Creation or Evolution 2
From the time that it started becoming popularised that the earth and the cosmos were
billions of years old some Christians have wanted to compromise and somehow add
billions of years into the bible. Realising that this stance makes many statements outside
of Genesis invalid, many have decided to either become atheists or to ignore the resulting
wooliness in their doctrinal beliefs.
Once we realise that evolution is unproven and unprovable, and that the various big bang
theories have big holes in them we can look at what God says in His word in the light of
logic and truth.
Take the word YOM in the bible.
If we ignore the sentence construction and the context in which the word 'yom' is found,
then 'yom' can mean a 24 hour day; or cover a time period like in my
father's day, which tells you when but not how long; or mean a time shorter than 12 hours
(daytime). There is no Hebrew construct where YOM means an eon of time, (ie. millions of
years)! Some people want to ignore the context and the language's rules and have 'YOM'
in Genesis 1 to be longer than 24 hours, perhaps even billions of years.
Others like some theologians in Martin Luther's day think that God being omnipotent
would not need 24 hours to put some trees on a minor planet in a backwater of the
universe and so 'yom' must be less that 24 hours; seconds perhaps! If the context is to be
ignored though all three viewpoint are equally valid, of course!
Since ignoring the context cannot give us a true guide to the length of the days of
Genesis then we must go by context and sentence construction. Given that the days have
divisions of night and day, "mornings and evenings", and are numbered then since these are
all only used with 24 hour days then we have our true answer!
We can see this is the true answer by looking in any Hebrew Lexicon, all of which say that
the first occurance of 'yom' meaning a 24 hour day is Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 5!
Also, in Exodus 20:8-11 God gives the Israelites a command on how they should live each week
and bases this on what He did during the creation week. So if God says that the days
to the Israelites are just like the days in Genesis 1, then these must be
ordinary 24 hour days. See Exodus 20:11...
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but
rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
When we examine verse 11 of Exodus 20, we see that He made the earth and the heaven,
the sea and all that IS in them in those six days. So everything that IS in the earth
at the time of the Exodus, dead or alive, walking or fossilised originated in those
six days of creation in Genesis 1. So all things, whether dogs or dinosaurs, birds or
baboons, ferrets or fish, were made in those 6 literal days. There were no other days
before them because Genesis 1:1-5 Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6-9 tells us that 'Day 1'
to 'Day 6' was 'At the beginning' when God made heaven and earth, etc!
But people have asked questions regarding the information they get from evolution based
TV programmes, etc. Like....
1. Doesn't the population of the earth at over seven billion
show that the earth is old?
Actually it doesn't; in fact quite the opposite! What you have to check on is the
rate of increase, not just the final figure. Even that figure of seven billion is
not so large! Do you realise that all the people in the world could comfortably
stand up in an area the size of London's (U.K) metropolitan area?
The number of people on the earth today, if we use standard population expansion figures,
shows that they could not have started out much further than 4000 years ago with eight
people. If we'd been around for say 3 million years the world population would have no
standing room on the planet!
2. Don't the galaxies look old and it would take billlions of
years to form them?
What we see in the heavens is the stars in the spiral galaxies spinning at different rates
at the outside of the cluster compared to those near the centre. If they’ve been spinning
for billions of years they should be smeared out with the spiral shape not being obvious.
Instead, they all have roughly the same amount of spiralling no matter how old they are
said to be and some are supposedly millions of years older than others!
3. Star death is what produces new materials so we are made from
stardust. That's obvious isn't it!
Every 25-30 years a star blows up in our galaxy and they explode at about the same rate
in all the observed galaxies. Yet, there are only 300 nova and super-nova artifacts in
the galaxy. This only gives evidence for less than 9,000 years of star deaths. If this has
really been going on for millions and billions of years there should be millions and millions
of dead star remains!
4. Don't the star nurseries show that stars are being created all
Certain areas with lots of dust clouding vision have been designated/called star nurseries
without any proof, but no one has ever seen a star form, although we have seen many stars die!
So as yet there is no evidence to back up the conjecture/myth about star nurseries. You need to
have the blind faith of an evolutionist to believe this one!
5. Surely it takes millions of years for stars to run down and
change their makeup, like for a red star to become a white dwarf?
