Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.

Why Six Days?

Sunday, June 20, 2010 | Comments (38)

First, listen to this 9-minute clip:

Launch Player  |  Download  |  Full Sermon

Here's the topic for today's discussion:

According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days’ time and rested on the seventh day. But why six days? Not because he needed that much time to create, and certainly not because He needed to rest on the seventh. Rather, He was establishing a pattern for the cycle of work and rest—a permanent pattern for the good of humanity.

That pattern is reflected in the calendar the entire world depends on to measure time. There is no cosmic reason, no philosophical reason, no mathematical reason, and no scientific reason for seven-day weeks. There is only one reason: God. He established that order in Genesis.

Every week we go through a cycle that God established as a perpetual reminder that He created the world in six days. The seventh day is a memorial to His completed creation.

To reject a literal, six-day interpretation is to confound that memorial. Furthermore, it is a denial of the completeness of God’s creation. How? If everything evolved from nothing, or if creation was spread over eons of time, then there was no seventh day. So, according to evolution, creation is not only incomplete, it’s going on right now! John explains . . .

Now that you’ve heard John’s case—if you don’t agree—how do you explain six days?


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Matt Tocco  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 5:29 AM

This is an effort to try to understand on my part.

The Bible says that to God one day is like a thousand and that we're created in His image (not identical). God's "day" is relative to eternity while we, as humans on the earth, have a day relative to a week, or a year, or our earthly lifetime. It seems to me that it wouldn't be contradictory to assume that the Bible is still literally correct regarding creation without us thinking in terms of our own seven-day week. Couldn't our day be a scaled down version, relative to where we're at in our existence, as compared to God's?

The most difficult thing I have to explain to anyone when confronted regarding my faith is "Where did the dinosaurs come from?". That's because I'm still confused about why the dinosaur bones and or fossils exist at all. If "science" can accurately prove (And I don't know if they actually can or not) the age of bones and fossils it seems possible that God's creation day is longer, relatively speaking, than our earthly day. This is not advocating evolution. Just that it could have taken more than a human day for God to set things up the way He wanted them, (including us finding bones, fossils and crude oil) yet at the same time He could still refer to it as a day.

Hopefully someone can help.

#2  Posted by Gabriel Powell  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 6:58 AM

Matt, thanks for commenting!

2 Peter 3:8 is what you are referring to, and it is a very important passage. However it is quite unrelated to the question of creation. In the context the meaning of the verse is simply "the Lord is patient." Peter is not giving a dating chart for God's time vs. our time. If I remember right this may have been a well known phrase during that period (though don't quote me on that). In verse 10 of that passage Peter says, "the day of the Lord will come..." Is that an actual day of the Lord, a thousand years of the Lord, or a lengthy period of time of the Lord? There are very good reasons to prevent verse 8 from encroaching on verse 10; and there are many more reasons to prevent verse 8 from becoming a commentary on Genesis 1.

In fact I don't know that anyone has ever taken that verse ultra literally to say that the six days were actually six thousand years. Usually that verse is arbitrarily imported into Genesis 1 (and not any other passage) to support the theory that Genesis 1 can't mean what it says.

However even those who do that are inconsistent in that God refers to days all over Scripture in a number of different ways. If 2 Peter 3:8 is going to be imported to Genesis 1, it must be imported to every other use of day.

Regarding the dinosaurs, the answer is pretty simple: God created the dinosaurs, and since Scripture is quite clear in its teaching about creation, our modern dating methods must be wrong. There have been many who have demonstrated the error of dating biological materials back millions of years. I suspect the ICR website would have some resources on that.

Have a blessed Lord's Day!

#3  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 7:23 AM

I agree with Douglass Grogg in previous blog, that this issue is a matter of life and death.

Can you be a Christian and disagree with Christ, who confirms the historicity of the Genesis account?

The clear answer is NO. You must agree, because Christ is the one and only truth. And because we love our savior, we have no problem in believing the creation account. Everything created fully matured in 6 literal days.

The bible does NOT in any way teach evolution (as molecule to man). It is a lie.

You must deliberately change the clear testimony of God in order to make it fit such teaching. But in doing so, you are making Gods testimony to a lie, and you will be held responsible for calling the Holy God a liar.

But does that really mean you are on the brink of destruction, if you believe in evolution? Well I’m not God, but I can see some very clear warnings everywhere in the bible. Ex. Revelation 22:18-19

Jesus never compromised.

Actually my heart and knees shivers at the bare thought, so I must ask what you wise guys think the bible says about that?

#4  Posted by Tal Bartelle  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 3:02 PM

The very first thing God wanted us to know is that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. God’s first act of creation was the concept of “time”. Light and darkness, day and night, “and the evening and the morning were the first day”, a 24 hour day, or one rotation of the earth around its axis.

Dinosaurs are members of the reptile family, and a lot of species of reptiles never stop growing. During the time of Dinosaurs, before the “flood”, as you remember, humans and animals lived almost ten times longer than we do today. Adam lived to be 930. Noah died at the ripe old age of 950. Methuselah lived to be 969 years of age. So, imagine a 600 year old reptile and how big it would be.

Trying to get scientific consensus on accurate and fool-proof methods for measuring the age of the earth and other objects has been problematic. Depending on the outcome one wanted, one would choose a method that would support it. To learn about the science that exposes the old-earth myth, please follow this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/radiometric-dating

Remember: Creation was started by God, Science was started by man and twisting God’s word was started by Satan.

