Roybal said:

You have done it. There is no documentary basis for considering the early part of Genesis as poetry, allegory, or anything other than the historical account it is, just as the rest of Genesis.

Oh, and Dan Eaton's right. The little fiction about people using only 5% (or 10%, depending who you ask) of their brains is a relic from an era when medical technology was only good enough to detect activity in about 5% (and later, 10%) of a person's brain.

"'the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable,' says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10...).


"Neuroscience For Kids
Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brains?
Let me state this very clearly:
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brains.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain" (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html).

[Rory Roybal]

In itself, I couldn't care less about the age of the Earth, but I care a lot about things like Biblical authority, exact word by word inspiration, and infallibility. To the extent the age of the Earth weakens or contradicts these important factors, I care about it. Christians are commanded to guard that which we have been entrusted with, and turn aside from oppositions (Gr. antithesis) of science *falsely so called* (I Tim. 6:20). OEC interpretations of Genesis 1–11 are not exegetically defensible and OEC hermeneutics in Genesis 1–11 cannot be consistently applied to the rest of Scripture without seriously damaging or destroying the Bible's teaching. The YEC interpretation is the overwhelmingly dominant view in the history of Christendom, as I have clearly documented in the initial post in this thread.

Since your aim seems to be flexibility for understanding the Hebrew text to possibly mean long ages, you must assume nearly everyone couldn't understand this possibility from the Bible's language until evolutionists came along to help them see the light. I don't know what you believe, but is it consistent with your beliefs for enlightening fruit to come from the evolutionary tree?

Genesis 1 and 2 is a typical Hebrew construction, to provide an overview first and follow it with focused details about events of greatest interest, in this case more information about the first man and woman recorded by Adam, which would be his natural focus and perspective.

Many physical 'clocks' indicate a young earth, including the Earth's magnetic field, erosion of continents, helium in the atmosphere, and ocean salinity to name a few. However, long age evolutionists only selectively promote 'clocks' that generate long age timeframes, and then present results to unwitting 'students' as if they were established fact. Radioactive dating is most commonly cited as 'proof' of long ages, although actual results of this technique vary widely.

I'm quite familiar with 'talkorigins' and radiometric dating techniques, as well as the unproven and unproveable assumptions on which old Earth geology is based. Reliability of radioactive dating depends on a number of unproveable assumptions, so the age of the earth cannot be determined by observational science. These unproved and unproveable assumptions include the rate of radioactive decay being constant, no daughter atoms in the beginning, and no parent or daughter atoms added to or taken from the rocks. Whenever we do see rocks form today, we always see daughter atoms in the beginning, so as usual evolutionary dogma contradicts observational, true science.

No one except the Creator knows the initial composition of the rocks, or if decay rates have remained constant from the very beginning of Creation of the universe and Earth. The fact is we can't possibly know the beginning state of the rocks or if radioactive decay processes have remained constant throughout all time, and without knowing if these foundational assumptions are true, the long age house rests on loose sand instead of the Rock. One day the imaginary sand castle of evolution and everything built thereon will be washed away, and great will be the fall of it.

If you choose to believe the Genesis text is undefinitive, ask yourself why you truly feel you must believe so, if not to accommodate long ages. And if to accommodate long ages, why do you give this concept credibility over the natural reading of the creation account? Do you believe the entire Bible, including the Genesis Creation account, is God's inspired Word as it claims to be, or not? Many professing Christians do not although they may profess otherwise. If you don't believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, then I fully understand why you wouldn't believe the accuracy of Genesis either. However, if you believe it is of God, why would He make it ambiguous, contrary to what He says about His Word, and how could have He expressed it more clearly? Would not God, the very Creator of language, find a way to make things clear to us, especially since He says the character of wisdom is straightforward? The fact is that the original language is crystal clear, which is why it was consistently understood that way as an historical account for millenia!

