Views of Biblical Creation

For those acknowledging the reality that God was the agent of creation, there are four possible answers to the question of how He did it.  The first view is that God took six, literal days as understood by the plain reading of the Genesis text, which is my thesis and is demonstrated in this teaching. (See The First Six Days)  The other three views consider the evolutionary model to be an established fact and therefore seek to reconcile the revelation of Scripture regarding creation with evolution.  The three views are Theistic Evolution, the Gap Theory, and Progressive Creationism.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is the most liberal of the views that ascribes to God a role in creation as being the agent that jump-started the BigTheistic Evolution, Gap Theory, and Progressive Creationism are Wrong Bang.  According to this theory, since then He has allowed evolution to take its course thereby having very little, if any, role in His creation and dealings with man.

The Gap Theory

Proponents of the Gap Theory see the days of Genesis 1 as being literal days but with a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (some also suggest a gap between 1:2 and 1:3).  The rationale for seeking a gap, nevertheless, is due to the belief that (geological) evolution is an established fact and that the Bible must be reconciled to it.  Hence, a time gap is envisioned between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (or 1:2-1:3), which allows for the billions of years supposedly necessary for geological evolution to take place. (I deal with this question in greater depth in my DVD teaching The Angelic Domain and the Fall of Satan and in article The Angelic Domain: Created Before Genesis 1:1 or After? and in  my DVD The Language of Creation)

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism seeks to reconcile the belief of evolution with the Bible, not by way of a gap between verses 1:1 and 1:2, but rather by redefining six days of Genesis 1 to mean indefinite periods of time in which millions and perhaps billions of years transpired each day.  They see God as being involved in the entire process of creation wherein every day, God was creating via the evolutionary process.[2]  Van Bebber and Taylor point out:

The Angelic Domain and the Fall of SatanAccording to the Progressive Creationist timeline, Adam was, in effect, created on top of a graveyard of decaying or fossilized animals. Almost anywhere he walked, the remains of millions of dead animals were somewhere below his feet — evidence of death and frequent misery on a massive scale (2006).

Thus, for the Progressive Creationist, both the Bible and the evolutionary model complement one another because the biblical creation account is better understood through the lens of evolutionary thinking.  Undoubtedly, most proponents of both the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism believe in the authority of the Bible.

How Much Time Does God Need?

Rather than ask why couldn’t God have taken billions of years to accomplish His work of creation, the better question is why didn’t God speak once and everything merely come into existence as suggested by Augustine (see chapter 7)?  God, the Supreme Being by which all things exist, could have snapped His divine fingers and everything would have come into being at once.  Thus, even from a literal, six-day-creation standpoint, God took His time in a big way!  Why did He take so long to create everything?  God purposely slowed Himself down rather than just getting it over with.  The reason, found in Exodus 20:11 (and 31:12-17), is that God wanted to establish a pattern which for mankind to follow; God worked for six days and then rested and so should man.

 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exod 20:11)


[1] See: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/

splash.html

[2] A more predominant Progressive Creationist view is that God created the animals as we see them today (i.e. fixity of species) and they lived and died out over millions or billions of years. However, proponents of this view, such as Hugh Ross, do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution, but they do accept the evolutionary timescale for the geologic and fossil records.  (Dave Wright, Answers In Genesis staff, personal communication, June 9, 2007)

 

Did God Use Evolution When He Created the Universe?

Many Christians have succumbed to the belief that God used the process of evolution within the creation framework. They would suggest that the six days of creation in Genesis were not absolute literal days of 24-hours but some how allowed for the slow process of billions of years of evolution.  They accept the Bible as God’s divine book yet also accept the many facets of evolution as indisputable fact and are forced to squeeze the needed evolutionary time into the pages of the Bible.  Before looking at the evolution plus God theories, however, let us first consider what exactly Did God Use Evolution?evolution is.

What is Evolution?

Evolution in its most basic sense is any process of formation or growth; development, derived from the Latin meaning unrolling, according to Random House Dictionary (2006).  There are many things that evolve, so to speak, in our world.  All that we mean, however, is that there is a slow, gradual change occurring in different facets of life.  Let us consider a few examples.

