Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Stingray blog ^ | 09/26/2005 | Michael McCullough

[DallasMike]

On Sunday September 25th, the Washington Post published a story called "In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground." Out of all the potential stories about Christians out there -- murderous persecutions in China, enslavement of Christians in Africa, the role of Christians in the Katrina cleanup -- the Washington Post chose to write this one.

Young Earth Creationists hold a very narrow construct of the Bible and claim that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old. I don't buy into that construct for the following scientifuc reasons:

• We have earthly evidence that contradict the idea of a 6,000-year old earth such as
• Ice cores from Greenland that provide a record of approximately 110,000 winter and summer cycles.
• Measurements of lead isotope ratios (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204) give statstically reliable ages for the earth of approximately 4.5 billion years.
• Given that the speed of light is relatively constant, how is that objects millions of light years away from earth can be seen? Yes, God COULD have created the light already in transit when he created the universe, but is that really like God?

God would have to be playing games with us to, say, create ice cores that are only 6,000 years old even though they show that 110,000 summers and winters have passed since the layer of ice was first created. God doesn't lie and I believe that his creation shows its true age.

The Biblical construct does not support the idea of a young earth either.

• The Bible states that the Earth is very, very old. Genesis 49:26, Deuteronomy 33:15 and the Habakkuk 3:6 speak of the "ancient" or the "age-old hills".
• The Hebrew word for day (yom)has multiple meanings in Genesis 1. Yom means: "light" as opposed to "darkness" (Genesis 1:5); "day" commencing with "morning" and ending with "evening" (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31); "day" as opposed to "night" (Genesis 1:14,16,18); "day" with no end (Genesis 2:1-4) and the period of the entire creation 'week' (Genesis 2:4).
• God does not experience time like we experience time. The psalmist wrote "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by..." (Ps 90:4). The apostle Peter quotes this when he says that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years..." (2 Peter 3:8).

One of the arguments of Young Earth Creationists is that those of us who believe in an old earth are somehow limiting God by saying that God NEEDED long amounts of time to create the universe. That's a bogus argument. God didn't NEED oodles of time but he apparently CHOSE to use oodles of time. God COULD feed all Christians with manna from heaven but he ordinarily CHOOSES to use more mundane things like tasty cows and yummy potatos. Just because I bought my lunch today instead of waiting for manna to fall from the skies doesn't mean that I believe in a weak God.

Are Young-Earth-Creationists fighting the wrong battle? I think so. The whole creation saga takes up about 2 pages in my 800-page Bible. It's more concerned with "who" rather than "how" or "when." If the "when" of creation were really such an important topic, then God would have devoted more time to it in his revelation to the prophets. God appears to be much more concerned with the present and with our eternal than in the past.

The evidence indicates that the earth is very, very old. However, that's not really all that important in the scheme of things. I believe that God created the earth and all things within it. I believe that the Bible is true and inerrant. I have huge problems with Darwinism that are related to its shaky scientific foundations, not any perceived conflict with the Bible.

We need to devote our time to telling others what a relationship with Christ can do for their lives NOW and in their eternal future, not trying to convince them that the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 or 4.5 billion years old. Forget the debate about the age of the earth because that's just getting in the way. Let's put things in perspective and stick to the important topic of how Jesus can change people's lives when they accept him as Lord and Saviour. People need to personally know Jesus, not listen to debates on how old the earth is.

[DallasMike]

 

[stuartcr]

The only thing I could possibly say to either group, would be 'prove it'

[DallasMike]

Would you do me a favor and ping the Creationist list. I know that you and disagree on some points, but we both agree that Jesus Christ is the creator and ruler of the universe and I would argue that this is the important thing.

You're welcome to shoot me down or enlist others to shoot me down -- I'm not infallible and, if perceive that I'm wrong, I will gladly change my beliefs.

[wallcrawlr]

Are Young-Earth-Creationists fighting the wrong battle? I think so. The whole creation saga takes up about 2 pages in my 800-page Bible. It's more concerned with "who" rather than "how" or "when." If the "when" of creation were really such an important topic, then God would have devoted more time to it in his revelation to the prophets. God appears to be much more concerned with the present and with our eternal than in the past.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[4CJ]

Forget the debate about the age of the earth because that's just getting in the way. Let's put things in perspective and stick to the important topic of how Jesus can change people's lives when they accept him as Lord and Saviour. People need to personally know Jesus, not listen to debates on how old the earth is.

