In Six Days? (continued)
March 3, 2008
(Mike Purrington's response to my previous posting can be found at The Evidence for an Old Earth. I respond to him here.)
Mike,
It is good to see that you recognize that the earth may well be billions of years old, and that the geologic column may well be an indication of when various life forms existed. It is also good to see that you recognize that the process of creating creatures may well have lasted many millions of years. You see that the six day "creation" in Genesis 1 represents a recovery of the earth after the last ice age, and that those six days have nothing to do with the millions of years that you think may have transpired before Genesis 1:3, and the many creatures that may well have existed before Genesis 1:3.
Let's look at your writings, which are quoted below in yellow, starting with you summary of Genesis 1:
|
So how does Genesis read? A long time ago, in very distant times past, the Lord God
first created the heaven and earth Genesis 1:1. But then as Genesis 1:2 states,
there was a vast gap in historical time, on the order of possibly hundreds of
millions of years. In the beginning (verse 1) we have a perfect creation of
heaven and earth, but in verse 2 we see a decimated heaven and earth. The
geologic column fits in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and the geologic time marker
at Genesis 1:2 is the very end of the Pleistocene. The end of the Pleistocene
which is about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago shows evidence of global extinction
and a severe drop in global temperatures. From the evidence we can see that all
life perished from the face of the Earth for a brief period before God
regenerated a new creation from the remains of the old heavens and earth. |
Well, you may think that Genesis 1: 2 states that "there was a vast gap in historical time", but others think you are very creative in inserting this gap. If it is so obvious that Genesis 1:2 states that this gap exists, why is it that the vast majority of theologians, both conservative and liberal, disagree with you on this?
But rather than debate the theological minutiae, let's assume for the sake of argument that Genesis does speak of a vast gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1: 2. You go on to describe what supposedly happened in that gap.
|
Satan’s fall is in the timeframe from about 750 million to 580 million years
ago. Lets look at the evidence. When Satan fell so did creation. If you recall
in our last article we looked at the question of the laws that operate the
universe and how God would follow those laws. When Satan fell so did creation
and following those laws creation began to unwind Their fossilized remains prove
that there was a struggle for life under that sentence of death across the
geologic ages.
|
Okay, so your words tell me that God created the earth many millions of years ago, that Satan fell sometime before 580 million years ago, and then there was a long period of time leading up to about 12,000 BC when many creatures lived as described in the geologic column.
If we look at the geologic column, we find that life was progressing from the earliest forms. The earliest part of the column shows single-celled creatures only, then moving up we find soft-bodied creatures, then the "Cambrian Explosion" with simple creatures that had hard parts, and then progressive developments up to modern species. If God created all of these creatures, then he was busy creating for millions of years.
|
In looking at our surroundings both here on earth and the sky above us and
looking at the theories put forth by science I think we can safely say that God
has been in the process of creating throughout his existence which incidentally
is time without end in the past, present, and future tense because God dwells
outside of time. For us to assume that man is God’s only creation in absurd. If
we look at time through the eyes of God whether it be 6000 years or 4.5 billion
years, that time frame would be just a click of the second hand of your
watch.
|
Okay, your God could have been creating for millions of years during the period that you see as the gap in the Genesis record. But what method did God use? Is it possible he was using evolution?
I contend that, if there was a creator God, that he created all those living things by allowing them to evolve from common ancestors. Since you reject that method, what do you put in its place? What method do you think God used to create all those creatures? So far, evolution is the only method on the table. I have presented my view. You have yet to suggest an alternative. Please suggest an alternative method, and tell us why you think it is more plausible that God used this method rather than evolution. Until you do that, the debate cannot even begin. Evolution is the only method on the table. Do you care to suggest an alternative method that God might have used?
Let me repeat two paragraphs I listed at the beginning of our discussion (here), which you have not answered. Please answer these questions:
|
There is a well established series of fossils that transition from a fox-sized creature that lived 50 million years ago up to the modern zebra, horse, and donkey. The best explanation for that evidence is that the horse and zebra evolved from earlier creatures. What is your explanation? And what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all? |
You seem to be ignoring those questions. Please respond. How do you explain those transitionals?