#5  Posted by Peter Heffner  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 7:13 PM

This whole series is truly amazing. How glorified God is through his works of creation!

#6  Posted by Matt Tocco  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 9:00 PM

I agree with the last comment that the series is great.

And, the day / night reasoning makes sense and can be used for explaining my belief in the literal interpretation of creation relating to how we view a day. I should have seen that myself but I didn't.

The dinosaur thing is still a dilemma for me. I know that science is, whether admitted or not, the studying of God's creation. However I can't just say that God created everything so He created the dinosaurs without getting back a "why?" or "for what purpose?". I will try to find the ICR website (whatever that is).

Also I'm afraid that if I try to say that dinosaurs are old lizards that kept growing, the come back might be that I'm agreeing with the evolution religion in that somehow lizards grew into monsters indistinguishable from other lizards in size and shape (or they evolved into something different). I will check out answeringenesis.org to see what I can find there.

Thank You!

#7  Posted by Garrett League  |  Sunday, June 20, 2010at 9:02 PM

#1 Matt Tocco:

"It seems to me that it wouldn't be contradictory to assume that the Bible is still literally correct regarding creation without us thinking in terms of our own seven-day week. Couldn't our day be a scaled down version, relative to where we're at in our existence, as compared to God's?"

Sure, some people have interpreted the 6 days not as 6, 24 hr solar days but as 6 of "God's days." This option is taken, among other reasons, because there was no sun until the fourth day and physical light and a rotating earth without the sun is a bit awkward. But given all the evidence it's pretty clear that the days were intended, and understood by the original audience, to be normal 24hr days. That's always been the best understanding. Using numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd day) and the phrase "evening and morning," along with other O.T. and N.T. references, make it pretty clear that 24hr days were in mind.

"The most difficult thing I have to explain to anyone when confronted regarding my faith is 'Where did the dinosaurs come from?'. That's because I'm still confused about why the dinosaur bones and or fossils exist at all."

Young earth creationists (like Gabriel and Tal here) have to say that dinosaurs were made on day 6, along with humans and all other basic "kinds" of land animals. I see 2 problems with this position; there is no evidence for it and there is a ton against it. So what we have to ask is, does the bible force us to make this claim? I don't think so and I'll explain in my response to the two other comments.

"If "science" can accurately prove (And I don't know if they actually can or not) the age of bones and fossils it seems possible that God's creation day is longer, relatively speaking, than our earthly day. This is not advocating evolution. Just that it could have taken more than a human day for God to set things up the way He wanted them, (including us finding bones, fossils and crude oil) yet at the same time He could still refer to it as a day."

The age of the fossils is just one of many problems that a young earth view presents. It's also the location and order of the fossils. This is known as faunal succession, and it's a big problem for those who claim that all or most fossils (not just dinosaur ones) were formed in a single flood event. Not only are no dinosaur fossils out of place in the fossil record (they always occur in rocks of certain ages), but none are found with human fossils, or any other modern creatures for that matter. So I partly agree with your view. God was preparing the world for his image bearers and I agree that that took a while. But I don't think that necessitates taking the days as long ages if you understand the days as concerning God bringing order and function to the cosmos rather than God making material things. See the John Walton lecture here: http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/Sci_Sym.swf

#2 Gabriel: "God created the dinosaurs, and since Scripture is quite clear in its teaching about creation, our modern dating methods must be wrong."

Scripture is pretty clear about God knitting us in our mother's wombs, so modern developmental biology must be wrong. Why, Gabriel, if, as you say, Genesis is not giving a competing scientific explanation for creation (impossible on your terms) then why do you infer that all valid dating methods (there are tons and yes, they DO give a consistent date for the age of the earth!) are false? Some facile ICR/AiG article debunking "assumptions" of modern dating methods won't do. Virtually no scientists find there arguments persuasive. Why? Because they uncalled for and scientifically unpersuasive. Gabriel, Tal, and Matt, check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc&feature=related

#4 Tal: "Dinosaurs are members of the reptile family, and a lot of species of reptiles never stop growing. During the time of Dinosaurs, before the “flood”, as you remember, humans and animals lived almost ten times longer than we do today. Adam lived to be 930. Noah died at the ripe old age of 950. Methuselah lived to be 969 years of age. So, imagine a 600 year old reptile and how big it would be."

Did you get this material from Kent Hovind? Just curious. If so, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpRjN5kagoQ

First, take modern reptiles and let them live a million years and you won't get a dinosaur. Guarantee it.

Second, if dinosaurs and humans were buried in the same flood, then why are there fossils never found together? Why are dinosaur fossils never found out of place, for instance, in recent rock layers?

"Trying to get scientific consensus on accurate and fool-proof methods for measuring the age of the earth and other objects has been problematic. Depending on the outcome one wanted, one would choose a method that would support it."

That is absolutely not true. The consensus is very strong. Your accusing scientists of dishonesty. That is a serious charge. Watch this, and tell me where he's wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc&feature=related. I know you mean well, but the sheer audacity of claiming the earth is only 6,000 years old is astounding. You need some SERIOUS scientific evidence for that, and no YEC has come even close.

#8  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 12:38 AM

Evolution (as molecule to man) is a lie.

It is not taught by God, but is contrary to the testimony of God.