Actually, Sirius has been observed to change from red to white in 2000 years. Early observers
said it was red! So the theories aren't borne out by the so far observed facts!
6. Aren't the earth and the moon observably billions of years old?
Let's consider just one dimension; the distance from the earth to the moon. The moon is
getting further from the earth with each passing year. When it was closer the tides would
have been higher. This works on the inverse square law so at 1/3 the distance
the tides would be 9 time as strong/high, etc. and life on earth somewhat hazardous. Also,
if we were to project back 300,000 years or so the moon would be clipping the surface of
the earth, were this possible! Billions of years old just doesn't scan!
7. What about the comets. They are coming back again and again over
vast time frames.
The vast time frame of the life of a comet is only 10,000 years or so based on material
contained and what gets lost every orbit! If the universe was billions of years old there
would be no comets. Unless of course you believe in the mythical Ort cloud which no-one
has ever observed! Science should not be confused with the myths and blind faith of
evolution (historical forensics) though!
8. Isn't it obvious that dinosaurs are millions of years old
because of the layers in which they are found?
First it should be noted that the layers of sediment found around the world do not come
with date labels stuck in them. Someone just puts a date that suits them on the layers!
Evolutionist scientists though have found blood and flesh and other soft tissue in
dinosaur remains and bones. This would not be possible if they were all wiped out 65
millions years ago? It would all be deteriorated in a fraction of that time! It's only
because they died and were buried approx. 4400 years ago that these soft artifacts
can be found. Not all died out in the flood of course, two of every kind (total about 110)
were on the Ark!
An interesting fact for Christians is that fossil thorn artifacts are found in lower
(earlier) strata than some dinosaur fossils (footprints, etc). And these are millions
of years supposedly before 'man' came on the scene! But according to the bible thorns
came after man's sin, so the sequence here must be -
man -- thorns -- dinosaurs. So
dinosaurs must have lived after (or at least while) man was on the earth, if all
three are concurrent!
9. Doesn't carbon dating show the earth is old?
Carbon dating, if it worked, would only be able to tell ages up to a maximum of
about 100,000 years. but, even within this theoretical range carbon 14 dating is
problematic, trending towards wrong!
The earth’s magnetic field strength is dying so carbon 14 dating methods cannot rely on
production being constant over time, though they usually claim this is so. Also, the
concentration of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has not levelled out as yet so calculations
which assume this being the case are also wrong.
One obvious example of wrong dating is that dinosaurs artifacts and coal and oil deposits
when tested show significant carbon 14 levels. This would not be the case if they were
really millions of years old! Any original C14 would be gone; decayed below measurable
Other websites that have done the calculations say that the earth's magnetic field of only
30,000 years ago would have had such strength that the effect on the planet would have
rendered life on earth impossible!
10 . Don't the large deserts show that the earth has been changing
for millions of years?
Deserts are interesting things. The rate at which deserts are spreading shows that the
Sahara is the oldest desert and that it's only about 4,000 years old, as shown by desert
spread. You'd think that there would be much older ones if the world was billions of years
old, but not so!
11. Isn't oil made from animals burried in mud layers over
millions of years?
Well for one thing oil in the ground still has very high pressures when it should have
dissipated in 10,000 years or so through the porous rock where oil is found. Also oil
is made very quickly given enough pressure and heat; months not millions of years.
My theory is that the oil was made about 4,400 years ago with the flood!
While we are thinking about time scales for natural phenomena being limited by the
flood, it's interesting to note that the oldest trees in the world are all about
4,300 years old. Also do bear in mind that tree rings are not necessarily annual;
you can get two rings in one year according to rainy seasons.
12. Don't the growth rings in coral reefs show that the earth is
much older than 6,000 years?
Based on a twenty year study of the Great Barrier Reef checking on
re-growth of war damaged sections that reef is only about 4,000 years old!
Similarly growth can stop and start according to nutrient levels; Rings are not simply an
13. The salt in the oceans shows that rain has been washing
salts into the sea over millions of years and fish have had to adapt!
It is true that salts are washed off into the oceans from rainfall. Thirty percent
of rainwater runs off into the oceans with salts. But, if the earth is millions of
years old why is the ocean not saturated with salt like the dead sea? The salt is
only enough for less that about 10,000 years starting from fresh water and of course
it may not have started absolutely fresh. Anyway, the flood would also have accelerated
the addition of salt 4,400 years ago!