Okay, now let's look at the details of your argument:
|
I wrote these articles as we will see later that the arguments for evolution and
the creationist (young earth) point of view collapse because of how the data in
interpreted.
|
Well, you do show how the arguments for young earth creation collapse, but exactly how is it that you collapse the argument that modern life forms evolved from those early creatures that existed during the Cambrian period? So far, you seem to ignore that vast period of time, from 490 million years ago to 12,000 BC, during which most of what we know as evolution occurred. If you haven't really addressed that time period, how can you say that you collapsed the argument that animals evolved into modern forms during that period? Don't you at least need to address the issue before you declare victory?
|
The first problem I came across and rightly so, is that both camps, evolution and creation have very learned men and women. PhD’s are a dime a dozen so-to-speak, along with all the other degree’s issued by colleges around the country. So we have knowledge on both sides. |
Yes, of course there are smart guys on both sides of the evolution argument, just like there are smart guys on both sides of the issue of the verbal inspiration of the Quran, the value of astrology, and the value of vaccination. Having smart guys on one's side does not make one right. That is why the argument from authority is considered to be a logical fallacy. Science is not based on the utterances of a PhD, but on facts.
|
Both sides use the same science and both sides use the same facts, the difference is, the facts are interpreted differently depending on what they believe. |
Well, you use some of the same facts, but you seem to be ignoring many of the facts. What about the series of mammal-like reptiles that have been shown to lead up to the existence of mammals? What about the series of "horses" leading up to the modern horse? What about those facts? One cannot simply pick out a few facts he likes, while ignoring those facts that contradict his views, and then call his view science.
|
Both of us have looked at the evidence and have come up with a different interpretation, but that occurs when you look at the evidence through different filters. The question that remains is who is right? |
More important than the question of who is right, is the question of how we tell who is right. For there are so many voices out there. Unless we have a means of determining who is right on issues of science, we will be confused.
I suggest we use the scientific method. Do you agree?
|
I thought about this question for some time and came to the conclusion that for
me to argue talking points presented by both sides would be of little value and
would probably take the rest of my life to gather all the evidence from both
sides and be able to present it in a way that would be both understandable and
interesting. In essence it would be a big fat book that would probably never get
read and those that read it would find something to criticize, and the criticism
would come from both sides. So I decided to lay out what science says and what
scripture says,
|
I am curious why you think that arguing the talking points of both sides has little value. For arguing the talking points of both sides is the essence of the scientific method. In science, if one wants his views to be accepted as science, he must show why his views are true, and why the arguments against his views are not valid. This is done all of the time in the scientific journals. It has led to the scientific revolution. So can we really say this has little value?
Now of course, if we were to lay out the talking points for both sides here, we would be repeating discussions that have happened for hundreds of years in books, journals, conversations, and the Internet. Mainstream science has found that the talking points for evolution so overwhelm the talking points against evolution, that mainstream scientists refer to evolution as a fact. Now if you disagree with their conclusion, we can discuss the talking points. But how can one make progress in this debate if he writes off the value of talking points?
|
[quote from Journal of Morphology]All experts agree that birds are related to theropod dinosaurs; however, debate has raged on over whether today's winged creatures are derived directly from advanced theropods, or from an earlier shared ancestor. The current theory supports direct derivation, but recent fossil discoveries in China have led to new questions about the claim. |
Can you understand that this writer is in no way refuting evolution? He says right there in the first sentence, "All experts agree that birds are related to theropod dinosaurs". And when mainstream scientists say that one group of animals is related to another, they do not simply mean they are similar, but rather, that both groups descended from a (relatively) recent common ancestor. The argument here is not whether birds evolved, but whether the relationship between birds and theropod dinosaurs is that of two cousin groups, or if it is one of direct descendency.
It is interesting that the author implies that all experts agree that birds and theropod dinosaurs evolved from common ancestors. In other words, if you know PhDs that disagree with evolution, then this author would say they are not experts, for he says that all experts agree with him on that point.
|
We know that seeds can remain dormant for years and as soon as whatever is covering it up is removed they start to germinate and grow. Here we see God saying, let there be light, or let vegetation grow again. It’s almost as if He’s regenerating what was once there. He does not create, he just commands the plants to grow after their kind. |
I'm finding that your interpretation of Genesis keeps minimizing the value of the six creation days. Now we find that many of those plants created in those six days may well have existed before the six day creation, and that the bringing forth of vegetation might refer to the sprouting of plants from seeds that were dormant.
One wonders why an author would spend so much time discussing the regeneration of seeds after the ice age, while never mentioning the creation of those plants in the first place. One would think that the original creation would be far more important.