Although I don't know what percentage of our brains we're using, I have found that the deepest origins of refusing to accept the natural reading of the Word of God are more often spiritual than intellectual. Everyone thinks they're right, as the Bible says "Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts" (Prov. 21:2).

mmmcounts said:

How do you reconcile the extreme differences between Creation Story Number 1 in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Creation Story Number 2 from 2:4-3:24 with the idea that it's a historical account just like what we might find in, say, the Gospels? They contain many examples of different authors giving multiple accounts of the same events, but when two different Gospels tell the same story, the differences between the two stories are nothing like what you see in the first three chapters of Genesis. I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two very different situations.
Quite frankly, I think you press so hard on this point because you insist on using the Bible as your means of measuring the age of the Earth. I'm going to suggest that the Bible doesn't contain anything that allows us to know the age of the Earth, but there are quite a few ways of knowing it from other sources. And there's dozens of ways to prove that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years old. If you decide to consider looking at some of these methods, this would be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
And if you want to get into a forum dedicated to this specific topic, this would be a good place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Rory Roybal said:

You have done it. There is no documentary basis for considering the early part of Genesis as poetry, allegory, or anything other than the historical account it is, just as the rest of Genesis.

Oh, and Dan Eaton's right. The little fiction about people using only 5% (or 10%, depending who you ask) of their brains is a relic from an era when medical technology was only good enough to detect activity in about 5% (and later, 10%) of a person's brain.

"'the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable,' says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10...).


"Neuroscience For Kids
Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brains?
Let me state this very clearly:
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brains.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain" (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html).

[Marv]

This really is not so. "Extreme differences" between so-called "creation story number 1" and "creation story number 2" is quite exaggerated. And the comparison to the gospels is not propitious for your argument, because although you admit differences of detail, you downplay these in comparison to the differences between Gen 1 and Gen 2. I think they are far more similar. There are differences in the gospels, such as you would expect between independent witnesses, differences that do not add up to contradictions. You see two apparently conflicting accounts and you realize that events in reality are more complex than descriptions of these events. And so the accounts are complementary rather than conflicting.

This is the case with the so-called two creation accounts. Gen 1 is about God revealing Himself in His creation. Gen 2 is specifically about how God as man's creator provided for all his needs. It leads up to the astonishingly ungrateful and covetous acts of A&E who were so lavished with God's goodness.

What are the differences? Usually chronology is cited. Funny but a number of people try to suggest that Gen 1 has a topical not chronological orientation, a text that is dripping with chronological references... Here however, topical is decidedly the way this is oriented. If you read it out of context (as the presupposition that these are distinct folk tales would lead you to do) then you might suppose that because of the order things are mentioned that God created man before any animals, for example. We know this is not the case because a chapter earlier we were given the chronology of it. We get a tad confused because we are reading a text in English, which has tense, translated from Hebrew, which has a rather different system involving aspect and not time-oriented tense at all.

If you give the text at least a modicum of benefit of doubt, the supposed difficulties become harder and harder to find.

mmmcounts said:

How do you reconcile the extreme differences between Creation Story Number 1 in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Creation Story Number 2 from 2:4-3:24 with the idea that it's a historical account just like what we might find in, say, the Gospels? They contain many examples of different authors giving multiple accounts of the same events, but when two different Gospels tell the same story, the differences between the two stories are nothing like what you see in the first three chapters of Genesis. I think it's pretty clear that we're dealing with two very different situations.

Quite frankly, I think you press so hard on this point because you insist on using the Bible as your means of measuring the age of the Earth. I'm going to suggest that the Bible doesn't contain anything that allows us to know the age of the Earth, but there are quite a few ways of knowing it from other sources. And there's dozens of ways to prove that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years old.

If you decide to consider looking at some of these methods, this would be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

And if you want to get into a forum dedicated to this specific topic, this would be a good place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Rory Roybal said:

You have done it. There is no documentary basis for considering the early part of Genesis as poetry, allegory, or anything other than the historical account it is, just as the rest of Genesis.