All lies originate from the father of all lies.

How do you recognize it?

John MacArthur has this sermon that deals with that topic:

Understanding the Seducing Spirit

https://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/54-29_Understanding-the-Seducing-Spirit?q=54+29

#9  Posted by Sam McCloud  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 1:05 AM

If anyone is ever considering the possibility of the six 24 hour periods actually being representative of much longer periods of time then I think it should be noted that the Bible when speaking of long periods of time or large numbers does indeed state many days rather than being confusing by using the number one to represent one thousand or one million, etc. The very fact that thousand years is stated in the following verse as it is should be considered:

--------------------------------------

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

--------------------------------------

I believe the purpose of this verse is to state that time is no issue to God; that he dwells in eternity and is not confined in any way by the constraints of time, not so we can assume at our convenience when God really means to represent a thousand years with a day in the actual wording of the text. It seems to me that God could simply have stated in the Genesis account if it really took millions of years for each day for example, that he could have simply said "over the first period of many thousand years, God accomplished the following tasks" for example.

I think that we can take the example of Jesus rebuking wind and sea and it instantly obeying, and the example of his walking on water (think about the water becoming solid with each footstep), and the examples of his command over disease, blindness, demonic power, resurrection etc.; all these things were instantly affected and beneficially altered by the power of the Word of Christ. There is the instance of his cursing the fig tree and making it wither too, which reminds me of when God cursed the ground because of man's sin. When he uttered the command, things happened instantly; he broke bread and fish and produced more of each outside of scientific explanation. There is just no worthy reason to believe that the creation account did not happen exactly as it is stated in scripture, especially when considering these truths.

-----------------------------------------------------------

John 11:38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it.

John 11:39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.”

John 11:40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”

John 11:41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.

John 11:42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.”

John 11:43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.”

John 11:44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

#10  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 3:02 AM

#7 Garrett League

It is not possible to apply science to the age of the earth, because God created everything fully mature.

Various Radio Isotope dating techniques do all rely on the assumption that you know the start amount of daughter isotopes, but actually we don't. It has been demonstrated in numerous reports that the measured ages contradicts that assumption.

But God gave us a reliable instrument, His Word.

Besides that, use your eyes:

Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

What is your comment on this?

#11  Posted by Mary Kidwell  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 4:53 AM

Matt,

The ICR (Institute of Creation Research) is icr.org. ICR and Answers in Genesis have several articles on dinosaurs.

There are many "scientific" problems with evolution and the scientists on these sites will help you understand them. They also discuss the more important theological problems with evolution. If you have not read Fred Butler's comment #61 on "Creation: A Second Class Doctrine" on GTY's blog, please do. He also gives the link to his blog in which he describes the incompatibility between evolution and the character and plan of our loving sovereign God. Please take time to read it.

Those who try to merge a belief in the Bible with evolution do not understand how they are contradicting the whole of scripture and the character and plan of God. There are many who will try to have you doubt what scripture clearly says, in order to agree with the latest scientific thought. Remember that God's word is the light for our path (Psalm 119:5).

#12  Posted by Matt Tocco  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 5:48 AM

Garrett,

I'll check out all of the resources you suggested over the next few days (have to support the family - 5 kids). And, thank you for the very helpful answers. My intent is to learn so I have the ability to respond to some of the questions that have been posed to me in the past in a way that could at least be accepted as a possibility by someone who apposes the Christian view.

For clarification, you're suggesting, with regard to God's creation, that matter or the material universe could have been created over an extended period of time but the setup of our temporary home here on earth or "God bringing order and function to the cosmos" was a process that we can measure by how we understand a day? If I have that right from what you've written (and I admittedly don't always get it right), that would allow an explanation for the scientific dating process being somewhat accurate. However that doesn't give me the explanation of why we find fossils at all. Why would they even be there for us to find?

Thank you all again and, God willing, I will check out all of the resources you've all suggested.

#13  Posted by Landon Lehman  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 5:54 AM

"Not only are no dinosaur fossils out of place in the fossil record (they always occur in rocks of certain ages), but none are found with human fossils, or any other modern creatures for that matter."

This is a major problem for the YEC view.

#14  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 6:54 AM

Garret writes,

Young earth creationists (like Gabriel and Tal here) have to say that dinosaurs were made on day 6, along with humans and all other basic "kinds" of land animals. I see 2 problems with this position; there is no evidence for it and there is a ton against it. So what we have to ask is, does the bible force us to make this claim? I don't think so and I'll explain in my response to the two other comments.

and Landon write,

"Not only are no dinosaur fossils out of place in the fossil record (they always occur in rocks of certain ages), but none are found with human fossils, or any other modern creatures for that matter." This is a major problem for the YEC view.

Just so Landon knows, Garrett raised this similar argument about a month or more ago under another blog post here. A greater problem for old earthers in regards to dinosaurs, however, is the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur bone, found by evolutionary paleontologists that contained red blood cells and proteins can be sequenced out of it. The initial report can be found here regarding hadrosaurs: http://www.physorg.com/news160320581.html

I raised this dilemma with Garrett, who in response linked us to a CBS video report from last November and suggested that what they reported debunked the so-called "soft tissue" find in the T-rex bone. He argued something like, "it wasn't 'soft' until after it was soaked in acid!" But if one actually watches the video, this is not what happened at all. I blogged a little bit more about the philosophical implications of these findings at my blog: http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2010/05/lewontin-moment.html I also linked the CBS video in question which was still available as of this writing. At any rate, Jack Horner is so convinced his team will find more dinosaur soft tissue with viable DNA and protein for extraction, that he has his field teams wear surgical gloves. So the question: Why was there unfossilized red blood cells found in TWO dinosaur samples 70 to 80 million years of age? How did the tissue remain "soft" and viable for 70 to 80 million years. Just so that we understand the amount of time we are talking about that is a 70 followed by 6 zeros.