Genesis being the foundation for the entire Bible, with Jesus acknowledging His part in creation, discrediting the Biblical account of creation means that God/Jesus are liars, that God is not a supernatural being, and that God doesn't know the meaning of the phrase 'evening and morning', and 'it was good'. Adam was created an adult, just as the universe was created 'with age'.

Those that prefer to believe that their existence is due to some chance is welcome to continue to do so, but I believe that God created us for a reason.

[trisham]

Interesting article. Thanks for the ping.

[DallasMike]

Thanks for the ping. Please feel free to visit my main blogsite, Stingray, if this column touched you in any way.

 

[JasonSC]

Out of all the potential stories about Christians out there -- murderous persecutions in China, enslavement of Christians in Africa, the role of Christians in the Katrina cleanup -- the Washington Post chose to write this one.

Hmmm...is it not true that the creationists are opening up another Flintstones museum?

The article is in the "Nation" section of the Post, anyway, so of course there won't be any stories from foreign countries.

[agrace]

Agreed, creation isn't just in the first few pages, it's all over the Word.

I think the problem is simply the fact that we don't fully understand the dimension we call time. We see through a glass darkly in many ways.

[onedoug]

Gerald L Schroeder, The Science Of God

[xzins]

This doesn't have one thing to do with Intelligent Design.

[GregoTX]

Good article .... Thanks D Mike.

[Uri’el-2012]

Gerald L Schroeder, The Science Of God

Bump

b'shem Y'shua

[flevit]

I will stick to your biblical reasons:

1. "very old" is subjective, you see what you "want" to see. 1000 years is very old. heck 100 years can be ancient history...I mean 9/11 seems to be ancient history.
2.YOM, is not a biblical reason. Yom can mean something like "Days of yore" but it can also mean "1 day" so in context with numbers (first,second, third) and coupled with "mornings" and "evenings" would biblically suggest just that a Day..(it actually has very similar usage to Day of English)

the Dawn of a new Day
vs.
the Dawn of the first Day.

3. read all of that section of 2 peter, it upholds noahs flood as global, it says scoffers won't believe the world was judged with water. it says they won't believe in the "second coming", that "a day is a thousand years" is in direct reference to the Lords patience..that the second coming not delayed, because the lord is slow, but because of his patience. it has nothing to do with words moses wrote a few thousand years earlier that through example God set the stage for a six days of work 1 day or rest...how many days in a week are there anyway?

you still have the problem of death before sin...what did Jesus die for...sin...why was the world created with sin in it??? it wasn't, Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?

could a "very good" world have the stench of rotting corpses, cancer and dismemberment of man and animals in it?

this argument will not provide Salvation, but it may be tough to TRUST in the Word that speaks of a literal resurrection, if it also speaks of Adam and Eve, death entering, vegetarianism, a flood that kills all land animals not on an ark. Which are not to be taken literal?

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[DaveLoneRanger]

Mike,

I'll try to delve into some of this tomorrow. Very little time tonight, and I have a test in the morning. :-) Goodnight! (Soon...)

[DallasMike]

I will stick to your biblical reasons:

I would also like to see you -- or one of the other detractors -- address the scientific reasons. God created the universe. Why did he create it with the appearance of great age if it is less than 10,000 years old. That's not just a science issue but a spiritual issue as well.

YOM, is not a biblical reason. Yom can mean something like "Days of yore" but it can also mean "1 day" so in context with numbers (first,second, third) and coupled with "mornings" and "evenings" would biblically suggest just that a Day..(it actually has very similar usage to Day of English)

You admit that yom can mean something like "days of yore." Isaiah 30:8 says, "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." This is just one example of the many times that yom is use to mean an indefinite period of time -- in this case, eternity. 

The word yom has multiple meanings. Use the meaning of the word that most fits with what God has shown us from his creation, It's much easier than trying to force creation to fit to a single narrow meaning of a word.

Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?

Yes, Adam and Eve were real persons.

you still have the problem of death before sin

I believe that the physical death of plants and animals existed in the world before Adam and Eve. Lions and tigers were designed to be carnivorous. Bats were designed to catch and eat flying insects. Some bacteria eat other bacteria. The Venus fly trap and the pitcher plant are examples of plants that eat insects. And why would snakes be designed with fangs and poison if it were not to be used against other animals?