Oh, and Dan Eaton's right. The little fiction about people using only 5% (or 10%, depending who you ask) of their brains is a relic from an era when medical technology was only good enough to detect activity in about 5% (and later, 10%) of a person's brain.

"'the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable,' says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10...).


"Neuroscience For Kids
Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brains?
Let me state this very clearly:
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brains.
In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain. Let's look at the possible origins of this myth and the evidence that we use all of our brain" (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html).

[Rory Roybal]

Check out my recently published article on this topic at:

 

The Fossil Record — Evolution Evidence or Creation Science?    NEW!

The fossil record was used as evidence for long ages of evolution, but does modern science show it is proof of recent creation? (ARTICLE)

 

Best, Rory

[Daniel]

I disagree with the basic premise that fossils prove evolution or that the evolutionists even believe that.  That is a bit of a straw man.  The fossil record cannot demonstrate process.  The whole "transitional form" argument is a really bad one as well.  It is an argument that can never be won because even if someone proposed that Fossil D is a transitional one between Fossil A and Fossil H, someone could still challenge where's the missing link between A and D.  So Fossil B is found and the challenge continues for the missing "C".  In other words, there is no way to satisfy it at all and both sides just look at their own assumptions and think it proves their case.  I'd be careful with the "living cells in fossils" claim too.  A lot of that has shown to be controversial and suspect.  Some of the stuff I read indicated that some of those claims cannot be reproduced and some of the "finds" were after a great deal of manipulation of the material.  These slam-dunk too good to be true evidences are generally just that....too good to be true.

Rory Roybal said:

Check out my recently published article on this topic at:

 

The Fossil Record — Evolution Evidence or Creation Science?    NEW!

The fossil record was used as evidence for long ages of evolution, but does modern science show it is proof of recent creation? (ARTICLE)

 

Best, Rory

[Rory Roybal]

If God's Word is to be understood in a straightforward manner as it internally claims, it is a 'slam dunk' because He was the eyewitness to all Creation. The latest physical evidence, while not the 'slam dunk' of an eyewitness account, is also consistent with the straightforward view expressed in the Bible and by the direct statements of Christ.

 

Those who don't want to believe what God says and what objective science infers won't believe it, and those who are willing to believe it will believe it.

 

"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear" (Mark 4:23, 7:16).

[Daniel]

Rory, it is simply a false dichotomy to suggest that the text clearly says whatever your favored interpretation is or that one is just wanting to disbelieve God to think otherwise.  While there ARE some people to believe something just because the want to, most people who approach this topic not only have a willingness to find the truth, but an earnest desire for it.  Taking an attitude that they just don't want to believe God in a situation like that if they come to a different understanding that you is not being fair to them or treating them with with the gentleness and respect that we are told to with defending out beliefs.  

As far as your "latest physical evidence" goes, I'd encourage you to research that a bit more.  When one soaks a contaminated fossil in acid to specifically "demineralize" it, and then finds tissue that is no longer mineralized, you just can't logically claim the kinds of things this lady did in her stated goal to derive more funding for further study.  There is no way I'd see you trusting that kind of claim had it shown evidence contrary to your beliefs.  You'd be justifiably skeptical about something like that when the material in question was subject to contamination, the process itself altered the material, and the whole thing can't be duplicated.  And by jumping all over that and using it as some proof or evidence, it does two things.  First, it weakens your case when the evidence (just like all those "scientific" claims in The Genesis Flood) turn out to be invalid.  But second, it comes across as projection when you claim that others believe or don't believe something based on their willingness or desire to do so when it looks like you are doing the same thing here.  

I'm not making any comments on your conclusions here.  I don't even know what your creation beliefs are.  I'm just trying to help you in making the best and strongest argument possible for them.  And part of that is being accurate.  Your piece is going to be convincing to the already convinced.  But when the skeptic comes across suggestions that fossils prove a process or that "mainstream geology taught that most of Earth history consisted of mild, uniform changes over long periods of time" without recognizing that they ALSO taught catastrophic events like volcanoes, floods, and so forth, folks are going to take you as not knowing what you are talking about.