Mary in #11 writes,

They also discuss the more important theological problems with evolution.

Phil Johnson has a good post today discussing these very things. See here: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/trojan-horse.html

#15  Posted by Anthony Smith  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 7:24 AM

The article gives the impression that the seven-day week has been a near-universal feature of human civilizations. Is there any evidence for that? The Wikipedia article on "Week" lists various cultures that had a 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 8-, 9- or 10-day week: what is the "cosmic ... philosophical ... mathematical [or] scientific reason" for those lengths of week?

Given that the Egyptians had a ten-day week, and the Israelites were subject to hard labour, it is unlikely that they would have been able to preserve a seven-day week during their time of servitude (even if you assume - yes, assume - that they kept a seven-day week prior to their time in Egypt). So it is no surprise that God had to [re-]introduce them to the idea of a seven-day week in Exodus 16.

Surely a sufficient reason for God's people keeping a seven-day week is that he commanded them to keep a seven-day week?

Anthony

#16  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 7:52 AM

Those who embrace a philosophy whereby an old earth is not only possible but plausible remind me of the so-called religious governing crowd when Jesus cleared the temple of the perversions in which they were participating (John 2:13-17). These folks had a false piety that drove their actions. They were consumed by the minutia of their deeds but lacked any love for the Father...or His Icon (Jesus). In fact, Jesus would say that these folks actually hated the Father and He alike (John 15:23). They, the Jews in the story, had a successful system working...they did not need Jesus coming along upsetting their religious heritage. Therefore, they ousted Him for the choice of tradition and ultimately chose a murderer over the Savior.

The similarity of chosing substance over essence comes in view, in my opinion, with the folks who see TE as an option, evolution as plausible, deconstruction of the bible as necessary, ridicule of those who actually believe what God said in plain terms as being infantile, and/or God being relegated to an Old Testament figment of an ancient tribe of wandering people acceptible. The Jews chose their religious practices over God Himself who was standing in their midst. These New Atheists have chosen science over revelation...and their science in this case has neither been validated nor established as truth, rather only theory that supports their perverted acts of suppressing the truth.

Christians need not be intimidated by such overtly anti-God maneuvers. We must position ourselve as Jesus did with a holy zeal for our Father:

For zeal for your house has consumed me,

and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me (Psalm 69:9).

#17  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 8:09 AM

#13 How many dead horses would you expect to find at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean today?

The fossil record is more about biotopes and animals struggling to escape to higher grounds during the flood.

There are many finds of dinosaur footprints in much lower layers. Don’t they give some clue about that dinosaurs were there?

Using these kinds of arguments is futile. The point with the Flood is a very sad story about a whole world rebelling against God.

#18  Posted by Landon Lehman  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 9:12 AM

Fred,

You didn't give any creationist explantion for the order in the fossil record. Instead, you try to shift the focus on a non-issue. Here is a link to a more recent paper about the "soft tissue":

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

from the discussion section of the paper....

"When biofilms coat a substrate, and that substrate is subsequently removed, the biofilm will retain much of the original morphology. This can explain the quantity and similarity of structures found in fossil bone and indicates that these structures are unlikely to be preserved dinosaurian tissues but the product of common bacterial activities."

#19  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 9:36 AM

Landon,

That article represents old data. 2008 being the published date. The biofilm argument was one of the original dismissal explanations that Mary Schweitzer wanted to answer and the reason why she and her team at NCSU took the extra great pains with the hadarosaur specimen. (That is TWO specimens now). If you took the time to read the article I linked, it goes into some detail as to how they eliminated the "biofilm" argument. The CBS video also mentions the biofilm argument. Additionally, Horner has written a book on the subject called "How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction doesn't have to be forever" in which he goes into some detail as to why that argument is faulty.

The sortation of fossils is an interpretive issue, and one's view of geology determines how one interprets the evidence. Physical, biological evidence that DNA and protein can be sequenced, on the other hand, is something that is extremely problematic for a long age view that places dinosaurs in earth's history some 60 plus million years ago.

#20  Posted by Doug Johnson  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 9:51 AM

This is all quite interesting but I have to admit much is way over my head. I have no problem with the creation story in Genesis being literal. But lately I seem to have run into many who believe that Hugh Ross teaches the truth with his old earth views. They rely heavily on his scientific background and claim that he's the most knowledgeable astrophysicist in the world so (they say) he must be the most accurate. Has anyone dealt with his arguments?

#21  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 9:59 AM

Doug writes,

Has anyone dealt with his arguments?

Yes. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has written a near 400 plus page book interacting with his argumentation:

https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=331&osCsid=2ad3a1fb8d128c65da34d14450d03745

Also, go to www.creation.com, do a search and there are a number of articles.