Why was there the physical death of plants and animals before Adam and Eve? I don't know. One thing to note is that "the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Genesis 2:7). God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden after the fall -- to me, that says that the Garden of Eden was a special place on the earth unlike any other place. Some have theorized that Adam and Eve were created to redeem creation from the ravages of Satan. I don't know, but it's possible.

 

 

 

[DallasMike]

Very little time tonight

I understand -- time is a big problem for me, too. Thanks for the nice note.

[flevit]

appearance of great age: would be a tradition/interpretation of man. something that man teaches. (oh but there is also the whole God will use what is foolishness in the world to humble the wise)

yes Yom, just like "Day" in english can either a literal day or a non literal time period. it is discerned by the context of the writing.
why wouldn't you use the biblical writers to help figure out the intent and context of Genesis? would God deceive all the biblical writers?
(whether it disagrees with "science" is a separate question)

IE..find the writers that refer/quote back to Genesis 1-12 and see if they took at as Plainly written...if you do you will find even Jesus and NT writers, quotes it as plain TRUTH, not only that but a foundation for his purpose and an example by which the Jews set up their work week.

[JohnnyM]

"Why did he create it with the appearance of great age if it is less than 10,000 years old."

How come God can create Adam with the appearance of age (he wasn't created a baby), but somehow it is trickery or deceit on His part to create the universe with age?

JM

[Rhadaghast]

Why is it deception to create Adam ready to survive?

If we were to go back in time and stand next to the 2 minute old Adam, what would be see?

Would he have hair down to his ankles?
lets be real, he would have hair.

Would he have calluses on his feet? Probably not, but he would get them very soon without shoes!

Would he have bacteria in his intestines which are required for digestion of food? Maybe; maybe not.

Would his finger nails be long?

Or would all of these things quickly acquire as he began to live and interact with his environment?

AS to stars and their light;
The speed of light is by no means a constant. Just recently scientists have discovered that it is slowing down. When you are talking 0.000000001 or there abouts difference over time currently it would be hard to notice. However what if the slow down was the bottom of a bell curve? It could have been much faster in times past.

Also when dealing with the stars, their is a verse in Job that suggests that the stars were flung into space by God. If they were flung into space from the area of Earth, would they not have light particles from earth to them, not created particles!

Steven Hawking and Ellis in their book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Mention the idea that Earth is the center of the universe seemingly, but they disregard this theory on philosophical principles.

What if we are talking about where marks on the earth and the stars, and Adam; Rather than evidence of oldness?

Could it be possible that the ice cores are misinterpreted? When the 'Krakatoa's' (I can't spell it)volcano in south Asia erupted there was a dramatic drop in temperature and Europe and America record a summer with out a temperature over 50 degrees. Could that show a difference in the ice cores, a result of changes in environment?

Lastly and I will definitely give over the floor.

In addition to all the great things posted on this blog regarding the accuracy of scripture and the authors belief in those same scriptures as true;

Sin caused death, not spiritual death, but death of any kind, according to Romans 5. With out that sin and death, Christ himself would not be required. Salvation it self is in question if we spiritualize the age of the earth.

Jesus did not doubt that he had created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Why are we doubting that because we do not know how to evaluate the evidence of science. The problem with science is not the facts, but the presuppositions and conclusions.

[JohnnyM]

"Why is it deception to create Adam ready to survive?"

Im not sure if this was directed at me, but I dont see it as deception to create Adam an adult ready to interact with his environment.

"Jesus did not doubt that he had created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Why are we doubting that because we do not know how to evaluate the evidence of science. The problem with science is not the facts, but the presuppositions and conclusions."

Here I agree whole-heartedly. Satan, from the beginning of creation, has used doubt about God's Word to bring about separation and confusion. Hath God said... (Gen 3:1)

JM

[DallasMike]

IE..find the writers that refer/quote back to Genesis 1-12 and see if they took at as Plainly written...if you do you will find even Jesus and NT writers, quotes it as plain TRUTH, not only that but a foundation for his purpose and an example by which the Jews set up their work week.

Can you show me one instance where a Biblical writer said something on the order that each day of creation was a literal 24-hour day? The problem (for the Young Earth Creationists, anyway) is that you can't.

[DallasMike]

YEC INTREP

Just out of curiousity, what does that mean? If it's an insult, that's okay -- I promise not to blow you in to the Mods.

[DallasMike]

would God deceive all the biblical writers?

No, he wouldn't. I think that the Biblical writers fully understood that yom is a flexible word.