The Changes in Language and Culture

We can speak of the slow progression of the English language as an example of evolution.  The English of today is clearly not the same as that of Shakespeare’s day.  They are both English, but many things have changed radically so that words and expressions of his day have a completely different meaning today.  The change in language is something that happens slowly and in small increments, but we can all agree that it happens.  Consider how it is that we use different expressions than our parents did and our kids use different words and expressions than we do.

Cultures are also going through a process of change or evolution as well.  The culture of America is without doubt different today than it was 50 years ago.  Things that were unacceptable back then are sometimes considered normal by today’s standards.  In both of these examples, however, we are using the word evolution as a description of the slow change that is taking place and as such, the concept is completely acceptable.  After all, these changes are observed linguistically and culturally by experts in the respective fields and simply by the general public.  In other words, we can easily document and conclusively prove that those changes have actually occurred because the starting point is only 50 years ago and not 15 billion or even 6000 years ago.

From Micro to Macro to Abiogenesis

Douglas Futuyma, expert in biological evolution

Using the word evolution to describe the slow, steady changes that we undoubtedly witness in languages and cultures is indeed a correct use of the term.  If that were the only way that it was used then there would be no problem whatsoever.  However, the reality is that evolution has been given a new role and meaning; it is used to describe the entire progression of the universe starting with the Big Bang until the present day.  The different phases of evolution include: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural.[1]  Biological evolution purports to explain how life started from non-life (properly called abiogenesis) and then how those single-celled organisms eventually turned into you and me.  Douglas Futuyma, a foremost expert in biological evolution notes,

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution…is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual…Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.  (Futuyma 1986)

The above definition is rather misleading, however.  Dr. Futuyma should define for us the three different concepts that he is dealing with under the broad category of biological evolution, which are: Natural Selection (adaptation to an environment, which is sometimes called microevolution), molecules-to-man evolution (change in kind, e.g. reptile to bird, which is sometimes called macroevolution) and abiogenesis (a nonliving piece of rock to a living single-celled organism).  Neither the Bible nor literal six-day creationists are in any way against the concept of Natural Selection, which was actually first introduced by a creationist Edward Blythe.  Changes in species populations, by adapting to their environment, have in fact been witnessed to occur.

Charles Darwin correctly noted that the beaks of the finches on theGalapagos Islandschanged according to the climatic conditions.  He called this evolution.  From there he postulated his theory that these small changes, given enough time, could account for all of the living creatures on earth. Darwinfailed to note, however, that the finches were still finches.  They never turned into something else other than finches. Darwinobserved the species’ ability to adapt to its surrounding (which is easily ascribed to an amazing Creator) and from there made the leap of faith that with the magical element of time, one creature will turn into another.

According to Its Kind

The belief in molecules-to-man evolution – that single-celled organisms turned into more complex creatures, which turned into something else, all the way to you and me – is what stands in direct conflict with the Bible and specifically the six days of creation.  Genesis 1:24 specifically states that on the fifth day, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind [מין min]: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.”  This verse acts as an insurmountable obstacle to those who would try to bridge (macro)evolution and the Bible.  God’s words cannot be misconstrued here.  He plainly says that different living creatures will come forth according to their own kind and not from one common ancestor of all.  He then defines what He means by enumerating the creatures: “cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth”, rendering impossible the paradigm that everything came from a different creature smaller and simpler than itself.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains:

Some have argued that when God created “min” [class, kind, species], he thereby fixed the “species.” This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word “min” with the biologist’s descriptive term “species” cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists…God created the basic forms of life called “min” which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or sometimes order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist’s view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

Dogs Are Still Dogs

Animals reproducing fertile offspring according to their own kind, is what we see in nature.  We see hundreds of varieties of dogs, but dogs are still dogs.  This (largely human-caused) variation in dogs is often called evolution.  This is reflected in the Seed Magazine article “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” (Anthes 2006), which discusses not the macroevolution of how a non-dog turned Dog breeding is not macro evolutioninto a dog, but how through human intervention “the domestication of dogs by humans has given rise to the immense diversity of the canine species by allowing otherwise harmful genetic mutations to survive.”  (Anthes 2006)   This “evolution” that Anthes refers to is nothing more than variation within a kind.  Nevertheless, she is echoed by theNaturalHistoryMuseum inLondon which says that the breeding of dogs shows evolution as well.  (Batten 1996)   Here again, we are given an example of Natural Selection (adaptation and variation, which are factual and observed) and are led to believe that it is equivalent to molecules-to-man evolution.