[Rory Roybal]

 

Hi Daniel,

 

Just so, it is simply a false dichotomy to suggest that the text clearly says whatever your favored interpretation is. From previous posts on this thread to me and others, you clearly have a position you believe in, and consistently attempt to promote or defend it, so let's not pretend you are more objective than others, or have more willingness to find the truth, gentleness or respect than myself or others.

 

As far as the evidence I presented, it is not just from a single lady that of course will be singled out and discredited as much as possible from those who don't like what she discovered, but from recognized pro-evolution experts in their field. From their own statements, this lady and others with her had no intent in furthering young earth creation positions though they recognized their discoveries would do so. Since you bring up this lady in isolation of other evidence presented and not evidence in this area as a whole from a number of sources, it weakens your case, including your objections to the Bible account of the Genesis Flood and your objection to a straightforward reading of the Bible in general.

 

I think you have a pretty good idea what my creation beliefs are from previous discussions, and I think I have a pretty good idea what yours are. Tangible evidence for the macroevolution fable has been lacking for many years, and what was expected to be found to substantiate it has fundamentally changed only because the evidence was wanting.

You may say:

"I disagree with the basic premise that fossils prove evolution or that the evolutionists even believe that.  That is a bit of a straw man.  The fossil record cannot demonstrate process."

 

However, evolutionists expected otherwise, and textbooks used in our educational systems around the world still conclusively teach otherwise. The "straw man" of which you speak is not what I said, but evolutionists and books that teach a foundational lie as established fact to trusting students.

[Daniel]

Rory Roybal said:

Just so, it is simply a false dichotomy to suggest that the text clearly says whatever your favored interpretation is. From previous posts on this thread to me and others, you clearly have a position you believe in, and consistently attempt to promote or defend it, so let's not pretend you are more objective than others, or have more willingness to find the truth, gentleness or respect than myself or others.

Of course I have my own beliefs. But the difference is that I'm not suggesting that it so clearly says what I think it does that if you don't agree with me, you are just looking for a reason to doubt God. I *am* more objective because I don't take it as a personal attack against either me OR God should someone disagree with my understanding.

As far as the evidence I presented, it is not just from a single lady that of course will be singled out and discredited as much as possible from those who don't like what she discovered, but from recognized pro-evolution experts in their field. From their own statements, this lady and others with her had no intent in furthering young earth creation positions though they recognized their discoveries would do so. Since you bring up this lady in isolation of other evidence presented and not evidence in this area as a whole from a number of sources, it weakens your case, including your objections to the Bible account of the Genesis Flood and your objection to a straightforward reading of the Bible in general.

I realize that she had no goal of furthering YEC positions. The fact that it did isn't the point. The fact is that she took took bones that had been handled and contaminated and then "de-mineralized" them and it was presented as if mineralized fossils can have soft tissue in them. Maybe she's right. I don't know. The point is not that she's wrong and you are presenting something that is untrue. The point is that until this can be verified by others that it is a very unproven and controversial thing and not a good argument to use against evolution. Your other piece that you wrote that talked about things like life not coming from non-life and such was a much stronger argument. The huge developmental gaps in the fossil record is another one. A lot of the ID arguments are very strong as well. Compared to that kind of argument, this one is a weak link in the chain and I thought the piece would be better off without using it as a proof against evolution. If anything, it challenges how fossils form, not any kind of process of change between them.

I think you have a pretty good idea what my creation beliefs are from previous discussions, and I think I have a pretty good idea what yours are. Tangible evidence for the macroevolution fable has been lacking for many years, and what was expected to be found to substantiate it has fundamentally changed only because the evidence was wanting.

This topic was so old, I don't really remember anything you've previously discussed. So it isn't like I'm picking on you because I disagree with you. My comments were limited to this single article about how fossils don't prove evolution. I agree with that premise. I don't believe in evolution as you've defined it (basically molecules to man), and I also don't believe that the fossil record is proof for it. So I was just trying to help you in making the strongest possible case for that assertion. If I stepped on toes, I apologize.