However, I also don't think that he would deceive earth's scientists by creating a galaxy 1 million light years away and then creating the light waves from that galaxy 99.9999% on the way to earth. Nor do I think that he would add an exta 100,000 layers of winter/summer ice to Greenland.

[DallasMike]

Could it be possible that the ice cores are misinterpreted? When the 'Krakatoa's' (I can't spell it)volcano in south Asia erupted there was a dramatic drop in temperature and Europe and America record a summer with out a temperature over 50 degrees. Could that show a difference in the ice cores, a result of changes in environment?

It's possible with occasional events, though the Greenland ice cores show the same winter/summer cycle of water isotopes through ice ages as well as through warm periods. I could grant you a few Krakatoa-type ice layers being misinterpreted but there definitely were not 100,000 such events over the past 6,000 years.

[DallasMike]

Jesus did not doubt that he had created in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

What is your basis for such a statement?

I have a feeling that if you and I both asked him that question, he would say "what is that to you?" I just don't believe that arguing over the age of the earth is a tremendously important thing, and yes, I'm guilty as charged.

[LiteKeeper]

Check my profile page - it is described in full there - thanks for asking :-)

[Rhadaghast]

Could it also be possible that over 6000 years a series of 'Global warming' cycles could also have happened? Evolution is very dependent on a stasis of environment. With out that consistency there data is irrelevant due to the interpretation that is put on that data. Did you see the very scientific explanation of coal being made in 6 years or even 6 months with an event like Mt. St. Helen's? Your data has a plausible opposing interpretation that you are not considering.
,
Also:
Jesus believed in a six day creation, by honoring, and continuing the authenticity of; The Pentateuch, Moses, Adam and Eve, Noah, and dietary laws. These statements of support do not allow for a slight over sight of that "6 day creation myth".

Jesus said nothing about steeling, or homosexuality. Why? Because his silence was also a support of the continuation of the accepted societal norms established in Old Testament Revelation.

[flevit]

Exodus 20: 8-11

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[JohnnyM]

"each day of creation was a literal 24-hour day"

This is overwhelmingly the case in Genesis 1.

Each of these days has a morning and an evening.
Each of these days is numbered.
Exodus refers to these days as literal 24 hour days.
The Sun and the moon were made to govern these days.

When day is used as a period of time, such as "in my father's day" it never has a morning or evening. It is never numbered and the context and sentence structure is entirely different than what is used in Genesis.

The days in Genesis are 24 hour days.

JM

[DallasMike]

Each of these days has a morning and an evening.

The sun wasn't created until Day 4, if my memory serves me correctly. How could there be a morning and an evening without a sun?

[DallasMike]

Could it also be possible that over 6000 years a series of 'Global warming' cycles could also have happened?

104,000 global warming cycles over a 6,000-year period? No, I don't think so.

[JohnnyM]

God created light without there being a Sun, so He could have easily divided up the day until He created the Sun to govern this action. Oh wait, that is exactly what He did on day 4. You seem to be limiting God in His abilities.

JM

[JohnnyM]

God created light without there being a Sun, so He could have easily divided up the day until He created the Sun to govern this action. Oh wait, that is exactly what He did on day 4. You seem to be limiting God in His abilities.

JM

[js1138]

I have a feeling that if you and I both asked him that question, he would say "what is that to you?" I just don't believe that arguing over the age of the earth is a tremendously important thing...

Jesus was, in fact, asked point blank what the important things are, and He answered obey the commandments and love thy neighbor. He didn't mention the age of the earth.

[DallasMike]

You seem to be limiting God in His abilities.

You know, that's the argument that's always given when people don't know a better answer. God has the ability to feed us all with manna but are you going to stand out on your front lawn tomorrow morning and wait for it to fall? If you go to the grocery store, then you may very well be limiting God's ability to provide for you.

Nobody argues that God did not have the ability to create the universe in 6 days or milliseconds. The question is what did God CHOOSE to do.

You're basing your argument on one POSSIBLE interpretation of a single word in the early chapters of Genesis. However, the revelation that God gave us through his creation strongly contradicts that one possible interpretation. Why not choose the interpretation of that word, yom, that fits the evidence that God has shown us through his creation? You have two choices: (1) either your interpretation of the word yom is incorrect, or; (2) God's revelation through his creation is incorrect. Choose your pick.

