Misconceptions of Evolution and Creation

Jim, I'm finally ready to reply to your comments as well as your more recent posts too.

I just want to let it be known that this post by itself in no way proves Creationism. Rather, it is meant to raise questions about the Theory of Evolution and to answer a few questions regarding Creationism (or the Theory of Creationism to be fair). Before throwing speculation at specific quotes found here please read the entire article provided by the original author.

Quotes from Jim italisized-

As Dr, Ham says, same evidence, different interpretation. Only this one actually satisfies what we know is settled science through the fossil record.

What does the fossil record actually tell us? Do they tell us that they were formed over billions of years? Not at all.

Can science help us decide how fast fossils form, and how fast those sedimentary rock layers pile up? That’s what I wanted to know when I signed up for courses like Stratigraphy that deal in part with rates of sediment-layer formation.

Surprisingly enough, just about everybody—creationist, evolutionist, and everyone in between—agrees that individual fossil specimens themselves begin to form very, very rapidly! If a plant or animal just dies and falls to the ground or into the water, it’s quickly broken up and decomposed by scavengers, wind and water currents, even sunlight. Fallen logs, road kills, and dead aquarium fish don’t just become fossils, nor did the millions of bison slaughtered in America’s move west.

Read the rest of this article here.

Okay then, do the fossils tell us how old they are based on where they were found in the earth? Not quite.

It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.

This is a link on Answers In Genesis pointing to an outside source located here.

The Flood? How would that affect the layers of earth supposedly layed down over millions of years?

Although most people relate the Flood to “forty days and forty nights of rain,” the Bible says that the Flood began when “the fountains of the great deep burst forth.” It seems that most of the water came from below, not from above. Few people realize what a tremendous amount of water is found in molten rock (magma) trapped beneath the earth’s surface! When a hole or crack develops in the solid rock capping the more liquid magma, the pressure release causes the super-super hot water to flash into steam, and “BOOM” we have an upward-outward rush of vapor, gas, dust, and ash, producing a volcanic explosion and/or an outpouring of liquid rock on the surface (lava)! A geologist looking for a way to start a worldwide flood could hardly come up with a better mechanism than breaking up the “fountains of the great deep!”

As the volcanic fountains opened up in what is now the Grand Canyon area, the colossally stupendous force just pushed the pre-Flood or early Flood rock aside and tilted it up. The Precambrian rocks in the inner gorge are indeed cracked and tilted, and igneous intrusions cut across and between them, marking, I am suggesting, the beginning of Noah’s Flood, recorded for our study.

The first Flood current in the area came with such tremendous force that it sheared off the tilted Precambrian rocks in virtually a straight line, producing the so-called “angular unconformity” diagrammed in Fig. 34. Science tells us that the tilt-and-shear could not have happened slowly and gradually. One of the tilted units (the reddish Hakatai Shale) is so soft and crumbly you can dig it out with your fingernails. Another is so incredibly hard (the Shinumo Quartzite) that researchers can barely knock off a piece with a hammer. Had the rocks been tilted up slowly and eroded gradually by rain drops and rivers, the crumbly rock would be all gone, leaving valleys, and the hard unit would stick up in ridges and hillocks. The two different rock types would result in a very wavy contact being formed at the angular unconformity between the tilted layers and the first horizontal unit, the Tapeats Sandstone. Instead, it looks as if the Flood current that eventually deposited the Tapeats came in with such titanic force that the hard and soft rocks were sheared off almost equally in a nearly straight line.

Read the rest of this artice here.

However, the idea that we have to squeeze out of history evidence that dinosaurs walked with humans because [Ham believes]the Bible says so is unwise. Ham is risking misleading other Christians by taking an inexact understanding of biblical creation and using it as a litmus test for belief.

Okay, so I know this comment was directed primarily towards my post on dragons. I recognize that the article was simplistic but it wasn't meant to go into the great intricasies of proof. It was an email meant for those who already share a common view. With that said, what is the evidence for it?

The word ‘Behemoth’ (Job 40:15) is literally a plural form of a common Old Testament (OT) word meaning ‘beast’. However, practically all commentators and translators have agreed that here we have an intensive or majestic plural, so that the meaning is something like ‘colossal beast’. This case is similar to the word ‘Elohim’ (the most common name of God in the OT), which is actually a majestic plural form, but is always used with a singular verbal form, just as is encountered in this passage. Also, we read in verse 19 that Behemoth was the ‘chief of the ways of God’, which suggests that Behemoth was one of the largest (if not the largest) of God’s creatures...

...The interpretation that Behemoth was an elephant is very old and was common among mediaeval scholars. The original KJV-1611 had a marginal note ‘Or, the Elephant, as some thinke [sic]’. But the French Protestant pastor Samuel Bochart in his Hierozoicon (1663), which analyzed the animals in the Bible in great detail, suggested that Behemoth was a hippopotamus, and this has since remained as the most common interpretation. The suggestion of a dinosaur has only arisen in relatively modern times...