However, there is no “evolution” of the dog at all, other than variation due greatly to humans.  Interestingly, the study of genetics confirms that all dogs have come from a common ancestry. “Most breeds have developed during the past 500 years, […] Before humans began breeding dogs for certain traits or behaviors, dogs were more general in their appearance or morphology […]” (Dalke 2002).  The multiplicity of dogs is not a proof of evolution but of dog’s best friend manipulating him to better suit man.  “Breeds tell us more about human preferences than about dogs […] Dog breeds are the result of human preferences—selected traits taken from generation to generation.” (Dalke 2002).  “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” would be better titled “Man’s Breeding of Dogs”.


[1] See: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/

splash.html

 

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 2 of 3: Geological Evidence)

The Rocks Speak

Radiometric Dating

Radiometric Dating

The other seemingly unsolvable enigma is that of radiometric dating of rocks yielding ages billions of years old. According to the popular definition of Wikipedia, “radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials based on a knowledge of the decay rates of naturally occurring isotopes, and the current abundances” (Wikipedia Radiometric Dating 2006). Since these decay rates occur extremely slowly, it is believed that the material being dated is of great antiquity. There are inherent problems involved with this method, thus not making it a failsafe method of dating rocks.[1] The work on Polonium radiohalos by Dr. Gentry and the work on Zircon crystals by the RATE team strongly challenge the accepted assumptions involved with radiometric dating. In fact, their independent research has yielded some “rock solid” evidence that the earth is not billions of years old but only several thousand.

Order The First Six Days Here

Polonium Radiohalos

Beginning in 1987, nuclear physicist Dr. Robert Gentry began examining discolorations in minerals. He has since examined over 100,000 of these “radiohalos” found in rocks making his work the foundation of polonium halo research. He describes these “radiohalos:” “Etched within earth’s foundation rocks (the granites) are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence” (www.halos.com/index.htm).

An example analogous to Alka-Seltzer is given demonstrating the fleeting life of the radioactive polonium. It is this moment in which the radiohalos can be captured that yields proof to them having cooled instantaneously (during time of the flood according to the RATE team, see below) rather than the supposed slow cooling of the earth suggested by evolution.

polonium radiohalos

polonium radiohalos

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation (www.halos.com/index.htm).

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

An eight-year study began in 1997 that involved seven scientists with the primary goal of clarifying the chronology of the earth by studying, in particular, the properties of zircon crystals, (similar to the work of Dr. Gentry with polonium). The research has now culminated in evidence strongly indicating that the earth is young. The seven scientists gave their research effort the acronym RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. The findings of their research are available in a two-volume set Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, in a layman’s version (book and DVD) called Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung who offers a partial summary of their research:

RATE research obtained some of the first high-precision data on helium diffusion in zircon. A theoretical model based on this data gives an age for the earth of about 6,000 years. The presence of helium in zircons is a serious challenge to the concept of deep time. The helium also represents compelling evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the past (DeYoung 2005: 176).

These and many more resources demonstrating that the apparent Achilles’ heel of the Young Earth Creation model is not a fatal blow are available at the Institute for Creation Research’s website (icr.org).

The findings of Dr. Gentry on polonium radiohalos and the RATE team on zircon crystals provide compelling evidence based on thorough investigation, experimentation, and observation that the earth is not billions of years old, but is rather approximately six thousand years old, thus implying that the creation week was six literal days.

The Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens: Keys to Geology

Strata of Grand Canyon

Strata of Grand Canyon Photo Anna Hamp

The Grand Canyon is certainly one of the earth’s most amazing places. It leaves us in awe of its size and beauty. There are, however, many questions that are raised in relation to it. The most central questions are how did it form and how long did the process take? The answer lies in looking primarily at the canyon walls. There are hundreds of thousands and even millions of layers also known as strata. These layers, when looking from the side, look like many pieces of cardboard stacked upon another. The accepted geological explanation for these strata is that each layer represents an annual or few years’ cycle of deposition of minerals. Then the Colorado River (at its current rate) cut through the canyon exposing the strata that had already been laid down.