14. Doesn't the large canyons around the world show that water
has been running down their rivers for millions of years?
There are two possibilities. A little water over lots of time, or lots of water over a
little time! The question then is which one fits the observed evidence?
Take the Grand Canyon. How did the little river at the bottom of the Grand Canyon create
this artefact when it had to go uphill to do it at first because the top of the canyon
is higher that the headwater by hundreds of feet. Next, how did that little river cut
the top section which is 18 miles wide at it’s widest? A little water over lots of time
On the other hand the mud layers under the flood would not have hardened fully when the
waters receded and so would have been easily carved out by the receding water,
especially if dammed like in Mount St. Helens in 1980. Water behind a dam would also
account for the top being carved out then, even though later it was higher than the
headwater of the river created when the dam burst.
15. Isn't there lots of Evidence for Evolution?
There is NO evidence that evolution shows how the world's biological systems came into existence.
There is a good reason why it's called a theory. Evolutionary scientists believe in it because they
don't want to have to acknowledge a God who created everything. It gives a philosophy enabling them
to live by their own rules. Take the quotes below...
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows... there is no known law
of physics able to create information from nothing.
::Professor Paul Davies - writing in New Scientist.
The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of the
branches.; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area,
a species does not arise gradually by gradual transformation of it's ancestors. It appears all at
once and fully formed.
::Steven J. Gould - Harvard University (Co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium evolution theory.)
Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation,
and that is unthinkable.
::Sir Arthur Keith - (Quoted from book - "Did Man Just Happen" by W. A. Criswell. Moody Press.)
When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities. Creation or spontaneous
generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that
leads us to only one conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on
philosophical grounds; therefore we believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by
::George Wald - writing in Scientific American. (Emphasis mine)
That's evolutionism for you. A belief in the impossible against all the evidence. A religion
based on blind faith.
16. Give one simple reason for the earth being very young in age?
One simple reason is that God, who was there, says it's about 6,000 years old! Another reason
was given in Answer No. 9 on 'Carbon 14' dating.
One of many other reasons is that in the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas
Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the earth's magnetic field is
decaying in energy at the rate of 5% per century and also that archaeological measurements
showed that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than it is today. The earth's magnetic
field is decaying and is losing half its energy every 1465 ± 166 years or in round figures
a half life of about 1500 years.
Professor Barnes, who is the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed
that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s
metallic core. His model calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more
than 10,000 years with a habitable planet. Beyond that time its original strength would
have been so large as to melt the earth! So the earth and life on it must be younger than
Since then further research into the magnetic field of the earth and the reversals of
earth's magnetic field with the flood; research into the magnetic fields of other planets
and the sun; and his predictions of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, have shown
that Professor Barnes' models fitted/agreed with the observed data found by NASA, etc.
Bottom line? The earth and life on it is young - less than 10,000 years.
What does God
say? About 6,000 years?
17. Doesn't geological layers show the earth is old?
Some people want to believe the 3-5 billion year old earth story and that the layers of earth
in the side of the grand canyon for instance just 'looks' old so it must be as old as
evolutionary geologists say.
Actually rocks don't 'look' old or young. You believe one or the other according
to the worldview you have adopted. But let's look at real evidence...
The layers of sedimentary rock in the "Little Grand Canyon' at Mt St Helens, which was created
in a couple of days in 1982, looks similar in layout, etc., to that of the "Grand canyon" in
Arizona. It has side canyons and other similar features but on a smaller scale because there
was less material flowing in a smaller timeframe than for the Grand Canyon.
The sandstone layers in the Grand Canyon are shown by research to have been deposited by fast
moving water over the area of approximately 200,000 square miles. The tracks of animals in
the Coconino Sandstone is similar to that of modern reptiles caught in a cross current and trying
to walk out of the water to higher ground. It all points to the layers being laid down by fast
moving water over a vast area.
Now the 'look' of the "Little Grand Canyon" is similar to the 'look' of the "Grand Canyon" but
we know that the "Little Grand Canyon" was made in two days only 30 years ago! We also know that
the sedimentary layers that the canyon cuts through were deposited only two years previously!