[JohnnyM]

No reading of these passages can infer, imply, or somehow suggest that it is not a 24 hour period. You choose to refuse it not by the Word of God as it is written, but by the knowledge of fallible man. You are interpreting the Bible through the lens of man's current understanding that is subject to change.

There is no interpretation of this passage that can make yom be anything other than a 24 hour day. There is too much against that interpretation. You are totally ignoring the language and context in which it is used. You totally ignore the morning and evening aspect, the numbering, and the passages in other parts of Scripture (i.e. Exodus) that unequivocally show that it is a 24 hour day.

You have yet to provide any sort of rebuttal to these remarks other than "science says it, so I believe it". You can doubt the clear Word of God all you want, but you are falling into the trap that befell Adam and Eve. Hath God said....

JM

[flevit]

but he also said something like "if you do not trust me on the earthly how then will you trust me on the heavenly" ?

[js1138]

I put your quote into google and got this.

http://women.indiatimes.com/articleshow/883760.cms

Perhaps you'd like to be more specific.

[flevit]

John 3:12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

[flevit]

3) mans interpretation of nature/physical world is incorrect

[js1138]

I looked at the chapter, and it seems to be an admonishment not to take "rebirth" literally, but to seek the meaning behind the poetry.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Mike, I haven't forgotten ya buddy, but you may have to wait as long as another week or two. Just got back from a conference in Wheaton, Ill., and I'll be taking off again this weekend and the next for Fall Break. Hang in there. :-)

[DallasMike]

Just got back from a conference in Wheaton, Ill.,

Lucky you! Most any conference at Wheaton is bound to be good.

[DaveLoneRanger]

http://www.narniaweb.com/ See the "wheaton" articles.

[flevit]

he speaks with equally authority on both earthly birth and the heavenly rebirth (both are equally as litteral), for he knows both (earthly and heavenly), but knows the the pharisies only know birth, so he uses the analogy. to no avail..


John 5:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

[Dinobot]

you still have the problem of death before sin...what did Jesus die for...sin...why was the world created with sin in it??? it wasn't, Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?

could a "very good" world have the stench of rotting corpses, cancer and dismemberment of man and animals in it?
_____________________________________


Perhaps it is time that a paleontologist chime in on the issue. Paleontology has become a very diverse science that cover numerous evidences with direct bearing on issues that cover the age of the earth. While there are numerous pontifications declaring unequivocally that the earth is 6,000 years old and that everything terrestrial and astrological were created in 6 days (Note: literally the sun moon, stars, and constellations, and all of their dynamic interrelationships were created in twelve hours, not 6 days), Efforts to prove this point paleontologially have centered on two primary issues:

1) Co-habitation of humans and all life forms found in the fossil record
2) Death (i.e. extinction)

These two are obviously interrelated and have to be proved with regard to a specific time frame. For the evolutionists, as much time as he thinks he needs he gets, but the young-earthers are constrained to six 24-hour days and a total age of all material in the universe to 6,000 years.

It needs to be stressed that the young earther time frame is self imposed and is based upon a particular interpretation of the Genesis account, buttressed with secondary sources throughout the Bible. Still, it is an interpretation and can only garner scientifc dogmatism through the discovery and interpretation of objective physical evidence.

On the other hand, evolutionists have issues to deal wiih as well. They too need the variable of time in order to posit their points. They have an advantage over the young earthers in the sense that their time constraints do not need beginning or end points. Five billion years is a relative term in the sense that all time has at the very least beginning points.
The beginning point may be certain only through human measurement, while the end point is continually changing. Five billion years from what? We may say the big bang, but what is your reference point for its beginning. It is only 5 billion years referenced from human time. Thus we become the end point, and that end point is constantly changing. If I believe tomorrow what I believe today, the age of the earth is now one day older. Interestingly, the creationists have solved this problem of time by quoting Genesis "In the beginning God created." So they do have a begin point that the naturalistic evolutionists will never find. In other words while the age of the earth has increased dramically from tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions, and hundreds of millions, to billions, and so on and so forth, by the naturalistic evolutionist, the creationists time frame is still exactly what it was when Bishop Usshur (sic) "scientifically" through counting all the geneologies in the Bible came up with ----- 6,000 years.

Therefore, it must be that all animals and all plants that ever are and ever were lived together, and though scripturally (through the young earth perspective) they were not created contemporaneously, the first occurrance of life seperated from the creation of man by no less than 72 hours. Such a difference in time can never be measured in any significant way and so it is assumed by all that they were essentially created together.