Therefore it is believed that since there are millions of strata, it must have taken hundreds of thousands or millions of years to form. Could there be, however, another plausible explanation for the almost innumerable layers?

 

Cataclysmic Change

 

On May 18, 1980, scientists and tourists from all over the world witnessed an event that would provide a much better and almost inescapable model than the standard uniformitarianism model. In that year, Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington erupted so violently that it lost over 1,300 feet of elevation and the entire inside of the mountain fell down the face of the mountain depositing the sediment in the valley below. Trees for miles north of the mountain were leveled and burned. The beauty of the mountain and lake below was altered forever. However, the event that would ultimately challenge the slow gradual change model of the Grand Canyon did not occur until two years later when, in the winter of 1982, another eruption occurred. At that time, due to the accumulation of snow on the mountain, when the eruption occurred, the massive amount of snow almost instantly turned into water and began rushing down the mountain. The huge surge of water carved a canyon ¼ the size of the Grand Canyon.

The Canyon Formed Quickly

 

What is so astounding, however, is that the canyon took only several hours to a few days to be formed. The power of the water quickly cut through the sediment that had been laid down two years prior in the first eruption (an event that occurred over a period of a few hours.) The walls of this mini Grand Canyon exposed almost identical stratification as found in the Grand Canyon. If both the strata from the deposition of the sediment and the deep cutting of a canyon (even through solid rock) can be formed in as little as a few hours, then how do we know that the stratification of the Grand Canyon is not also the product of massive sediment depositions left behind

Little Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens (photgraph by Douglas Hamp)

Little Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens (photgraph by Douglas Hamp)

from a worldwide flood and the cutting of the canyon is not also an enormous release of water which happened shortly after? Austin notes:

The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! (Austin 1986: 3).

Footprints in the Ash

Drs. John Morris and Steven Austin have written a book, Footprints in the Ash, that deals at length with the overwhelming evidence. The book shows that formation of the Grand Canyon could have occurred quickly as a result of a worldwide flood rather than over millions of years just as things happened quickly on a smaller scale at Mount St. Helens. The evidence of Mount St. Helens provides a better and more consistent model of the age of the earth as being young, which, as we have seen, is the only acceptable conclusion one may come to from reading the Scriptures.

Go to part one here.

Go to part three here.


[1] For detailed results on the dating of a rock of known age, see: answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp.

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 3 of 3: The Fossil Record)

The Testimony of the Fossil Record

Charles Lyell predecesor to Darwin

Charles Lyell

One final area to consider is the fossil record because it is considered to be proof positive of an old earth and the transitional forms needed to support the model of molecule-to-man evolution. Just as the traditional interpretation of stratification at the Grand Canyon, which indicates millions of years of age, is not necessarily the best interpretation of the data when compared with the Little Grand Canyon at Mount St. Helens, which happened very quickly, so too the traditional interpretation of the geological column as representing millions of years is to be questioned. The geological column is the supposed order of evolutionary life forms as recorded in the fossils found in sedimentary rocks. James Hutton in Theory of the Earth (1795) and Charles Lyell in Principles of Geology (1830) popularized the idea that the earth was hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years old based on the study of sedimentary rocks.

As fossils were found in those rocks, the fossils were claimed to have a similar age to the rocks. The geological column was a major source of inspiration and basis for Charles Darwin in the development of his evolutionary hypothesis. Though no “missing links” had been found in his day, he remained hopeful that the fossil record would eventually yield the intermediary fossils so badly needed to support his model. Nevertheless, he notes the conspicuous lack of evidence for his model:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (Darwin 1902 edition, emphasis mine).

About 150 years have passed from when Darwin penned that statement, and unquestionably, millions of fossils have been found, but none of them are “missing links” needed to substantiate his ideas. This is not only according to young-earth arguments (consistent with six literal days of creation), but also according to numerous evolutionists. The geological column, drawn in detailed tables in text books, is the basis of the dating of the evolutionary stages. Ironically, this column, which is at the heart of the evolutionary time-scale, is merely a construct, a mental abstraction (Encyclopedia Britannica 1985: 779). Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association notes: “Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, anywhere near complete” (Ager 1993: 14). The geological column is the primary way by which fossils and rocks are dated. When a fossil is found, the rocks around it are checked to determine the age of the fossil and vice versa, when a particular rock is found, it is compared to the surrounding fossils to determine its age.