So both the "Grand Canyon" and the "Little Grand Canyon" must look 'young' because the evidence
that we have is of that 'look' belonging to 'young' deposits and 'young' canyons!
18. Doesn't it take a long time to bury a fossil?
Let's conduct a thought experiment.
Imagine an elephant dies of old age and falls to the ground or a fish dies and bloats up and
floats to the surface of the ocean. What happens next?
Small, fleet footed (or, finned) scavengers come along and start eating the carcase. Bigger
scavengers come along and impose themselves and start pulling the body apart as they eat the
flesh and crunch through the bones.
When they are fed up gnawing on the bones they leave and ants and small insects and animals
(or the watery equivalent) move in to pick the bones clean. After they are done the bones are
left to bleach and rot and disintegrate into fertilizer.
And there's no body left to fossilize! Just check out the Serengeti if you don't believe me!
Animals have to be burried deep and fast to become fossils. You need something like the flood
of Noah which was worldwide and covered ALL the mountains of the earth to a depth of 22 feet
or so, to bring the material to bury billions of dead things in mud layers all over the
world, like we see in the fossil record today. The mountains then were not as high as they
are now of course.
Did you know that if the trenches in the seas were to be filled in by the mountains and hills,
that the whole earth would be covered by over 3 kilometres of water? Check out Genesis 1:1-2.
In the beginning the earth was made covered with water! And when God lifted up the land He put
a lot of that water underground, where it stayed till it came back up at the start of the flood!
19. Did Things Really Change With The So-Called Fall Of Man?
God says that when man sinned and ate of the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' that things
would be tougher for him but also that the flora would change and for the first time there would
be thorns and thissles in the world. Not only that, we can see them in the fossil record!
We find sections of thorn bushes like wild rose bushes fossilised in the rocks. We recognize them
because they are just like the wild rose bushes of today. They haven't evolved. They've reproduced
after their own kind. And they are in layers supposed to be millions of years old.
Now we also find fossilised remains of dinosaurs in the rocks above the ones with the thorns. That
means that according to evolutionists (and creationists) they are in layers laid down AFTER the
ones with the thorns. The dinosaurs were living after the thorns came into existence in other words!
Let's think this through. The thorns didn't come till after Adam sinned and the dinosaurs were
alive after the thorns were in existence. That puts dinosaurs on the Earth after Adam sinned. God
says Adam sinned about 6,000 years ago so that puts dinosaurs on the Earth 6,000 years ago and their
remains being fossilised at the time of the flood, about 4,400 years ago, not millions of years.
The evidence fits the bible's description of events, not Theistic-evolutionists'. Real evidence,
rather than assumptions and theories, always does!
20. Why Do You Say The Earth Is About 6000 Years Old?
If we add up the times in the geneologies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 and info found elsewhere in
the bible we find that the time-span from Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years and the time-span
from Abraham to Jesus is also about 2000 years. And, the time-span from Jesus' birth to now
is just over 2000 years.
Also, in the geneologies, God made sure that people could not add in extra centuries or millenia
by stating categorically how many years transpired between one person's birth and the birth of
the next person in the chain. It does not matter if someone claims they were not father and son
but were some other relationship! There's still only X number of years between
their births as stated in the bible!
Now the bible gives full years in it's listings so obviously any individual timespan could be plus
up to 11 months. This may well have evened out to an average of 6 months but with the 20 generations
from Adam to Abraham we could be close to 19 years out. There's a similar small margin of error
in the timespan from Abraham to Jesus. And since some people disagree on when exactly Christ was
born, there could be a couple of years error in some people's figures there!
You can see though that we are not going to be millenia out when we say - about 6,000
years. Oh, we should probable add in the 5 days from the creation of the earth to the
creation of Adam to get the final figure!
To see all the actual dates added up
Best wishes for Grace and The Peace of Jesus.
Mt St Hellens Eruption Fallout
Creation videos- Ecology development, Surtsey, etc.
Fossil Thorns and other things (Video)
Creation Snippets on YOUTUBE (Videos)
Cosmology, Constants & The Big Bang
Seeing Distant Stars In A young Universe
Sauropod Dinosaurs Sculpted by Earlier Men
Historical Support For Dinosaurs Pt 1