Several points must be stressed: Firstly, The young-earth creationist perspective was firmly in place before two important discoveries took place in the 19th century: The discovery of dinosaurs, and the fact of extinction. In fact, the discovery of the one lead to the conclusion of the other. It was immediately obvious that the discovery of dinosaur bone, both articulated and scattered, stunned both camps.

The presence of gigantic reptilian beasts that lived on land, in the seas, and flew, represented a challenge to the status quo in a number of significant areas. Where did such monsters come from? Why did they get so big? Why were so many of them ferocious carnivores? Why are there no creatures like them on earth today? These and other questions required answers from both secular and religious academics. These questions are still difficult to answer, even today, for while we have advanced significantly in our ideas as to what dinosaurs looked like, and to a lesser degree, how they behaved, questions surrounding their biological origins and their untimely demise are much harder to answer.

From an evolutionary point of view, dinosaurs represent such a dramatic advance over anything previously thought ot have existed on earth, that explaning their remarkable structural and bio-mechanical characterristics strain logic. It's one thing to find evidence of the existence of a bigger bear, or a longer whale, or a larger shellfish, but to find a whole race of animals, of a size and composition that have no familiar representatives alive today, was a startling discovery, for it implied extinction on a global scale.

Secular and religious academics reacted to the discovery of dinosaurs very differently. Secular scientists, enamored with the freshly brewed ideas of classical evolution, as described and explained by Charles Darwin, sought to incorporate the dinosaurs into newly developing evolutionary beliefs. Religious academics, for the most part, used the hardened skeletal remains of dinosaurs as evidence of the horrrors and all-encompasing nature of the Biblical flood of Noah.

Early on, evolutionists were faced with the problem of explaining, in non-catastrophic terms (thereby distancing themselves from invoking the catastrophe of Noah's flood), their sudden and dramatic demise. For the dinosaurs, as big and as grand as they were, died, without leaving a living trace behind whereby one could have anticipated their prior existence. Sincee this was true, it appeared to be an evolutionary dead end. But more importantly, if evolution was energized by survival of the fittest, then the dinosaurs seemed to prove that the fittest died. For they were bigger, stronger, and more adaptable, even by modern standards, than anything else that emerged on earth, iincluding mammals and man. And even though their carcasses were found on every continent, and in every kind of environmental niche, they still inexplicably died.

But there was no celebration for the creationists,for extinction was not at all in their vocabulary. Before the dinosaur discoveries, extinction for a creationist meant the termination of larger representatives of contemporaneous species -- that is, biggerr birds, bears, camels, wolves, and the like. But now there was a whole race of creatures that had never before been known to exist, and they were all wiped out to a beast.

I have written this long polemic to get to this point: We must consider what impact the presence and composition of the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles has had on the Biblical creationists theology -- specifically as they relate to ideas of paradise (Eden), the fall of man, the subsequent curse, and the Noachian deluge. Additionally, what does their discovery mean for the prevailing views about the age of the earth? Finally what did the discovery of the extinction of these animals mean to the idea of the creation and preservation of species?

Listen to Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in their 1961 edition of The Genesis Flood:

"Uniformitarian paleontology, of course, dates the formation of the major fossiliferous strata many scores and hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of human beings on the earth. It assumes that uncounted billions of animals had experienced natural of violent deaths before the fall of Adam; that many important kinds of animals had long since become extinct by the time God created Adam to have dominion over every living creature;and that long ages before the edenic curse giant flesh-eating monsters like Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed the earth,slashing their victims with ferocious dagger-like teeth and claws. But how can such an iinterpretation of the history of the animal kingdom be reconciled with the early chapters of Genesis? Does the book of Genesis, honestly studied in the light of the New Testament, allow for a reign of tooth and claw and death and destruction before the fall of Adam?" (Pg 454-455).

See what I mean?

I will write more later.

[Dinobot]

No reading of these passages can infer, imply, or somehow suggest that it is not a 24 hour period. You choose to refuse it not by the Word of God as it is written, but by the knowledge of fallible man. You are interpreting the Bible through the lens of man's current understanding that is subject to change.
_________________________________

Some bible expositors are unwilling to allow for more expansive views that incorporate scientific discovery into creationist dogma, so they promote an unscientific stance that in some cases can appear to be quite intolerant. Check out H. Morris:

"We need...to recognize plainly that the biblical "days" of creation were real days, such as we know them today, and cannot possibly be equated with the"ages" of the so-called historical geology. This should not trouble us scientifically, since we have already seen that science, as such, is utterly incapable of telling us anything about creation. Science deals only with present processes, with reproducible experiments, and present processes are not processes of creation. We prefer, therefore, simply to let God's word speak for itself concerning what happened in the creation period." (The creation of the world. 1977. pg 24).