This type of circular reasoning is noted by several evolutionists. J. E. O’Rourke, in the American Journal of Science states: “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately” (O’Rourke, Volume 276: 51). R. H. Rastal of Cambridge plainly acknowledges, “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle.” He then further defines what he means by circularity: ”The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain” (Encyclopedia Britannica 1976: 168). Another evolutionist, Tom Kemp of Oxford, also is aware of the circular reasoning involved in the dating of the geological column. He states: “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory” (Kemp 1985: 67). D. B. Kitts of the University of Oklahoma stated regarding the circular foundation of the geological column in Evolution, Volume 28: “But the danger of circularity is still present. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation [the geological column]” (Kitts 1974: 466). Kitts goes on to say “for almost all contemporary paleontologists it [the geological column] rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis” (ibid). There are many more evolutionists that have made similar statements that are beyond the scope of this chapter to cover. Nevertheless, notice that accepting the geological column rests on the acceptance of evolution and in turn evolution is confirmed by the geological column. All of the evolutionists here agree that using the rocks to date the fossils and also using the fossils to date the rocks is circular reasoning. If one of the keystones upon which the supposed millions and billions of years of evolution is built is faulty, (due to the fallacy of circular reasoning) then the fossil record is not a valid objection to a literal six-day creation.

Six Days Are Enough

We asked whether six days were enough for all the events of creation to occur in light of perhaps the greatest objections to a literal, six-day creation. Though we only scratched the surface of enormous areas of study, we did see that there are excellent answers available. It is possible from a physics standpoint for the earth to be young and for the light from the edge of the universe fifteen billion light years away to have arrived in the span of six earth days. Likewise, the study of polonium “radiohalos” and zircon crystals provides weighty evidence that traditional methods of dating the rocks of the earth may be faulty. The data actually seem to confirm an earth of approximately six thousand years. We also saw that when the Grand Canyon is compared to the Little Grand Canyon at Mt St Helens, Washington, which is known to have formed rapidly, then millions of years are not required. In fact, the evidence points to the Grand Canyon having formed quickly from a cataclysmic event, such as a cataclysmic flood. Lastly we saw that, according to evolutionists, the way in which fossils and rocks are dated is by circular reasoning. While these may not be the ultimate solutions to the four big “scientific” objections to a literal, six-day creation, they do sufficiently demonstrate that excellent answers exist. Thus we can affirm that the Bible is reliable in all that it records, especially regarding creation.



[1] For detailed results on the dating of a rock of known age, see: answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp.

Could God Really Create in Just Six Days? (Part 1 of 3: Starlight and Time)

If we truly affirm that God made the heavens and the earth in six literal days several thousand years ago, we are forced to consider four questions that have a direct association with such a worldview. If the heavens and the earth are young, then: (1) How could light from the edges of the universe, which is estimated to be 15 billion light years away, be here now? (2) Why does radioisotope dating seem to point to the vast majority of the earth’s rocks being many billions of years old? (3) How do we account for the many layers of strata in places like the Grand Canyon indicating that it was formed over millions of years? (4) What about many fossils in the geologic column which are claimed to prove millions of years of evolution? We will very briefly touch upon these enormous areas of study just to see that there are very plausible answers from a literal, six-day creationist perspective.

These four questions have essentially served as the foundation of the evolutionary time scale and provide a dilemma for all who hold the Bible as God’s Word. A solution popularized by Dr. Hugh Ross is to set up the witness of creation on a par with God’s written Word. He says:

God’s revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible’s words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Just as we rightfully expect interpretations of Isaiah to be consistent with those of Mark, so too we can expect interpretations of the facts of nature to be consistent with the messages of Genesis and the rest of the Canon.

Some readers might fear I am implying that God’s revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God’s truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another (Ross 1994: 56–57).

Dr. Ross is of course correct in that we expect the facts of nature to be consistent with Scripture. The problem, however, is not with the revelation of nature as a testament of God’s power. Indeed, Psalm 19:1 even supports such a statement: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Paul in the book of Romans (1:20) adds decisively “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” There is no conflict between the Bible and nature, but rather with man’s interpretation of nature and the Bible. God’s general revelation of nature correctly interpreted is always 100 percent consistent with God’s written revelation the Bible.