 

I do have a question about your macroevolution fable comment though. I'm assuming that you don't believe in any kind of "evolution" of one species to another. And I further assume that you don't believe there is any evidence at all for it. So how do we explain the 10,000 species of birds, the 6,000 species of reptiles, the 5,000 species of amphibians, and the 5,000 species of mammals that exist today? And that doesn't even mention the hundreds of thousands of species of insects (nearing a million). Unless we go with a local flood or Noah having 50,000+ animals on the ark and a couple million bugs, then we have to have some kind of inter-species change occurring over the last 4,500 years or so. What is *your* proposed solution to this delimma?

 

However, evolutionists expected otherwise, and textbooks used in our educational systems around the world still conclusively teach otherwise. The "straw man" of which you speak is not what I said, but evolutionists and books that teach a foundational lie as established fact to trusting students.

Evolution is proposed as an explanation of the fossil record. So has a flood. But the fossils themselves don't prove either. One could say they "indicate" it, but it isn't proof. And that was the only point that I was trying to make. So I personally would not make the case that evolution isn't true because the fossils don't prove it. As your quotes show, even the evolution experts are not making that claim, so disproving it doesn't address why they DO believe in evolution. You present, starting with your title, that the fossil record is evidence for either creation or evolution and then go on to show how it doesn't prove evolution. The implication then is that creation must be true. I just didn't find the argument as logical and convincing as your "Science, the Universe, and Miracles of Jesus Christ" piece. Had I been writing the piece, I'd concentrate on how fossils don't prove anything, but can be interpreted different ways. I'd then give some examples showing how even the evolution experts recognize that the gaps seem to indicate something else. But I'd shy away with the inference that they believe otherwise or have no other reason to believe in evolution or that because *this* doesn't prove evolution then some form of creation is true by default. It gets away from starting out by claiming that evolutionists believe X and then showing over and over and over that they don't. But that's just my two cents. And, as unsolicited advice, I'm not going the be shocked if it isn't taken. :)

[Rory Roybal]

Daniel said:

Rory Roybal said:

Just so, it is simply a false dichotomy to suggest that the text clearly says whatever your favored interpretation is. From previous posts on this thread to me and others, you clearly have a position you believe in, and consistently attempt to promote or defend it, so let's not pretend you are more objective than others, or have more willingness to find the truth, gentleness or respect than myself or others.

Of course I have my own beliefs. But the difference is that I'm not suggesting that it so clearly says what I think it does that if you don't agree with me, you are just looking for a reason to doubt God. I *am* more objective because I don't take it as a personal attack against either me OR God should someone disagree with my understanding.

Whether or not you are looking for a reason to doubt God or not only He knows for certain. What I do know is that the Bible's words are very specific, and that Jesus Christ personally treated them that way, often basing their meaning on the slightest verb tense or mood. While not everything in God's Word is obvious, some areas are so clear and repeated that one has to do significant linguistic gymnastics to evade their obvious meaning, such as a global flood which we and others here previously discussed.

You are very clever with words, arguments, and claims to objectivity, but only God is truly objective, and when one openly and consistently disagrees with His Word he becomes less objective, regardless of how he thinks or feels about himself. I don't claim to be objective, but please pardon me if I question your superior objectivity based on your clearly established 'skeptical' approach to God's Word in favor of men's words. Only God is able to judge this accurately, and it won't be according to your formulaic approach or mine.

 As far as evidence I presented, it is not just from a single lady that of course will be singled out and discredited as much as possible from those who don't like what she discovered, but from recognized pro-evolution experts in their field. From their own statements, this lady and others with her had no intent in furthering young earth creation positions though they recognized their discoveries would do so. Since you bring up this lady in isolation of other evidence presented and not evidence in this area as a whole from a number of sources, it weakens your case, including your objections to the Bible account of the Genesis Flood and your objection to a straightforward reading of the Bible in general.