A more recent one is by Todd Wood, who goes into details as to the problems with RTB's views of Neanderthals. (or Neandertals, whatever)

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertals-in-bizarro-world.html

#22  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 10:06 AM

Hi Folks: Just a note for Matt Tocco- Read Fred Butler's blog of June 15th, under "Theistic Evolution and flying frogs", it gives the basis for evolutionary thinking. You will note that these notable gentlemen said "inspite of" a number of times. What followed is quite telling. Do you see it? They don't care what the "evidence" says, or the way that a common sense look tells them they should interpret the data which they see-- it must be reinterpreted to conform to a completely materialist world-view. Because that is what they are committed to.

#23  Posted by Paul Tucker  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 10:45 AM

Fred thanks for the web links

#24  Posted by Keith Farmer  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 3:45 PM

"Hi Folks: Just a note for Matt Tocco- Read Fred Butler's blog of June 15th, under "Theistic Evolution and flying frogs", it gives the basis for evolutionary thinking. You will note that these notable gentlemen said "inspite of" a number of times. What followed is quite telling. Do you see it? They don't care what the "evidence" says, or the way that a common sense look tells them they should interpret the data which they see-- it must be reinterpreted to conform to a completely materialist world-view. Because that is what they are committed to."

Here is a great bottom shelf (easy to understand) video teaching by Mike Riddle that speaks to the post above:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/four-power-questions/four-power-questions

#25  Posted by Doug Johnson  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 3:51 PM

Fred,

Thanks for the help. This is very helpful. Ordered the book and will review the rest of your recommendations.

#26  Posted by Peter Heffner  |  Monday, June 21, 2010at 7:03 PM

Fred Butler,

Thanks for the links you gave to someone else here! I read them carefully and appreciated them and I am sure other silent readers did, too.

#27  Posted by Garrett League  |  Tuesday, June 22, 2010at 12:24 PM

#10 Rudi: "It is not possible to apply science to the age of the earth, because God created everything fully mature."

Here's why the appearance of age argument is problematic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEOdnckKCQ

"Various Radio Isotope dating techniques do all rely on the assumption that you know the start amount of daughter isotopes, but actually we don't."

That's really not a problem. Did you watch this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc&feature=related

"Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

What is your comment on this?"

First, I study biology, not geology. So if you want a fully informed opinion from an expert, I can't help you. But here's a try: seems to me like the point of the article is summed up by "How could the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had just been deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million years after deposition?" I think this is a pretty good response: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html

#12 Matt Tocco: "For clarification, you're suggesting, with regard to God's creation, that matter or the material universe could have been created over an extended period of time but the setup of our temporary home here on earth or "God bringing order and function to the cosmos" was a process that we can measure by how we understand a day?"

I think you're on the right track. The lecture I linked you to should give further clarification.

"If I have that right from what you've written (and I admittedly don't always get it right), that would allow an explanation for the scientific dating process being somewhat accurate."

Yes, I believe so.

"However that doesn't give me the explanation of why we find fossils at all. Why would they even be there for us to find?"

Because they died and were fossilized before God created humans. For a full explanation that may put a framework on my conclusions, check out this old playlist I made on YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0&feature=PlayList&p=528D3346AB7E93A8&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=1

Fred #14: "A greater problem for old earthers in regards to dinosaurs, however, is the discovery of unfossilized dinosaur bone, found by evolutionary paleontologists that contained red blood cells and proteins can be sequenced out of it. The initial report can be found here regarding hadrosaurs: http://www.physorg.com/news160320581.html"

Why have none of the researchers reached your conclusion Fred, namely, that rare, partially un-fossilized dinosaur bones are evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old? You really think that's the most parsimonious rendering of those findings, considering all other relevant data in geology/paleontology? Or, are you using a fascinating exception to the rule to substantiate what you've already concluded, ignoring all other lines of evidence that scientists must deal with? It's not like those other lines can simply be brushed aside by a few extra-ordinary finds; they still must be dealt with. The geologic column is here to stay and the problem with your conclusion is that it cannot account for a million other facts and it creates for more problems that it solves.

"I raised this dilemma with Garrett, who in response linked us to a CBS video report from last November and suggested that what they reported debunked the so-called "soft tissue" find in the T-rex bone. He argued something like, "it wasn't 'soft' until after it was soaked in acid!" But if one actually watches the video, this is not what happened at all."

First, just out of curiosity, how is it that you ignore everything in the video that supports dinosaur/bird evolution while grasping to the one part that seems to support your position. Seems like you pick and choose based on a priori conclusions. After all, a.a. sequences from preserved T-rex proteins lead them to conclude "T. rex, chickens and ostriches are evolutionary siblings, all descended from a single unidentified predecessor. Alligator collagen is more distantly related, and lizard collagen is more distantly related still." See http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2008/11/26/t-rex-the-other-white-meat/

Second, let me clarify what I was trying to say (I've already done so in a past post, I just can't find it). Many creationists say something like this: "fresh dinosaur bones have been found, with soft tissue, blood and everything!" This, in my mind, can give a false impression, as if the researchers found a bone and blood that looks as if it had began to decay last week. So I was trying to say, "Hold on, you do realize that an acid treatment was needed to recover the soft tissue inside the bone? It's not like they found fresh dino meat!" I wasn't denying the presence of soft tissue, only that it took treatment to give recover the tissue in the bone. If I merely said "it wasn't soft until after acid treatment" then I can definitely see how that is misleading. I should have said "the fossilized bone had to first be dissolved away to reveal the inner, un-fossilized soft tissue fragments." I hope that clarifies my statement. I wasn't trying to debunk, just to clarify potential misunderstandings.