...Bearing all this in mind, we will now consider the key clause in Job 40:17a. First of all, here are some of the English translations of the clause that have been done:

* KJV: He moveth his tail like a cedar.
* NASB: He bends his tail like a cedar.
* NIV: His tail sways like a cedar.
* NKJV: He moves his tail like a cedar.
* REV: His tail is rigid as a cedar.
* RSV: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar.
* RV: He moveth his tail like a cedar.

Older translations are also of interest:

* Septuagint (Greek): He sets up/erects (estesen) his tail like a cypress.
* Vulgate (Latin): He ties up/binds (constringit) his tail like a cedar.
* Luther (German, 16th C): His tail stretches (streckt sich) like a cedar.
* Statenvertaling (Dutch, 17th C): According to his pleasure (Als ‘t hem lust), his tail is like a cedar.
* Diodati (Italian, 16th C): He raises (rizza) his tail like a cedar.

As can be seen, the translations have varied significantly! The reason is that the Hebrew verb in this clause is very problematic, so we shall study it in some detail...

To read the read of this article click here.

Days and Yoms and Meanings
The Hebrew word for “day” that is used in Genesis does mean “day” but has more than the one definition “24-hour day”. We say “back in the day” or “in the days of apartheid” when we are really talking about a span of years. 2 Peter 3:8, which quotes a Psalm, reminds us that a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. It could have been six eras that could range from a day to hundreds of millions of years.

That is a well establish reason that Theological Evolutionists give to bridge the gap between creation and evolution. Does it hold up to Biblical study?

To understand the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for ‘day,’ yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

* A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.

* A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading ‘day as defined by evening and morning.’

* A number, and the phrase ‘evening and morning,’ are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

* Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10

* Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’11 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

* In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word ‘night.’ Outside of Genesis 1, ‘night’ is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word ‘light’ with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

* The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. ‘in those days.’14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

* There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

To read the rest of this article click here.

Trees can’t bear fruit in a day.
God and Science has a webpage explaining how a literal 6 day creation was not the intended meaning of the Genesis narrative. It takes aim at Day #3 - The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. God can do anything but a plant cannot bear fruit in one day. The danger of a highly literal interpretation is that here we make a mistake that an atheist will be quick to point out.

Evolutionists can't make claim to this because the idea behind it is false reasoning. It is based on the presupposition that macro evolution occured. If we take the shackles off our God and allow him to be the God who raised himself (Christ) from the dead, healed the sick, caused a virgin to give birth, made thousands of prophecies that came true, parted the Red Sea, caused a global flood and said "Let there be light" - if we allow this God to exist in our minds - we will find that it is not impossible for this God to create trees that bear fruit in a day.

But the problem is not whether we know for sure that God did it all in 6 24-hour days, the problem....is sin.

Not ironically I agree with you that the problem is sin. But the problem of sin raises questions about whether or not we take a literal or interpretive view of scripture.

I'm going to end with this final piece from Answers In Genesis found here. I think it sums up the rest of what I want to say nicely. I don't like doing pieces this long so if you have any further questions (or rebuttal) that I need to answer please help me out by pointing out one thing at a time. Love you, brother!

For the Christian, which history of death you accept has major theological implications.

1. If a Christian accepts the history of death over millions of years, then when God stated in Genesis 1:31 that everything He had made was ‘very good’, this would mean that death, suffering, violence, and diseases like cancer (as represented in the fossil record) were also ‘very good’. This situation is represented in the following diagram:

This view of history, if consistently applied, would lead to the situation summed up by the heretical Bishop John Shelby Spong:

‘… But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin … . And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?’4

Bishop Spong accepts the history of death over millions of years. As a result of this, he cannot accept a perfect creation that was marred by sin. Thus, the groaning (death and suffering, etc.) we observe today has continued for millions of years. This is also true of all ‘long-age creationists’. These are those who accept the secular belief in an old world, while opposing evolution in favour of ‘progressive creation’ or ‘intelligent design’.

2. However, if a Christian accepts the history of death as given by a literal reading of the Genesis account, then this history can be represented by the following diagram:

The perfect creation with no death, disease or suffering is described as ‘very good.’ The Bible makes it clear that God does not delight in death. We read in Ezekiel 33:11, ‘Say unto them, As I live, said the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn you, turn you from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?’ God takes no pleasure in the afflictions and calamities of people (death etc.).

The Bible makes it obvious that death is the penalty for our sin. In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is—God is a loving, merciful God. When we sinned in Adam, we effectively said that we wanted life without God. All of us also sin individually (Romans 3:23). God had to judge sin, as He warned Adam He would (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). In doing so, God has given us a taste of life without Him—a world that is running down—a world full of death and suffering. As Romans 8:22 says, ‘the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs’. Man, in essence, forfeited his right to live.

However, even though we are sinners, those who have turned from their sin and trusted Christ for forgiveness will spend eternity with their Creator in a place where righteousness dwells—and there will be no more crying, suffering or death.

The true history of death, as understood from a literal Genesis, enables us to recognize a loving Creator who hates death, the enemy that will one day be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Which history of death do you, the reader, accept? Is it one that makes God an ogre responsible for millions of years of death, disease and suffering? Or is it one that correctly places the blame on our sin, and correctly represents our Creator God as a loving, merciful Saviour who wept at the tomb of dead Lazarus (John 11:35)?