I realize that she had no goal of furthering YEC positions. The fact that it did isn't the point. The fact is that she took took bones that had been handled and contaminated and then "de-mineralized" them and it was presented as if mineralized fossils can have soft tissue in them. Maybe she's right. I don't know. The point is not that she's wrong and you are presenting something that is untrue. The point is that until this can be verified by others that it is a very unproven and controversial thing and not a good argument to use against evolution. Your other piece that you wrote that talked about things like life not coming from non-life and such was a much stronger argument. The huge developmental gaps in the fossil record is another one. A lot of the ID arguments are very strong as well. Compared to that kind of argument, this one is a weak link in the chain and I thought the piece would be better off without using it as a proof against evolution. If anything, it challenges how fossils form, not any kind of process of change between them.

In the opening abstract of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues remarked:

"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience (2005, 307:1952, parenthetical item in orig.)."

and ...

“However, we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality.... This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity” (307:1955).

There were multiple eyewitnesses to the above event, recognized professionals in their field. Schweitzer and her colleagues also included over 20 microscopic images of the soft tissue that was recovered from the dinosaur bone. Considering the evidence as a whole, I'm not sure what reasonable basis you have for questioning their findings based on the skeptic's typical rallying cry of contamination.

Also, while focused on casting doubt on this particular discovery, you ignore similar discoveries from other scientists mentioned in the article, that corroborate such amazing findings. The article challenges *when* supposedly ancient fossils were formed, not just the process by which they were formed, which you surprisingly seem to overlook, and which is intentionally not addressed in my other articles you mention. Each article has a specific purpose and its own challenges, and while I don't necessarily disagree with you about relative strength of arguments in the different articles, I still believe evidence in the recent 'fossils' article is very strong, at least worth serious consideration by 'objective' readers.

Earlier, you said:

"Your piece is going to be convincing to the already convinced."

However, your assumption is false. I have received a number of responses from both Christians and non-Christians who claimed to be helped and their minds changed by this article, and overall feedback has been extremely positive. Scientists whose names you would recognize also reviewed and provided very positive feedback for these articles. I say this not to promote myself at all, but just to let you know there are many who don't see things as you do. Few hardened skeptics will be convinced by any amount of information, any more than seed on rocky ground is likely to produce a bumper crop. If God can use my feeble attempts to edify any skeptics and draw them closer to God I am very thankful, but often more information is often not the problem for such people, as I explain in my Bible-based ID article.

I think you have a pretty good idea what my creation beliefs are from previous discussions, and I think I have a pretty good idea what yours are. Tangible evidence for the macroevolution fable has been lacking for many years, and what was expected to be found to substantiate it has fundamentally changed only because the evidence was wanting.

This topic was so old, I don't really remember anything you've previously discussed. So it isn't like I'm picking on you because I disagree with you. My comments were limited to this single article about how fossils don't prove evolution. I agree with that premise. I don't believe in evolution as you've defined it (basically molecules to man), and I also don't believe that the fossil record is proof for it. So I was just trying to help you in making the strongest possible case for that assertion. If I stepped on toes, I apologize.

Assuming you are trying to help, a very sincere thank you. I am considering your input, and if I believe I can improve the article by your suggestions, I will certainly do so.

 I do have a question about your macroevolution fable comment though. I'm assuming that you don't believe in any kind of "evolution" of one species to another. And I further assume that you don't believe there is any evidence at all for it. So how do we explain the 10,000 species of birds, the 6,000 species of reptiles, the 5,000 species of amphibians, and the 5,000 species of mammals that exist today? And that doesn't even mention the hundreds of thousands of species of insects (nearing a million). Unless we go with a local flood or Noah having 50,000+ animals on the ark and a couple million bugs, then we have to have some kind of inter-species change occurring over the last 4,500 years or so. What is *your* proposed solution to this delimma?

A helpful article to answer this may be found at:

Speciation and the Animals on the Ark

... especially noting the section 'Millions of Species in a Few Hundred Years?' and beyond.

