Apart from the direct comparison of the claims of the bible and evolution on man's descent, some explanation for finding the correct meaning of passages in the bible may be useful. For instance...

1. How Long Is A day In The Context Of Biblical Creation?
In Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 2:3 God explains to the Israelites through Moses how He made the earth and the heavens and everything in the earth and in the seas in six days. The straight-forward reading of these verses is that each day is of 24 hours and the geneologies in the bible put creation as being about 6,000 years ago. It's interesting but 'yom', the word translated 'day' in Genesis is never used to mean 'an eon of time' anywhere in the bible. It does not have that meaning in the Hebrew language. It CAN mean 'daylight', a '24 hour day' or a time frame like 'in my father's day' or 'in the day of the Lord', which tells you when but not how long.

In Exodus 20:8-11 God gives the Israelites a command on how they should live each week and bases this on what He had done during the creation week.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 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.

A few things should be obvious on looking at Exodus 20:8-11 though. The context of the command is the creation passage of Exodus 1:1-31 and those days of creation are the reference for what the Israelites are to do week by week in following God.

If the meaning of the word 'day' is not consistent throughout this passage in Exodus 20 and meaning a day of 24 hours, then the command is meaningless to the Israelites. They could not otherwise live up to it by any stretch of the imagination. It's meaningless as a statement actually, if day is not consistent throughout!

If God rested on a seventh day which was say 6,000 years long and blessed that and consecrated that, then the Israelites couldn't do any work for another 3,000 years or so, on pain of death. That's because failure to keep the Law had a penalty of death and at that time there had not been 6000 years since Adam was made! That Sabbath of rest if 6,000 years would have been still ongoing.

Of course it could be that a God who blessed a 6,000 year day and made it holy may have deliberately deceived the Israelites into thinking that it was only 24 hours when it wasn't. But if he'll deceive ignorant people (who would accept anything He said because they didn't know any better, and didn't want to die) regarding what He did at creation, how can we trust anything else He says?

It should be noted though that throughout the Old Testament whenever day is used with a 'number' it's always a 24 hour day. And when it's used with 'evening and/or morning' it's always a 24 hour day. And, when it's used with 'night' it's always an ordinary day. In the creation passage in Genesis 1, God used all these references so that we could be sure what He meant. Anything else wrests the scriptures to fit a pet agenda and involves making man's ideas your highest authority instead of God. The only biblical explanation is that the days of Genesis 1 were 24 hour days. As can be seen in any Hebrew Lexicon.

2. What Did God Fit Into Those 6 Days?
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. So everything that is in the earth at the time of the Exodus, dead or alive, walking or fossilised had it's origins in those six days. We've already established above that these were days of 24 hours, so all things whether dogs or dinosaurs, birds or baboons were made in those 6 days. There were no other days before them because Genesis 1:1-4 and Exodus 20:11 tells us that 'Day 1' was 'In the beginning'!

Also, since Exodus 20:11 tells us the earth and the heavens that we see now were made in those six days, one wonders what old earth believers think happened to the previous planets and stars that were made 4.7 - 13.7 billion years before those six days!

3. What Do God's Creation Days In Genesis 1 Reveal?
Some people who have decided to believe in evolutionary origins while also keeping a foot in the God camp, will still want to believe that the days of Genesis were eons in which the worlds grew out of a big bang and evolution took place after God set a spark to a singularity! Well....

A. The main problem with this belief is that it portrays a God who was afterwards woefully ignorant of how the universe developed and life came into being.

B. According to the most popular big bang models the sun and stars developed first out of spinning gas clouds and afterwards the planets coalessed in orbits around them. Obviously God didn't notice this because He has the earth appearing, cooled down with water on the surface on 'Day 1' before the sun is made on 'Day 4', three days or eons later.