For years, people have been taught that the six days of creation in Genesis record the original creation. Can you understand how people might read Genesis, and understand that this is talking about the original creation of life, not the regeneration of dormant seeds after an ice age?
Your blog it titled In Six Days. Can you understand how young earth creationists might see that title, and think that you believe in a six day creation? Why don't you tell them you are merely referring to a six-day recovery from an ice age?
|
In reading the scripture we find that God filled the new world with many of the
same KINDS of plants and animals that had been on the face of the Earth
previously. Many were not replaced after their kind, however, but new ones were
introduced in their place.
Whether God allowed the old world to totally unwind or whether he destroyed and recreated remains a mystery, however all the old is gone and everything was replaced. The DNA is similar, just like man and ape, but they were created after their kind. |
Well, you will search in vain for evidence that there was a complete remake of creatures about 4000 BC. From the fossil record animals leading up to 4000 BC look just like those after 4000 BC. If this destruction happened, why doesn't the fossil record show the gap? Why do fossil horse leading up to 4000 BC look just like fossil horses after 4000 BC? Why does the pollen from plants before 4000 BC match the pollen from plants after 4000 BC?
|
[quote from Richard Stenger]Astronomers think the red giant is shedding its outer material, which in tens of
thousands of years will produce a nebula system. |
I presume that the words in parentheses--"it has already happened if we read and interpret Genesis correctly"--are yours. I can't agree with you that this has already happened. Please read this article about red giant stars. Do you really believe that the sun already went through this phase?
|
Now let’s go back and look at what scripture says in verse three of Genesis. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light...We know the sun had not been re-created yet, so what is he saying? I think what he is saying is this, may the darkness that covers the old creation be lifted. I believe it was an oppressive darkness brought about by the fall of Satan. I think we can almost call it a form of depression, much like what a person feels. |
So the sun died as a red giant sometime before 10,000 BC, only to be re-created shortly after vegetation reappeared? How is it that we see no evidence of this in the fossil record? If the sun had become a red giant, it should have melted the rocks of earth, and driven the water out into space. This event would have destroyed the pre-existing fossil record, for the rocks would have melted. And yet fossil-bearing rocks from long before this time still exist. And the earth's water was not driven off into space. So are you sure this really happened to the sun?
|
Through carbon dating… about 12,000 years ago which would point to the end of
the Pleistocene, old earth and the heavens above became a cold, dark, and ruined
cosmos 6000 years ago God recreated
|
And so you have a period of at least 6000 years, in which the sun is dead, and the earth is waiting for a re-creation.
How is it that we see varves in lakes, showing one layer per year, each with signs that life continues on normally through this period, if the sun was dead? (see more here.)
The Greenland ice core is built up of at least 160,000 annual layers. It appears that ice has been accumulating continuously for 160,000 years. If the sun had become a red giant during that phase, why was this ice core not affected? (see Ice Core Dating)
|
It almost sounds like God is saying, since I am light, let my light illuminate the troubled area so I can focus on the trouble at hand. |
Some people read Genesis 1, and it never occurs to them that "Let there be light" simply means that God wants to illuminate a troubled area. They understand from context that it is referring to the original creation of light. If light already existed, couldn't the author have found a clearer way of saying "Let me light up this troubled area"?
Can you understand how some people think that you may be reading this concept into Genesis to make it match science, and that the original writer in no way intended to mean that light had existed for billions of years before God said, "Let there be light"? Can you understand that it looks to many like Genesis is mistaken here?
|
the very next thing God did was make a firmament. Now here is where I had to do
some research.
|
Ah, yes, a little research is indeed needed here. For it turns out that the ancients taught that there was a dome above the earth, in which stars resided, and that the sources of rainwater dwelt above this dome. The firmament of Genesis fits so well with this concept, surely the ancients must have thought the book was referring to this dome over the earth. Shouldn't the author have made it clearer that this is not what he was referring to? (See, for instance, A Common Cosmology of the Ancient World.)
|
Now look at Genesis 1:6-7 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made
the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
If the firmament included the stars and all the stars died out, imagine as crazy as it sounds that water covered even them. But what is even stranger is this. God divided the waters so that there was water beneath and above the firmament which is an indication that the third heaven where God resides is separated from us by water. We can draw a parallel from this that the earth was floating in a sea of water. |
Well, the idea of water covering the stars of the firmament didn't seem crazy to the ancients, who believed there were stores of water up there. And yes, the idea of such waters does seem crazy to modern scientists.