#18 Landon, #19 Fred: "That article represents old data. 2008 being the published date."

Fred is right here Landon. Schweitzer et al. were able to confirm there results: "In very exceptional circumstances, remnants of dinosaur soft tissue can be preserved, and a recently published paper in the journal Science throws new support to this controversial hypothesis." See: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2009/05/06/whats-new-about-hadrosaur-goo/ It's not merely bacteria film, but genuine dinosaur soft tissue, which I believe is the consensus now.

But Fred's conclusion is still unwarranted. The best conclusion is that, "In very exceptional circumstances, remnants of dinosaur soft tissue can be preserved." Not, "since soft tissue can't possibly remain preserved for millions of years, dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago." This finding certainly doesn't support the notion that the fossil is less than a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, neither of which has any support anywhere else in any field. He's making a huge leap here. This is the converse accident fallacy. He makes a sweeping generalization based on an exception to the rule. Another example; ask a YEC "how did fresh water fish survive in the flood (presumably mostly salt water)?" and they will respond "well, some fish, like the salmon, can survive in both fresh and salt water, so that's no problem." Of course, the problem with this is that it draws a hasty generalization based on an exception to the rule and makes it the rule; salmon can do it, therefore they all could have done it. Same logic. Some soft tissue is preserved. This is evidence that all those dinosaur bones are not millions of years old and probably none of the others are either. Not hardly.

#28  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Tuesday, June 22, 2010at 3:04 PM

#27 Garrett League, thanks for replying my questions.

The provided answer about folded rock layers are in the category nonsense.

No detailed explanations but just-so-stories.

Solid rock must be heated almost to the point of melting in order to become soft and pliable.

The rock layers show no signs of heating.

The video about the appearance of age:

Giving a philosophical opinion and explaining away Gods testimony is empty words. It can give my opinion too, but that will also be emty words against Gods testimony.

The video link about Radio Dating, shows how it is suppose to work, but “forgets” to tell about all the reported cases where it fails.

Just one example here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/how-old-is-the-earth

But I do realize it is futile to argue with scientific arguments.

It saves no one.

The problem is the dead heart. It is an enemy of God, and fights against Him with all means.

Thats why we need salvation. And without that, we are unable to fully trust Gods words - Because true love to Jesus is the gift.

#29  Posted by Tal Bartelle  |  Wednesday, June 23, 2010at 1:54 PM

#6 Matt: ”The dinosaur thing is still a dilemma for me. I know that science is, whether admitted or not, the studying of God's creation. However I can't just say that God created everything so He created the dinosaurs without getting back a "why?" or "for what purpose?". I will try to find the ICR website (whatever that is).”

The reason God made the dinosaur species, a member of the reptile family, is the exact same reason God made any other animal. Perhaps what makes the dinosaur so interesting is the sheer size of some of them. They are really no different than any of the other animal species that have become extinct over time. As a matter of fact, over 900 animal species have died out since the 1500’s. Climate and other environmental changes along with human activity are the leading causes for extinction.

”Also I'm afraid that if I try to say that dinosaurs are old lizards that kept growing, the come back might be that I'm agreeing with the evolution religion in that somehow lizards grew into monsters indistinguishable from other lizards in size and shape (or they evolved into something different). I will check out answeringenesis.org to see what I can find there.”

The only significant thing this particular reptile species did was live on the earth for a almost 2,000 years. As they lived, they just never stopped growing. That’s all. When they died, their bones and fossils were left behind waiting to be discovered, just like any other animal remains. Currently, there are over 170,000 species of reptiles with all different shapes and sizes and some are better able than others to adapt (not evolve) to changing living conditions. I hope this helps.

# 7 Garrett: ”Did you get this material from Kent Hovind? Just curious. If so, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpRjN5kagoQ”

Yes, I enjoy Kent’s teaching. He’s knowledgeable and quite entertaining. I also trust the real scientific contributions at the Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research websites. When you have a moment, try this on for size:

http://www.icr.org/earth-science/

”First, take modern reptiles and let them live a million years and you won't get a dinosaur. Guarantee it.”

You are correct! The dinosaur species died out around 4,000 years ago as a result of the major environmental change on the planet caused by the “Flood”.

”Second, if dinosaurs and humans were buried in the same flood, then why are there fossils never found together? Why are dinosaur fossils never found out of place, for instance, in recent rock layers?”

I’m glad you brought that up. Actually, fossils and the fossil record are actually a good proof of Noah’s Flood. For starters, enjoy these articles:

http://www.icr.org/article/are-fossils-result-noahs-flood/

http://www.icr.org/article/dont-fossils-prove-evolution/

”I know you mean well, but the sheer audacity of claiming the earth is only 6,000 years old is astounding. You need some SERIOUS scientific evidence for that, and no YEC has come even close.”

I am proud to be, as you call it, a YEC. Firstly, the Word of God gave us the numbers and a brain (remember, God spoke creation into existence) in order to calculate the age of HIS creation. Secondly, real science supports a young earth.

Okay, as you wish. Here is some SERIOUS scientific evidence. Just direct your web browser here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

#16 #24 Keith: Nice posts. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation by Mike Riddle.