C. Then God separated the water into two parts. One part he left on the surface of the earth and the other part He put on the outside of an 'expanse' called 'Heaven'. As you'll see later this expanse is what will contain the Sun, Moon and Stars. For this water to go around the universe which is said to be 87 billion light years in all directions it had to be very deep; possibly hundreds of light years deep!

D. Next God sets up the original hydrological cycle with the water of the seas being separated from the water moisture in the skies which gave an increased air pressure and greenhouse effect for the paradise earth He planned. This cycle involved the earth being watered by mists but no rain falling!

E. Then God has the first life coming up on land. Vegetation, plants, flowers, fruit trees, etc, appear on 'Day 3' when the evolutionary belief is that life appeared in the oceans first. Perhaps because it was happening below the surface God didn't spot all that underwater activity! Of course the real answer is that there wasn't any!

F. Another 2 days or eons later God says the flying creatures and the sea creatures turn up? So the plants had to survive for 2 days without insects or birds to polinate them. If these were 24 hour days then there's no problem. If it was 6,000 years or an even greater eon of time per 'day' then survival chances would be NIL! You'd think God would know this wouldn't you, if He was there?

G. In between these two events, on Day 4, the Sun was made and all the stars in the heaven. So the plants had to survive all through Day 3 without it. If this was 24 hours OK, but if it was 1,000 years or longer? Houston we have a problem!

The sun, moon and stars are put in the expanse made on day 2 so the 'waters above' are outside the universe!

Notice also that according to God the sun was made on day 4, not in the supposed gap where some conjecture it evolved, before day 1!

H. Finally on Day 6 the animals and man are made. No land animals are made before this so God puts dinosaurs on earth with man on Day 6! All animals were plant eaters before the fall of man and the flood though, so they would all co-exist happily from God's point of view. This doesn't fit with the evolution model either though, because they have land animals evolving before flying creatures like birds and bats and death and disease and life red in tooth and claw throughout.

Conclusion? Either God missed all this when it happened, or He just couldn't be bothered to tell the Israelites the truth, so He made up a story to deceive them and they had to believe the lie or die. At least that's the inference to be drawn from a belief that days here are eons of time.

A better explanation is that Genesis is true as stated and evolutionists make up 'fairy tales for adults' to create an environment where they can have God out of the picture; and some Christians buy into the fairy tales!

4. But What If 'Genesis' Is Just Poetry To Show God As Creator?
Realising that having days of thousands or millions of years in Genesis 1 doesn't fit with the rest of the bible account some conjecture that Genesis is there only to give us the overall concept of 'God as Creator' and is not meant to be taken literally. Then it can be fitted in to evolutionary timescales as required. There is a problem though in that other scriptures in the bible are written on the basis that Genesis 1 is literally true.

A. Take the passage in Exodus 20:8-11 quoted above. This command was given to the Israelites and the penalty for breaking it was death. Actually in Numbers 15:35 a man is condemned to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. If the Genesis account was just poetry then this essentially means that the man was killed for not liking God's poetry. This is obviously nonsense or paints God in a very poor light.

B. The section of Exodus 20, in verses 8-11, is part of a wider section of scripture also written by God's own hand. In this, many other commandments are given to the Israelites via Moses. Now if verses 8-11 are just poetry based on Genesis, since the other commands are written in a similar style, are they also just poetry and things that should not have been taken seriously by the Israelites? If one is poetry then logically all are poetry.

C. The Gospel message is predicated on the basis that Jesus came as the 'Second Adam' to take away the sins brought into the world by the 'First Adam'. One has to ask the question, "What did Jesus die for, if there was no 'First Adam' or he was just a mythic character in a poem?"

Now according to Dr. Steven Boyd who compared narrative and poetic passages from the bible through statistical analysis it was found that there was a statistically significant difference in the wording and grammatical style of poetic and narrative bible passages. Using this statistical analysis, Dr. Boyd found that Genesis 1:1 through to Genesis 2:3 cannot be identified as poetry. Actually it's all meant literally and each day is 24 hours, or God is deceiving us.
And God cannot lie.