People may speculate and critique this position, but objective evidence behind such critiques is certainly not definitive, so alone cannot logically refute significant and straightforward Biblical, historical and empirical scientific evidence for a young Earth position. I'm not saying that a young Earth position can be definitely proven or disproven, only that Bible, historical and scientific evidence better fits a young Earth model (please see my original and previous posts on this thread).

However, evolutionists expected otherwise, and textbooks used in our educational systems around the world still conclusively teach otherwise. The "straw man" of which you speak is not what I said, but evolutionists and books that teach a foundational lie as established fact to trusting students.

Evolution is proposed as an explanation of the fossil record. So has a flood. But the fossils themselves don't prove either. One could say they "indicate" it, but it isn't proof. And that was the only point that I was trying to make. So I personally would not make the case that evolution isn't true because the fossils don't prove it. As your quotes show, even the evolution experts are not making that claim, so disproving it doesn't address why they DO believe in evolution. You present, starting with your title, that the fossil record is evidence for either creation or evolution and then go on to show how it doesn't prove evolution. The implication then is that creation must be true. I just didn't find the argument as logical and convincing as your "Science, the Universe, and Miracles of Jesus Christ" piece. Had I been writing the piece, I'd concentrate on how fossils don't prove anything, but can be interpreted different ways. I'd then give some examples showing how even the evolution experts recognize that the gaps seem to indicate something else. But I'd shy away with the inference that they believe otherwise or have no other reason to believe in evolution or that because *this* doesn't prove evolution then some form of creation is true by default. It gets away from starting out by claiming that evolutionists believe X and then showing over and over and over that they don't. But that's just my two cents. And, as unsolicited advice, I'm not going the be shocked if it isn't taken. :)

Professional evolutionists generally agree that the fossil record does not prove evolution, but are divided into two major camps after their leaders Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. These camps are often at bitter odds with each other when not united against creation. The Dawkins camp believes that it is impossible that evolution occurred quickly between long periods of stasis (which would be somewhat indistinguishable from a genetic 'miracle'), while the Gould camp believes that evolution did not happen slowly and gradually (based on the lack of fossil evidence that would reveal it). Ironically, both camps are right, in that evolution could not have happened slowly and gradually because if it did fossil evidence would show it, and evolution could not have happened quickly because this would be the equivalent of a genetic 'miracle'. If one combines these primary arguments of evolutionary camps, one may come to the correct conclusion that evolution did not happen at all.

You may not personally make the case that evolution isn't true because the fossils don't prove it, but textbooks around the world make the case that evolution *is* true because the fossils prove it, and this foundational lie needs to be exposed. As you acknowledge and quotes show, many professional evolution 'experts' have been forced to acknowledge the failure of the fossil record to support evolution as they had previously and fully expected, but this important failure and turnaround has not been generally exposed to the public, and they are emphatically taught a lie to the contrary.

It is not just lack of transitional forms in the fossil record worldwide that better fits a recent creation and global flood model, but modern-day discoveries of the recent age of those fossils from a variety of sources, as well as other powerful evidence mentioned in the article.

Again, thanks for your consideration and suggestions. If you or anyone write (or better yet, if everyone writes) articles that glorify God more and edify others better from His perspective, I will certainly rejoice =)

[Bit Brush]

Daniel, this thread is wonderful. From what I've read of it , the most basic conclusion is a young earth.

[Daniel]

Glad you found someone to agree with you, Bit.  I'd actually forgotten about Rory and his "you're just looking for reasons to doubt God" arguments. And I agree that if you eliminate all the evidence and interpretations to the contrary, a young earth IS "the most basic conclusion".  I just don't believe that one can continue to hold to that once ALL the evidence is honestly examined.  To me, one is either looking objectively for truth or is starting with a belief and only looking at and accepting the verses and interpretations and evidences and sources that support it.  It's a bad way to do theology in my mind.

Dave said he might start up a topic on dating methods this next week.  Perhaps we can get into it more there.