|
Go back and read the article of a dying star. Suppose our universe died all at once, imagine the amount of water that would be created. With this in mind is what I proposed possible? Science fiction or science… you decide. |
Well, no the article you mentioned does not refer to the creation of water, but rather to the evaporation of frozen water in comets. Let's look at the article in question:
|
[Stenger writes:] A red giant star in its death throes seems to be vaporizing a horde of comets,
raising the possibility that another planetary system possesses water, an
ingredient necessary for known life, astronomers reported Wednesday. The
carbon-rich star was not expected to contain significant amounts of water. But
an orbiting NASA radio observatory detected huge concentrations of water vapor
around it. "The most plausible explanation ... is that it is being vaporized
from the surfaces of orbiting comets, dirty snowballs that are composed
primarily of water ice," lead investigator Gary Melnick said Wednesday. Several
hundred billion comets, located in the far reaches of the star system, would
have been necessary to produce the intense concentration of water vapor, Melnick
and his colleagues told reporters.
|
Okay, what we see here is that ice is evaporating. Now how can this in any sense be said to be the creation of water? The water was already there when the star became a red giant.
Can you see how many see that Genesis 1:2 is not referring to water evaporating at exploding stars? If millions of stars had suddenly become dying red giants, one would think the author could think of a better way to describe this then saying:
|
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. |
Why did the writer write in such a way, that believers in a dome that covered the heavens would find this chapter in agreement with them? I venture to say that almost nobody is able to see these verses are referring to the massive death of many stars as red giants as your words indicate.
|
We set up the possibility of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and we also showed how evolution could not have happened. |
Well, you set up the possibility of the gap in Genesis, and how it might solve the conflict with science, but can you understand there is a big difference between setting up a possibility and proving a point?
I know how this works. I taught Sunday School in Evangelical churches for years before I lost my faith. When one comes across a difficult verse, all one needs to do is find a plausible explanation that resolves the problem. And soon the plausible explanation becomes the answer to the problem and we move on. That is not the way that science works. Scientists must do more than show a plausible explanation. They must convince their peers that their view is most likely true, and that it survives the onslaught of critical thinkers who try to find a flaw in their argument. Only then does it become science.
Do you think you could make a convincing case to scientists that the sun became a red dwarf in the last 20,000 years? Unless you can do this, your views do not qualify as science.
|
The reason many choose to believe in evolution rather than creation is simply
this, to acknowledge God means we are responsible for our actions and sin does
exist which means we have to change our lifestyle.
|
Wouldn't it be better to ask us what our motives are, rather than trying to read our minds and telling us what is going on inside?
I can tell you why I believe evolution happened. The facts supporting it are overwhelming. It has nothing to do with not wanting to change my lifestyle.
If those who believe in evolution do so because they do not want to acknowledge God and change their lifestyle, why is it that there are millions of dedicated Christians who believe in evolution, and still take their Christian walk very seriously? You have no explanation for that fact, do you?
|
[quoting Kevin Miller] Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was
fairly static. Only a very small number of Pre-Cambrian life forms (Ediacaran
fauna), blue green algae, and single celled animals show up at all in the fossil
record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago. |
Well, yes only a small number of life forms can be seen in the record before 600 million years ago, but there is a very good reason for this. The earliest life forms were single-celled, or simple multi-celled creatures with no hard body parts. Such creatures do not fossilize well.
|
[Miller:] not even the most firm believers in evolution can provide a reasonable explanation for the complexity increase that takes place in about 5 million years starting 540 million years ago. Five million years is like a blink of an eye when it comes to the evolutionary timeline. As mentioned earlier just about all of the 70 phyla that have ever existed on this Earth first made an appearance in the fossil record at the time of the Cambrian Explosion. |
Sometimes it amazes me what people will say. Does Miller wonder if those who believe in evolution have a reasonable explanation for this? All he needed to do was perform a simple Google search for "Cambrian Explosion." And he might have found Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wherre it discusses many explanations. Also, he might have found Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion, The Cambrian Period, Cambrian Explosion, and The_Cambrian_Explosion, which also discuss explanations. So Miller could have saved himself the embarrassment of claiming there were no reasonable explanations by doing some simple research.
|
[Miller:] Others have claimed that perhaps the precursors to the Cambrian creatures existed but never fossilized. Considering the wide array of creatures found during the Cambrian explosion this can be considered at best special pleading. |
First, scientists have indeed found evidence of multi-celled living organisms many millions of years before the Cambrian explosion,. See Claim CC300.