#31  Posted by Matt Tocco  |  Wednesday, June 23, 2010at 4:08 PM

Soooooo, again, if a non-Christian were to ask me while I'm trying to guide them toward the salvation that God provided for all of us through the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, why do we find dinosaur bones and fossils at all, what do I say? What was, or is their functionality? I assume (perhaps wrongfully so) that they were on this earth during a time of weather and vegetation (old earth theory or interpretation), or were planted in the finished product of earth for man (young earth theory or interpretation) - either way, for what purpose? I need to give at least a plausible explanation to get past doubt and on to the only means to eternal life.

#32  Posted by Tal Bartelle  |  Thursday, June 24, 2010at 9:23 AM

#31 Matt: Soooooo, again, if a non-Christian were to ask me while I'm trying to guide them toward the salvation that God provided for all of us through the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, why do we find dinosaur bones and fossils at all, what do I say? What was, or is their functionality?

I would say something like, “That’s a very good question and I’ll answer it for you completely just as soon as I finish my point about the necessity of Salvation”. I would keep the Gospel message as a separate topic. Then, start back up with the Good News, lead them to repentance of sin and encouraged them, by faith, to put their trust and life in Jesus Christ as Lord.

As you know, Christianity is all about being Christ like. Jesus Christ trusted and obeyed God, even to the point of being crucified, for the sake of our sins. So, if the Word of God is good enough for Christ, it should be good enough for us. We should not make the same mistake that got Adam handed his hat from the Garden of Eden by trusting in human reasoning, that God maybe doesn’t really mean what he says.

Luke 20:21 “And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, we know that you say and teach rightly, and do not accept the person of anyone, but truly teach the way of God.” Now that you have the new believer trusting in God’s Word, you can talk with them about God’s creation and dinosaurs. I’d start right from the beginning of God’s Word, Genesis 1:1-31, showing that animals (and dinosaurs) were created on day six. Go next to Genesis 2 and talk about the Sabbath were God celebrated all that He created, v 1-3, and then how tropical the world was (6,000 years ago), a perfect climate for dinosaurs, v 5-6.

Next, I’d move on to the world-wide flood, Genesis 6-8, and discuss how the world climate and land mass changed, about 4,000 years ago. The tropic like climate was no more and the dinosaurs died out as a result. Dinosaur fossils and the fossil record were pretty much a result of the flood. Learn more about this at http://www.icr.org/article/are-fossils-result-noahs-flood/

In this present world where only evolution is taught in schools and the mainstream media blasts us with documentaries and special reports touting the age of the universe to be billions and billions of years old, it is difficult for someone to quickly accept the reality of a relatively young earth. Evolution is not a fact, just a factoid. (fāk'toid) A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press and publications as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: “The universe is billions of years old”.

Am I getting close to understanding your questions? :)

#33  Posted by Garrett League  |  Thursday, June 24, 2010at 10:23 AM

#29 Tal: "Yes, I enjoy Kent’s teaching. He’s knowledgeable and quite entertaining."

Entertaining? Yes. Knowledgeable? No. Can I be very blunt for a moment? Kent Hovind is an embarrassment to the folks at AIG and ICR, as is Carl Baugh and his ilk. They are pariahs, even in YEC circles. Fred Butler, a regular at this blog and a very intelligent and informed advocate of YEC, lists Hovind and CSE under his "Quack Theology" links at his blog. (See http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/). Take it from Fred and me; avoid Hovind like the plague! Stick to AiG and ICR, which, unlike CSE, can still claim a modicum of respectability and integrity. I cut my teeth as a YEC on Hovind and saw him lecture/debate in person on multiple occasions; he was my hero. Until I found out the hard way that most of his apologetics are considered sub-par, outdated, and even downright dishonest, even by fellow YEC's at AiG. Do yourself a favor and read these articles:

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

and

http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

As for your other articles, I'm not going to read them until you, in your own words, succinctly answer my questions. I galnced at them, and they are YEC 101, not really germane to my questions. Linking me to an AiG/ICR article is not a response, it's a dodge and an excuse for not thinking for yourself. If you were at work or in school, and your skeptical friend asks "If dinos and humans lived together all along, then why are there fossils NEVER found together?" what would you say to them, in addition to recommending AiG/ICR? Don't just throw articles my direction and fool yourself into thinking you've adequately answered my objections.

"Okay, as you wish. Here is some SERIOUS scientific evidence. Just direct your web browser here"

Nothing new under the sun. Most of those arguments are as old as the hills, and have been debunked long ago. This is why I became so disillusioned with YECs; the evidence for a 6,000 year old earth is so scant that they are forced to defend long abandoned canards in order to avoid the obvious, namely, that there IS no good evidence to support scientific creationism. They HAVE to stick to lame arguments, because abandoning them means having nothing to say at all. They should just admit that the earth appears to be 4.5 bya, but God made it look that way via "mature" or "whole" creation, i.e., the appearance of age argument.

#34  Posted by Lois Dimitre  |  Thursday, June 24, 2010at 8:17 PM

Now that you’ve heard John’s case—if you don’t agree—how do you explain six days?

~I've hesitated to respond on this thread as I have no disagreement with God's Word - and in turn, "John's case". However, Tal Bartelle's earlier comment (#4) moved me to share a facet of His miraculous creation yet to be discussed in this series. It relates in particular to the topic of His 24-hr, light/dark cycle He created on "the first day" (Genesis 1:1-5).