Dr. Ross is assuming that the evolutionary paradigm is the correct interpretation of nature. He has failed to mention that many of the theories that have provided us with ages of the earth and the universe are based on the evolutionary belief that there is no God. He has also erred because the Bible never changes. The truths contained therein never change and have withstood the testing of skeptics and critics for over two thousand years. However, man’s interpretation of the world around him has done nothing but change as long as man has kept history. By making creation the sixty-seventh book of the Bible by which we can interpret the Bible, he is requiring man’s interpretation of nature (with all of our biases and incomplete knowledge) to be the judge of the Bible. Rather, we need to let nature be subject to the interpretation of the Bible, for only then will the correct interpretation be obtained.

Starlight and Time

The question of how could light from fifteen billion light years away arrive in just six days has been taken up by Dr. Russell Humphreys. Star Light and Time In his book, Starlight and Time (PDF download) (2004), he proposes an answer to the seemingly unsolvable enigma. The foundation of his theory lies in the fact that we know for certain that clocks change based on how close one is to a strong gravitational field or potential. He points out that the atomic clock in Greenwich, England, which is at sea level, ticks five microseconds slower per year than an identical clock in Boulder, Colorado (Humphreys 2004: 12). Because the clock in Boulder is approximately one mile higher in altitude than its counterpart in Greenwich, it ticks five microseconds per year faster. The Boulder clock is further away from the center of the earth, approximately the center of gravity, and is in a weaker gravitational field as a result. Dr. Stan Sholar, a retired aerospace scientist, confirms the reality of this phenomenon:

One should make a distinction between the rate of passage of time and the behavior of clocks, or anything that measures time. If we define time as behavior of clocks then this distinction disappears. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity shows that lengths change with velocity, and clocks, whether pendulums or atomic, respond to such, but also to gravity. For clocks in GPS satellites, we have to correct for the slightly non-circular orbits where velocity and altitude vary continuously.

For example, near apogee (the greatest distance from earth), the slower velocity causes the clock to run faster, due to Special Relativity. Also here there is a General Relativity effect due to the higher gravitational potential (though lower force) causing the clock Evidence of a young universeto run even faster at the higher altitude. The point being that it is actually an even more profound example because of the fact that the clocks on orbit are much higher than Boulder CO, and relative to Greenwich (Sholar, personal communication September 23, 2006).

Thus, just here on earth we find concrete evidence that the measurement of time’s rate of passing changes according to the proximity of the clocks to a strong gravitational field, as approximately indicated by proximity to the earth’s center of gravity. Humphreys then notes that the mathematics demonstrate that while the earth’s clock was ticking at what he coins “Earth Standard Time” the clock in the outer parts of the universe was ticking faster and hence “the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances” (Humphreys 2004: 13).

I spoke personally with Dr. Humphreys at a conference in Anaheim, CA in February of 2005 after hearing him present his theory. After sharing with him how much I liked his theory, he humbly replied that his was not the final answer, but merely a plausible explanation. Dr. Humphreys presents a theory to solve such a difficult dilemma, but in the end, it is not the answer but a plausible explanation, which is satisfactory because none of us was there to witness exactly what techniques God used. Nevertheless, what is crucial to note is that there are scientifically plausible theories that support the biblical account without seeking to spiritualize, or allegorize, or even dismiss the clear writing of the text.

From The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

God Created in Six Literal Days; He Did Not Use Evolution (Video)

 

If God really created via evolution then why does God say that He created everything in only six days? Are those days literal days or are they really indefinite periods of time as Progressive Creationism claims? We know dinosaurs were real; when did God create them if He created in six, literal days only thousands of years ago. The answers to these questions are plainly laid out in Scripture. Ancient commentators, both Jewish and Christian, all agreed that the Bible taught a literal, six day creation only thousands of years ago.


Douglas Hamp’s work The First Six Days is a much needed contribution to settle the question of days or ages. As a Hebrew language specialist trained at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he demonstrates convincingly from the pages of Scripture that the days of the Genesis creation account are literal days. He also carefully clarifies some misrepresentations of what day means in Hebrew. This is followed up by a stimulating review of the literal, six-day position held by ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters as well as

The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

archaeological corroboration of the biblical record.”