5. How Does God 'Making The World To Be Inhabited', Fit In?
This is an interesting question and it's based on Isaiah 45:18

Isaiah 45:18 For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited -- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other".

We see here that God says that He made the world to be inhabited. He did not make it to be empty and desolate. This is fine if you believe that Genesis 1 shows the complete creation of the earth and the heaven, the sea and all things in them as Exodus 20:11 says. After creation was completed in Genesis 1:31 the earth has been in continuous occupation.

If you believe that there is a break after Genesis 1:1 of eons of time when the dinosaurs lived and death and disease reigned, then you have major problems to overcome. This means that all the things that existed at that time were then wiped out and God started again in genesis 1:2 with a new creation which culminated in man on Day 6. It also means that death was in the world before Adam sinned and therefore should not be attributed to him. Death is normal!

If you subscribe to this theory then you have a problem explaining the God who caused Isaiah 45:18 to be written. There are four things that don't apply to your God that DO apply to the God of the bible.

A. If Satan could destroy (or cause God to destroy) all the life that God inhabited the earth with and make it desolate then this God is not 'omnipotent'. He couldn't stop Satan destroying the inhabitants or He destroyed the inhabitants himself, thus making His word in Isa 45:18 worthless.

B. If Satan could cause all the inhabitants God put on the earth to be destroyed then this God is not 'omniscient' because He did not see it coming and prepare a better Plan A in the first place.

C. If Satan could wreck all of God's work and cause all the inhabitants to be destroyed then this God is not 'omnipresent'. He wasn't there to step in and stop the rot!

D. If God made the earth and it's creatures with death, disease, killing, flesh-eating parasites and poisons, which Satan caused to be destroyed and then, on top of this burried fossil bone dump, he re-makes another inhabited surface with man, by what stretch of the imagination can God call this good?!

If you believe the 'gap' or another 'long age' theory then you have a God who couldn't save the past world and keep the inhabitants that he put in it alive, so how can He save you? If he was weak and ineffectual before, what's changed?

If you believe any 'long age' theory then you have a world of death, disease, killing and eating flesh before Adam and so these are NOT the result of his sin. Adam was lied to when this was blamed on him! What else is a lie? Did Jesus really rise from the grave? Sure?

If death was always a part of ‘creation’, it can't be ‘the last enemy’ spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:26. If life red in tooth and claw is part of the pristine world that God came up with, then having Jesus take away sin cannot remove death and disease from the world. They are natural to the world that you believe God made, "in the beginning", so the death of Jesus has no bearing on them!

If you know the true God of the bible though, who made all things in six 24 hour days, then you do have a God who is 'Omnipotent', 'Omnipresent' and 'Omniscient'. Death and disease and killing are as a result of sin and He has always saved a remnant and kept the world inhabited. So you can depend on Him to save you and through Jesus dying for you and being raised, conquer death and give you eternal life; if you trust in this God!

6. What About 'A Day Being As 1000 Years'?
This phrase is taken from the writings of Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 where he says...

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If you check the context you'll see that it's pointing to the fact that God is not limited by time like us and what is a long time for us is virtually nothing to God.

Do bear in mind also that this is a simile, it is not an equation! It's like me saying that, "My wife's smile is as a perfect summer sunset! While the statement is true one cannot replace a sunset with my wife's smile!

In the same way the statement in 2 Peter 3:8 does not refer to any particular day or say that any particular 24 hour day can be substituted for 1000 years of history or vice-versa!

Imagine if you were able to speak to one of those insects like damselflies which have very short lifespans, as little as one day in some cases I've been told. You could say to it, "A day for you is like a hundred years for me, and a hundred years as one day!"

That, but with even longer times being involved, is what God says to us.