I'm speaking specifically of circadian rhythms, expressed in virtually all created organisms: fungi, certain bacterium, plants, animals and humans. These approximate 24-hour cycles exist within the "simplest" (said tongue-in-cheek) unicellular organisms to the 'crown of creation made in God's image' - mankind.

The countless biological processes, functions and behaviors essential to life are divinely regulated by an internal 'clock' which responds primarily to this created light/dark cycle. Understanding the importance of its 'Day 1' creation may help put to rest doubts about plants (Day 3) being created before the sun (Day 4). Further detailed investigation of circadian rhythms will reveal that only in adult organisms are they fully developed. This not only puts a real damper on the evolutionist's theory of 'transitional life forms' between species, but also confirms Scripture's account that Adam and Eve were formed able to function and commune with God indicating they were mature adults (with perhaps only 'apperance of age').

Clearly, the Genesis creation account does not explicitly teach the 'science' of circadian rhythms. However, as Christians we can trust "The Bible to speak accurately on any subject it touches on because God inspired its writing" (quote from J.M.'s sermon: Scripture and Science). Through the accuracy of God's order in creation from Day 1, the observation can be made that a literal 24-hr light/dark cycle was an essential step in His perfect plan of creating living organisms following a pattern of 24-hour days.

As a biochemist, I've always been intrigued by circadian rhythms, in particular the 'chemistry' and 'physiology' behind those found in animals (and further, in man). Continuing research into these cycles have provided clues to disease processes and potential pathways to more efficient drug delivery systems for example, in cancer treatments. It is an exciting field of study.

I won't belabor the subject any further as I could never do the subject justice. But, if anyone is interested I've listed links to just a few articles about these miraculously created 'circadian rhythms'. Some are from 'secular' science websites which give the required 'hat tip' to evolution in their reporting or journal articles. Others are from creation ministry websites. Nonetheless, the science is the same. To God be the Glory!

Circadian Rhythms Fact Sheet - NIGMS

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Publications/Factsheet_CircadianRhythms.htm

How Cells Tell Time

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608182537.htm

The Circadian Clock-controlled Transcriptome of Developing Soybean Seeds

http://plantgenome.scijournals.org/content/3/1/3.full

Monarch Butterfly Antenna: A Hi-Tech Tiny Toolkit

http://www.icr.org/article/monarch-butterfly-antenna-hi-tech-tiny/

The Extra Special Courtship of Horseshoe Crabs

http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9701.html

Circadian Rhythyms in Mammals

http://www.unifr.ch/biochem/index.php?id=99

Squirrels!

http://creation.com/squirrels

Development of Cortisol Circadian Rhythm in Infants

http://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com/article/S0378-3782(03)00074-4/abstract

#35  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Friday, June 25, 2010at 6:16 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#36  Posted by Tal Bartelle  |  Friday, June 25, 2010at 9:30 AM

#34 Lois: circadian rhythms

That is quite fascinating. You have just taken the 24 hour concept of “the first day” to a whole new level. Thank you so very much for your contribution and the related links.

#33 Garrett: Do yourself a favor and read these articles: http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

Perhaps you should have read the article first before espousing it’s virtues. It actually recants it’s prior rants against the CSE regarding the use of the recommended “don’t use arguments”. This is a part of their retraction: “However, we would like readers to know that this article does not accurately reflect the current stance of CSE”.

I also learned from that same website that Darwin, in his book “The Origin of Species” on page 167 said this: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Nothing new under the sun. Most of those arguments are as old as the hills, and have been debunked long ago.”

Would you please point me to a credible source that has long ago debunked the following proofs for a young earth from the AIG website article that I previously suggested: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

7. Many strata re too tightly bent.

8. Biological material decays too fast.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

10. Too much helium in minerals.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

14. History is too short.

Thanks in advance.

#37  Posted by John Ledford  |  Friday, June 25, 2010at 11:58 AM

I'm convinced that J. Mac. is right about a 6 day literal creation, but I'm really hoping he or one of the other gty writers will give some time in this series to talk about what level of separation we should practice with those who believe theistic evolution? We here in the Northern Ky/Cincinnati area are having a really tough time finding a church that embraces the Sovereignty of God in salvation, the Lordship of Christ, expository preaching, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. I would be very grateful for some advice.

#38  Posted by Jorge Alvarado  |  Friday, June 25, 2010at 9:46 PM

to # 7 , Garret

"I know you mean well, but the sheer audacity of claiming the earth is only 6,000 years old is astounding. You need some SERIOUS scientific evidence for that, and no YEC has come even close. "

Hi, Garret. Well, we just have to wait until science advances enough to be able to corroborate what the Bible says.

I'm still not convinced science has proved evolution as fact. Do they still call it the "theory of evolution"?.

#39  Posted by Doug Johnson  |  Saturday, June 26, 2010at 6:24 AM

To $7 Garret,

Garret, by your tone you are clearly wanting and trying to be considerate and polite, and that's appreciated. It is nice to have rational discussion. Your comment brings a question to my mind. It makes me wonder why someone is showing audacity to claim the earth is 6000 years old. To me it seems quite the opposite. It seems that if someone denies the teaching of God's Word in Scripture of a literal creation account that that is what would take audacity. It seems quite reckless to me to question God. Why would you think it's reckless to support what the Bible teaches?