Morris plays scientific evidence against scriptural truth as if they were forever at odds and opposed to one another. I find this attitude impossible to support. The underpinnings of Morris' consistent unscientific stand hinges, then, not on what is evident from creation, but from what is not.
Let me illustrate. Nowhere is this philosophy more bankrupt than when it comes to ideas about the age of the earth. The apparent old age of the earth is clearly problematic to those who accept the young earth premise. Yet the young earth creationists, like Morris, are the first to admit that the earth does indeed look old. (Please note. They have invented this idea. It was not invented by evolutionists, atheists, or santa clause.) So in order to reconcile the evidence of an old earth with their ideology that the earth is young they have come up with the novel idea of "creation with apparent age." This idea proposes to argue that God made the earth appear to be billions of years old when He actually created it 6,000 years ago. This is a remarkable concession to the overwhelming scientific evidence of an old earth, and it is one that should trouble those who believe they must reject the evidence of age in order to keep alive the unsubstantiated belief in a 6,000 year-old-earth. Remarkably, Morris and others must acknowledge that their belief is the one least supported by science. What is a scientific creationist, then? If Morris is right and science really can't tell us anything about creation per se, why should we expect to find any evidence for a young earth? Let's consider Morris again:

"On the same day, God caused vegetation to cover the dry land, grasses and herbs were already bearing seed and the trees already yielding fruit, as soon as they appeared. This further implies that the "dry land" which had just previously come forth from the waters was already prepared with suitable soils and nutrients for the plants. Everything was created in fully developed, completely funcioning form. The whole world thus had an "appearance of age," even though newly created. Creation of apparent age is inherent in the very concept of creation. No deception is involved, since God has plainly told us these events of creation." (ibid. pg 25.)

Can't anybody go back to the first step to see why they find themselves so very far down the wrong road? If this issue is "plain" why all the uproar? The lack of evidence for a young earth contrasts so sharply with the abundant evidence of the real age of the earth that the two can never be harmonized--at least not scientifically. Morris suggests that God deliberately made the earth look billions of years old when it was born 6,000 years ago. Decades of promoting this belief has undoubtedly engendered the cry from everybody who hears of it that some type of heavenly deception is afoot. Morris has to deal with that problem, hence his comment at the end of his statement.

What is troubling to me as a paleontologist is that when one studies the formations of earth, we indeed do not see evidence of a young earth, because page upon page of God's natural history book is replete with information that go back much farther than 6,000 years. What we are supposed to believe is that God wrote into these geological layers a clear, moment by moment, history of events spanning millions if not billions of years in an instant. This concept is so fantastic that it is impossible to grasp by anyone who has ventured out into God's garden and read His book, layer by layer, like I have. Morris can only resort to a demand to "believe" an idea that overrules the scientific evidence of an old earth. Morris again:

"Recognition of the necessity for creation of "apparent age" and of a "finished creation" will go far toward resolving the apparent scientific conflict between the Bible account of creation and the supposed great age of the earth and the universe." (ibid, pg 29.)

LET ME CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT MORRIS' CLAIM DOES NOT HARMONIZE SCIENCE WITH THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION, BUT MISSING SCIENCE WITH HIS YOUNG-EARTH THEORY.

Those that, like me, do not accept the necessary tenet of the apparent age of heaven and earth have no problem. For the heavens and the earth look old because they are old. There is no divine mandate whereby any Christian is obligated to believe this. All readers must understand that this premise is an absolute theological disaster that has created so many false teachings that the gospel of Christ has been hindered, regardless of whether the creation account is a big issue or not, among a huge pool of professionals, who would otherwise be open to the Gospel. When they find out what young-earth creationists believe about science, why should I expect them to believe the ridiculous story that a man rose from the dead? If young earth creationists like Morris use the same logic employed in the apparent age dogma with the account of the resurrection of Christ, all Christian apologetics would collapse.

Christ didn't really rise from the dead. It only appeared that he did.