Some people, seeing that the length of time since creation to now is about 6000 years, have speculated that God has given man a lease on the Earth of six 1000 year days to do his own work, to be followed by a day of rest of 1000 years, sometimes called the millenium. It's an interesting conjecture and we'll see in time how this pans out, but the end of man's time to do his own thing hasn't come yet and more than 6000 years have gone by since Adam was created, so the jury is out on that one.

The point though is that the saying is general and not applied to any specific days in the bible, so we cannot in truth apply it to any days to suit someone's pet theories!

7. Aren't Dinosaur Bones Millions Of Years Old?
What evolutionists don't tell you is that the dates they put on bones and rocks are based on their world-view, in order to put them outside the realm of the bible! Bones and rocks don't come with date stamps and things which show that the evolutionist's dates are wrong are ignored.

To give an example.
Dinosaur bones have been found with testable blood inside them and with flexible tissue as well. This would be impossible if the bones were really millions of years old. They can at most be a few thousand years old. This was reported in 'National Geographic' and 'Science' magazine and others from 1992 onwards. This fits in with the bible and the majority of deaths in the fossil record being in the flood of Noah. Obviously some local floods and catastrophies since then would also add other fossils.

Since 1992, when first discovered by Dr Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University till today, hundreds of dinosaur bones have been found to contain blood, collagen, and other material and they have found dinosaur flesh cells and skin in 'fossils' supposedly from 80 - 250 million years old!
Dating from the flood of Noah is more likely!

8. I Thought Fossils Took Millions Of years To Form?
Fossilisation takes only a short time given the right conditions.

A. First you need layers of mud to envelop the creature and bury it alive or just as it dies/drowns. A flood is good for doing this; ordinary death is not.
B. Second the animal must be burried so deep that scavengers and bugs cannot get at it to eat it and pull it apart. And it must be so deep it cannot dig it's way out! A flood is good for doing this; ordinary death is not.
C. Third. It would help if volcanoes are going off and sending mountains of ash into the mix. A world-wide flood where the fountains of the deep are opened up and fissures are formed and continents are moved apart is even better for doing this; ordinary death is not.

A world-wide flood that lasted a year and covered ALL the mountains of the world that existed at that time would give you billions of dead things burried in mud layers all over the world, with sea creatures even way up on the mountains. Oddly enough, what we see in the fossil record is billions of dead things burried in mud layers all over the world, with sea creatures mixed with trees even way up on the mountains!

9. Don't Layers Of Rock Need Millions Of years to form?
That's what evolutionists tell you but it's not what has been observed.

For instance during the eruptions of the Mt. St.Helens volcano in 1980, events occurred that have shown very effectively how rapidly geological features can form. The ash and debris formed hundreds of layers of sedimentary rock which can be seen today in places where sections have been erroded away.

Then in March of 1982, a 20 mile long mudflow from the mountain cut through the rock and created a 140 foot deep canyon. This canyon, formed in a little over one day, and it is referred to as “The Little Grand Canyon” since it shares several geological features with the 'Grand Canyon' in Arizona. These features include exposure of stratified rock layers along the canyon sides, flat areas in the highland surfaces of both canyon sides, and side canyons have been created also. Now a small river can be seen running along the bottom of this canyon.

If evolutionists were to have discovered this canyon today it would be put down as having taken millions of years to be cut out by the stream at the bottom. But, the river did not form the canyon, the canyon formed the river!

Evolutionists want you to 'assume' that such geological processes take thousands and even millions of years. Observation shows THEY DON'T! Evidence trumps assumptions every time!

10. Don't Pebbles Take Millions Of Years To Wear Smooth?
That's what old evolution text books say based on 'assumption'. Observation shows that it's not true though.

In 1963 - 1967 a new island called Surtsey was created by the erruption of a volcano off Iceland. It took less than 50 years for the island to have rounded pebbles on the beaches and for plant life and birds to move in.