Yes, undisputed fossil remains of hard-parts of animals do not exist until sometime near the Cambrian period, but there is a good explanation for that. Before that time, there were probably few animals with hard parts. Soft body parts do not fossilize well. So there may have been a huge variety of soft-bodied animals before the Cambrian explosion, and the evidence seems to indicate that there indeed were.
So why did life go on for so long,before the surge of preserved hard parts that appear in the Cambrian? There are many possible explanations, but one of the critical factors is the lack of oxygen. In the early earth, oxygen was limited. This made it difficult for animals to develop the metabolism to give them energy to move around or to build complex body parts. But as the Cambrian approached, oxygen levels were increasing. In the Cambrian, it was possible for animals to have hard structures and energy which they could use to move around and find prey. And others found the need to move around quickly to escape being eaten by these new predators, or to build hard shells to protect themselves. Thus, an arms race began, with ever better means of attack and defence, leaving behind an abundant trail of hard parts in the fossil record.
Is it "special pleading" to claim that the soft-bodied animals before the Cambrian left little trace? Of course not. Let me illustrate. Before the 20th century we find no evidence of TVs or airplanes. Does that mean that no people existed? No, for there is a simple explanation. Although people existed before the 20th century, we find no archeological evidence of their TVs, because TVs were not yet invented. The lack of TVs does not prove the nonexistence of humans. Similarly, the lack of hard parts does not prove the absence of soft-bodied animals. When we combine this with the evidence for soft-bodied animals before the Cambrian, the argument about the lack of earlier hard-bodied fossil disappears.
|
The dramatic sudden increase in complex life on Earth about 540 million years ago is enough to put aside the theory of evolution as the only cause for speciation for the life forms on Earth. It speaks of sudden creation like that mentioned in the book of Genesis. |
And yet what occurred in the Cambrian was not the sudden increase of complex life, but the increase in the technology of hard parts. It is very similar to the increase in technology found in the last 2 centuries. For thousands of years, technology proceeded at what appears to us to be a snail's pace. Then suddenly, with the scientific revolution, in a matter of a few centuries everything changed dramatically. Why didn't modern technology develop thousands of years earlier? The conditions were not right to trigger that explosion in technology until recently. But when conditions were right, technology developed rapidly. Similarly, when the levels of Oxygen and the development of DNA structures had reached the point where they allowed the Cambrian explosion in biological technology, hard parts began to appear in many different creatures for the first time.
|
The subject of transitional forms has been a controversial one and maybe some
good transitional forms do exist that show that an evolutionary lineage of a
particular species but the complete dearth of complex animal fossils before the
Cambrian Explosion is simply not in support of evolution. Transitional forms
require interpretation, the lack of fossil precursors does not. If one takes the
evidence for what it says the Cambrian Explosion explodes the theory of
evolution.
|
Well, actually the "Cambrian Explosion" took many millions of years. (See the links above.)
But even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Cambrian was a nearly instantaneous creation, that in no way refutes the bulk of what we know as evolution. During the Cambrian there were no mammals, no amphibians, no reptiles, no sharks, no snakes, and no monkeys. Those life forms that we are familiar with all came later. The fossil record shows that all of these animals were progressively introduced into the record over hundreds of millions of years. The small vertebrates found in the Cambrian were nothing like modern animals (See Vertebrates: Fossil Record.)
|
Now here’s where we have to back up to Genesis 1:2 the Earth is a lifeless and uninhabited planet drifting in the cold and darkness of the chaotic remains of the old universe. The planet is submerged in water, and waters also rage around it and across a ruined universe. When did this happen? If the ages of the geologic fossil record are true and faithful, as is commonly accepted; if the principle of radioactive decay and half-life dating is true and reliable; if those same dating techniques are reliable when they show that the oldest known rocks on the earth are around 3.8 billion years old, and that the first fossil remains of macro organic life on this planet were approximately 500 - 700 million years ago, then we are confronted with the only logical conclusion: The record of creation in Genesis is a re-creation |
I can think of many more logical conclusions. Maybe Genesis spoke of a 6000 year old earth, and is wrong. Maybe Genesis was intended as allegory. Maybe the days of Genesis were long ages. Many have offered different explanations from you.