– Dr. John Morris, President Institute for Creation Research

Evidence of Men and Dinosaurs Living Together

The First Six Days Video (Requires VLC Player to view)

Compare the evidence of the Acambaro Figurines and the Ta Prahm Monestary with the latest in dinosaur research and decide for yourself if you believe that men and dinosaurs lived together.

The following pictures are from www.bible.ca courtesy of Dr Patton.

Ta Prahm Monestary, Cambodia





Two of thousands of dinosaur clay-figurines from Acambaro, Mexico.
Click here to see more at bible.ca



The First Six Days

The First Six Days Banner

The goal of this book is to show that biblically and historically creation took place in six, literal days. I do not attempt to argue the finer points of creation science because I am not a specialist in those areas. However, there are many who are specialists in their respective fields who have spent many years developing plausible answers to the questions surrounding creation. I have listed the resources below that I believe will be of particular interest as you desire to dig deeper and discover that the science of creationists is just as good, and many times better, than that of the evolutionists.”

– Douglas Hamp

If God really created via evolution then why does God say that He created everything in only six days? Are those days literal days or are they really indefinite periods of time as Progressive Creationism claims? We know dinosaurs were real; when did God create them if He created in six, literal days only thousands of years ago. The answers to these questions are plainly laid out in Scripture. Ancient commentators, both Jewish and Christian, all agreed that the Bible taught a literal, six day creation only thousands of years ago.


Douglas Hamp’s work The First Six Days is a much needed contribution to settle the question of days or ages. As a Hebrew language specialist trained at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he demonstrates convincingly from the pages of Scripture that the days of the Genesis creation account are literal days. He also carefully clarifies some misrepresentations of what day means in Hebrew. This is followed up by a stimulating review of the literal, six-day position held by ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters as well as archaeological corroboration of the biblical record.”

– Dr. John Morris, President Institute for Creation Research

It’s wonderful to have an easy-to-read yet well-researched book that demonstrates that a sound reading of Genesis chapter 1 demands a literal, six-day creation week. If you’ve ever asked yourself whether the first six creation days were real days, or whether it even matters, this book by pastor and educator Douglas Hamp is for you.”

– Ken Ham, Founder and President, Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum

A powerful examination of the biblical, linguistic, historical and archaeological evidence affirming that the creation days of Genesis were nothing but real and literal days. If you think that God worked through evolution, read this book and be challenged. If you believe that God created in a literal six days, read this book and be strengthened.”

– Joseph Farah, Chief Executive Officer WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

For me, this book was a faith-strengthener in the power of God as creator.”

Carl Westerlund Th.M, Director Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa School of Ministry and Graduate School

 

An easy to read yet meticulously researched book demonstrating that the only sound reading of Genesis 1 is a literal, six-day creation week.  This is a must read for everyone asking the question of how long were the first six days!

Pastor Chuck Smith, Senior Pastor Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, CA

 

– Pastor Chuck Smith, Senior Pastor Calvary ChapelCosta Mesa, CA

 

And others…

Mr. Hamp,
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the study that you have put into proving the literal interpretation of Genesis and helping to help others that have been deceived by the deceptive philosophical truth claims that have permeated our society. You are a true blessing and I’m praying for you and your family. When I have the money I will support your ministry and of course by your book “The First Six Days”. Blessing to you and your family.


Table of Contents

Introduction

    • Questions of Origins
    • How Long Were Those Six Days?

1 – The Importance of Genesis

    • God’s Word is Above His Name
    • Genesis is Foundational
    • The Origin of Sin and Death
    • Genesis Contains the Promise of the Redeemer

2 – Evolution Plus God

    • What is Evolution?
    • The Changes in Language and Culture
    • From Micro to Macro to Abiogenesis
    • According to Its Kind
    • Dogs Are Still Dogs
    • Views of Biblical Creation
    • Theistic Evolution
    • The Gap Theory
    • Progressive Creationism
    • How Much Time Does God Need?