This island has more than intrigued scientists since it's birth because it looks like landscapes most think are much older. According to an article in New Scientist the island has excited geographers who have marveled at it's canyons and gullies and other land features which according to the usual story would take tens of thousands or millions of years to form!

Others have marveled at how quickly the plants, animals and birds have colonized the island. In 50 years there is now a fully functional ecosystem on Surtsey. If you were to visit Surtsey and were unaware it was about fifty years old, I wonder how old you'd think it to be? So if someone says that a particular landscape took millions of years to form and 'looks' old, remember the island of Surtsey, because that 'look' isn't really old. It depends on your worldview.

You can check for more on the Internet or the links at the end.

11. Coal Takes Millions Of Years To Build Up, Surely?
The evidence is that coal is formed rapidly given pressure and heat and sedimentary layers of earth surrounding the plant material to compress it.

If left on the surface the plant material would decompose and be taken up by other trees and insects. It would not turn into coal.

Oddly enough the conditions provided by a volcanic erruption like at Mt St Helens in 1980 also shows how the material build-up can be rapid and conditions provided for the creation of large coal beds. Massive numbers of trees were ripped from their roots and swept off the mountain by the eruption. Well over a million of these trees were deposited in the nearby Spirit Lake, which formed a huge floating log jam that covered much of the lake. The lake also received lots of ash from the volcano. In a short time the logs became waterlogged and sank to the bottom of the lake (some in an upright position like you see polystrate trees cutting through fossil layers). As the debris settled it covered the logs giving the appearance they had been buried after growing there, not been transported in as had actually happened.

Another interesting thing is that the majority of the logs transported to Spirit Lake had their bark and branches stripped off of them. This material was transported separately onto the Lake where it settled to the bottom forming a three foot thick layer of peat. This peat makes a great starting point for a coal seam were it to be burried by another eruption of Mt St Helens as would likely have happened in the period of the flood when activity went on for over 40 days! This would make for very rapid coal formation.

By the way, given pressure and heat and the layer of plant material, scientists have shown that coal can be made in weeks not millions of years!

12. Isn't Coal Made In Bogs?
No. Bogs make peat if the plant material is covered such that it is not attacked by insects. But, you cannot get the build-up of sedimentary mud layers on top of the plant material to compress it and produce coal naturally, just by boggy conditions.

Some of the coal seams in America are over 100 feet deep. Since coal is made from compressed plant material and is compressed about 10-1 for good antracite coal which that is, then we are looking at over 1000 feet of plant material extending over thousands of square miles. Only a massive worldwide flood could bring in that much plant material and then cover it with sedimentary mud layers thick enough to compress it into coal!

13. Don't Peppered Moths Show evolution?
There was a purported survey/research project which reportedly showed that Peppered Moths which were originally 98% white and 2% black changed their colour ratio during the industrial revolution period in England to have 98% black and 2% white moths. This was supposed to be because the white moths were more visible on the blackened tree trunks in the day due to the soot belched out of industrial chimneys in the north of England.

More recently it was noted that the moths did not come out much during the day, if at all, and so were not predated by birds with any colour bias! Also the moths pictured on tree trunks to illustrate the camouflage contrast were dead and pinned down not live and free! Third, captured moths which were deliberately released during the day did not settle on tree trunks according to their colour but mostly wanted to go back to sleep, being moths. Also their natural place to stay during the day was in the tree canopy not on the trunks!

It seems likely then that this whole thing was faked and in any case couldn't show evolution because both moth types were there at the beginning and at the end. Nothing evolved. There was only variation in the existing population of a species.

Don't be surprised though if the evolutionists rename one of these two variations of the peppered moth so they can pretend it's a different species!

14. Don't Galapogos Finches Show Evolution?
No, They don't, is the simple true answer!

Some publications and some media do propose this idea, even today, but it comes from a lack of knowledge of how variations in a species comes about through natural or artificial selection of existing characteristics within the gene pool. Nothing new is created. More usually information is lost!