So it seems to me that you make a huge jump from the fact that the earth is old, to the conclusion that Genesis teaches a gap and a re-creation.
|
During the last Ice Age, there were many large, interesting mammals, like the
saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, mastodons, and mammoths. These animals
have long since gone extinct and are known mostly from fossils, from frozen,
mummified carcasses, and even from ancient cave drawings. The geologic time
frame preceding the six days of Genesis correlates roughly with the end of the
great "Ice Age" at the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary, which dates to about
10,000 to 14,000 years.
So what happened to these large mammals? |
Conditions changed. Many of the large mammals died because people had become good hunters, and those large animals had had no experience with humans, and hence no fear of them. They were easy prey for the advancing humans.
But most animals, including many large animals, did not die out at the ice age. Your version of creation doesn't seem to account for this fact. What about the vast majority of creatures who just kept living right through the supposed destruction and re-creation?
And science also shows that modern humans existed long before 6000 BC (See Homo sapiens sapiens). How does your view account for the fact that modern humans were walking on this earth before Adam was created?
|
"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots." |
It has been known for a long time that we probably are not descended from Neanderthals. They are our cousins, not our ancestors.
This in no way refutes the claim of science that other species are our ancestors, or close cousins of our ancestors. See, for instance, Fossil Hominids.
|
"Over the next 10 years, more complex genetic models will emerge," Hammer says. "DNA research has not solved the mystery of human origins." |
Of course not. We don't yet have all of the answers. But the fact that we are still learning does not negate all that we have already learned about human origins.
|
It’s possible that part of Satan’s rebellion was trying to create his own world.
I believe that God allowed him to try using the technology God created in
developing life, DNA. The arrival of Cro magnum was as close as he got whether
it was through genetic development or procreation with early humanoid forms we
will never know. But if we look at Genesis 6 I think we get a glimpse of what
happened So what we see here is the sons of a deity or a super natural being looking at the daughters of men. The question is this, where did theses sons of God come from and who were they. If we go back to Satan’s rebellion it would be safe to say that they were beings that fell with Satan |
Okay if you want to believe this story of demons fathering children from human wives, you may, but can you understand how many of us find it difficult to believe that this happened?
And Cro-magnun men are humans just like us, who lived in a different time. If you think they are different from us, what is that difference? (See Cro-Magnon )
|
Science has proven that the stars we see up in the sky are much older than 6,000
years. Young Earth Creationists have listed their arguments and suggest that
changes were made in the speed of light, so God deliberately made everything
appear to be old. In so doing they make God a liar.
|
Yes, that is the problem with young-earth creationism. For it to be true, God must be deceptive. And if we accept the postulate of a deceptive all-powerful God, we could not know when such a God is deceiving us, and thus would lose all ability to know anything about the world.
|
The debate does highlight a need for clearer standards of evidence for matters paleontological and astrobiological. Ironically, despite more data, improved techniques, and increased focus on the field, scientists are finding that one of the most difficult questions to answer is also one of the most basic: "How do we really know?" |
I am curious why you think that scientists are puzzled by the question of how do we really know. That was resolved centuries ago, when the scientific method was developed. And that method has worked well for us.
--------------
I conclude that this gap theory, with its death of the sun in recent history, and its sudden re-creation of animals 6000 years ago, to be a hypothesis without support. You may find a fact here and there which you might try to blend in with this view, but that is not what science is about. Finding a few facts to fit the hypothesis, while ignoring the evidence against it is the opposite of good science. If you want us to believe this hypothesis, you will need to explain things like varves and ice cores during the red giant phase of the sun, and you will need to explain the continuous stream of fossils right through this troublesome period during which the sun had exploded to a red giant and then died..
In the meantime I find nothing within your views that refutes the bulk of what we know of evolution, which occurred between 600M years ago and 6000 BC. This time period is within your proposed gap in Genesis 1, so you can make no claim that Genesis 1 sheds much light on what happened in that period. And you have offered no scientific evidence that new species originated in that time period in a different method than the method of evolution. In fact, you have not even suggested another method. The only method on the table is the method of evolution. So since you apparently have no biblical argument against the claim that evolution occurred between 600M years ago and 6000 BC, and since you have presented no method of creation that you think better explains the available data than the theory of evolution does, it seems to me that you must come to the conclusion that evolution occurred between 600M and 6000 years ago, and that simple Cambrian creatures evolved into creatures that, as far as we can tell, are identical to modern life forms.
If you can accept that evolution occurred during that time frame, we can proceed to discuss the time before 600M years ago. But I think we should concentrate on that phase of evolution (after 600M years ago), for which there is much evidence.
I look forward to reading your response.
|
|
|