3 – The Fact of Evolution

    • What is Science?
    • Evolution Sunday
    • The Clergy Letter Project
    • What Kind of Truths Are the Biblical Promises?
    • Darwin Didn’t Want God’s Help

4 – Interpreting Genesis

    • The Method of Interpreting the Bible
    • Scripture Interprets Scripture
    • Hermeneutics
    • What Do We Mean By Literal?
    • What is Allegory?
    • Striking the Rock
    • Daniel
    • Jeremiah’s 70 Years
    • Daniel’s Understanding of the 70 Years
    • The Chronicler Agreed
    • Interpreting Literary Genre
    • What is Meant By Literary Genre?
    • Scholars Believe in Literal Days of Genesis
    • Final Thoughts Concerning Biblical Interpretation

5 – The Question of Days

    • Meanings of Day in the Old Testament
    • 24-Hour Days
    • Days With a Cardinal Number
    • Days with Ordinal Numbers
    • Days in Hosea 6:2
    • The First Day
    • Bara and Asa
    • The Heavens and Earth
    • Tohu Vavohu
    • Tehom, The Deep
    • Merachefet, God’s Energizing of His Creation
    • God Speaks
    • The Days in Genesis 1
    • God Defines the Days for Us
    • The Days in Genesis 2
    • Genesis 2:4
    • Genesis 2:5 – 2:7
    • Genesis 2:19
    • A Final Objection
    • With The Lord
    • A Little Word with Big Meaning
    • Psalm 90:4
    • Summary of the Days in Genesis 1 and 2

6 – Days According to Ancient Jewish Commentators

  • The Use of Ancient Interpreters
  • Targumim
  • Targum Onkelos
  • Targumim Jonathan
  • Josephus
  • From The Creation
  • In Just Six Days
  • Rabbinic interpretation
  • The Talmud Comments on the Mishna
  • Rashi
  • Other Rabbis
  • Philo
  • Philo’s Paraphrase
  • Philo’s Allegorical Treatise
  • Philo and the Number Six
  • 7 – Days According to the Church Fathers

  • The Early Church Fathers
  • Twisting the Words of the Early Fathers
  • Barnabas
  • Irenaeus
  • Theophilus of Antioch
  • God Finished in Six Days
  • Theophilus’ Simple Arithmetic
  • To Theophilus, The Earth Is Young
  • Clement of Alexandria
  • Hippolytus
  • Origen and Methodius
  • Origen’s Disturbing Doctrines
  • Methodius Opposed to Origen’s Teaching
  • Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
  • Victorinus
  • Lactantius
  • Augustine
  • Creation Was Less than Six Thousand Years Ago
  • Augustine’s “Literal” Interpretation
  • Spontaneous Generation a Fact For Augustine
  • The Fathers Believed in a Young Earth
  • 8 – What Did Adam Know On His First Day?

  • Naming the Animals
  • Parallelisms
  • Etymologies
  • Replenish the Earth and the Gap Theory
  • Replenish/Malu
  • 9 – The Day God Created Dinosaurs

  • Dinosaurs Were Real
  • Where Are the Dinosaurs in the Bible?
  • Tanninim
  • The Origin of the Word
  • Three Root Letters
  • Dragons in the Septuagint
  • Behemoth
  • God’s Description of Behemoth
  • Elephant or Hippo?
  • It’s a Tail and Nothing Else
  • The Bones
  • Leviathan
  • A Dragon/Snake-Like Creature
  • God’s Description of Leviathan
  • Not An Ordinary Creature!
  • Invincible
  • Fire Breathing
  • A Shining Wake
  • Impenetrable Armour
  • Where is the proof?
  • Soft Tissue and Red Blood Cells
  • 10 – The Day Men Saw Dinosaurs

  • Challenging the Paradigm
  • Needed Skepticism
  • Nazca Graves
  • Sophisticated Drawings
  • Possible Hoaxes?
  • Expert Analysis
  • The Rocks in the Laboratory
  • The Ica Stones Are Not Unique
  • Three Possible Answers
  • 11 – Are Six Days Enough?

  • Starlight and Time
  • The Rocks Speak
  • Polonium Radiohalos
  • Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
  • The Grand Canyon and Mount St Helens: Keys to Geology
  • Cataclysmic Change
  • The Canyon Formed Quickly
  • Footprints in the Ash
  • The Testimony of the Fossil Record
  • Six Days Are Enough

12 – In Six Days

Epilogue (Knowing the Creator)

Appendix 1: The Last Years of Time

Appendix 2: Resources

Notes

Bibliography