Because of variations in the climate and food sources on different islands and variations of food from year to year the size of bird and beak fluctuates to cope with the prevailing conditions. In the years from 1977 to 1982 for instance it is reported that there was a drought on one of the islands in the Galapogos and the finch beak sizes on average increased on this island. In 1982 the drought broke and after that there was natural selection for smaller beaks! Natural selection is normal micro-evolution and DOES NOT make new genuses.

They started as finches and ended as finches and according to conditions, selection will take place to optimise survival. But selection is taking place within a variation built into the gene pool when God created it. There is no evolution from one genus to another taking place.

15. What About Carbon 14 Dating?
'Carbon 14 dating' is a method of radiometric dating using the decay rate of the radio active isotope Carbon 14. Carbon 14 testing is meant for short ages up to 100,000 years or so because of the isotope's half-life of 5,730 years. The measuring system is based on the premise that living carbon based systems build up a balance of Carbon 14 within them which stops being balanced by Carbon 14 uptake from the atmosphere when they die. Thus you can measure the amount left at any time after death to show when death took place. The amount will reduce with time according to Carbon 14's half life, compared to their living equivalents. That's the theory and the basic assumption is that the carbon 14 levels created in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight leveled off millions of years ago and has stayed constant.

This assumption though is not true as carbon 14 levels are still rising in the atmosphere. This of itself shows the earth is young as if it was billions of years old then Carbon 14 levels would have become steady. In theory it would take less than 300,000 years to become steady. So carbon 14 levels were much lower in the past than they are today.

Carbon 14 would also have been taken up at a different rate before the flood when the biomass on the earth was perhaps hundreds of times greater, judging by the coal and oil deposits in the ground. At this time also the earth's magnetic field's strength was much greater reducing C14 production. All this means that with a much lower concentration of C14 in the atmosphere the amount taken up by any particular animal or plant would be much lower than today.

So with the basic assumptions being incorrect the dating system is not accurate and overestimates the ages of objects.

Actually a simple observation which shows that the earth IS young is one based on C14. All coal and oil deposits, which are usually stated by evolutionists to have been made millions of years ago, always show Carbon 14 levels when tested. If they really were millions of years old then the Carbon 14 would not still be in the deposits. Carbon 14 actually proves the earth is young!

16. What Are Polystrate Trees and Fossils?
'Polystrate Fossils' are fossil trees, bones, fish or other items which have been fossilized cutting through many layers of sedimentary rock. 'Polystrate' because they stand vertically through many (poly) layers (strata) of rock. If the layers of rock really were millions of years in the making then the tree, fish or whatever could not have stayed without rotting throughout the period, to be finally fossilized when the last layer of earth covered it's top millions of years after it's base was covered!

These can only have been fossilized in this position if the tens, hundreds or even thousands of layers of sedimentary rock were laid down as mud layers in a very short time with the tree-trunks, fish, etc., being vertical at the time, like seen at the bottom of Spirit Lake after the Mt St Helens erruption (See Answer 11 above). These tree fossils (up to 30 metres tall) are usually without roots showing they were transported to their current site. They must then have been covered in those thousands of layers of mud before they could rot! This means quickly! They prove that the evolutionists concept of layers of rock taking millions of years to form is simply not true.

....

Best wishes for Grace and The Peace of Jesus.

Attlee.

Creation-VS-Evolution 1 Click Here
Creation-VS-Evolution 2 Click Here
Mt St Hellens Eruption Fallout Click Here
Creation videos- Surtsey, etc. Click Here
Fossil Thorns and other things (Video) Click Here
Creation Snippets on YOUTUBE (Videos) Click Here
Cosmology, Constants & The Big Bang Click Here
Seeing Distant Stars In A young Universe Click Here
Sauropod Dinosaurs Sculpted by Earlier Men Click Here
Historical Support For Dinosaurs Pt 1 Click Here




Article Index