I just stumbled across this. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to seriously understand the issues

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

/Bevin

When God created Adam, Eve and the garden of Eden, He created them mature. Adam was not created as an infant. Oak trees were not created as acorns. Frogs were not created as tadpoles. The creation was created already mature.

There is no reason to doubt that the rocks and minerals were also created mature. Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that the radioactive elements found in rocks were not already partially decayed. It also assumes that rocks with parent elements and daughter elements didn't coexist together.

Should it be totally tossed out by creationists? No, but one does have to assume certain things before they can buy into radioactive dating. It simply doesn't prove that rocks are millions or billions of years old.

Here we must assume that tree grew at the same rate they grow today and that layers of ice formed at the same rate they form today in order to use these methods for dating purposes. This means we must conclude all things continue as they always have been. That is contrary to the Bible. We simply don't know how quickly trees grew or how quickly ice layers were formed in the past.

I think what you are saying is that it is only the presence of imprints of life in the rocks and ice etc. that make this a problem for creationists - that it would not be a problem for God to make the world looking like continents drifted, magnetic fields changed, etc.

I agree. But the fossil evidence is spread through the rocks in a manner consistent with the life being there when they drifted.

It is also a huge problem that the actual evidence of the universal flood has disappeared - and been replaced with evidence of human activity painting on rocks and living in caves and building cities and domesticating animals and inventing agriculture.

Why did God create a huge lie and hide the evidence of the Flood with even more lies?

This is the fundamental problem facing short-age creationists.

/Bevin

Bevin....is it possible that Science...not matter how accurate it appears to be...is not accurate in light of what the Bible says. The Bible does say there was a world-wide flood and it does say that God created the world.

The Bible is clear that things have not always been as they are now. It is also clear that one of the signs of the end is that men will deny the universal flood.

Creationists point to an abundance of evidence for the world-wide flood. Evolutionists don't accept their evidence because of presupisions held by the evolutionists. The chief presupision is that that things have always been the same. That would include the speed of the continential drift, the speed of light, the amount of time to form rocks, the amount of nitrogen in the air.

Could have any significant rocks formed during the first 1,000 years of sin? We find that hard to believe. According to the Bible, Adam lived to be nearly 1,000 years old and his children would have been dying after him, assumably. So dinosaurs and other animals should have been dying for 1,000 years before humans started to die. But how much would have been covered in rock formation? Not much at today's rate. Perhaps there were factors we were unaware of.

Many creationists believe dinosaurs died off at the time of the flood. If that is so, we should find human fossils with dinosaur fossils. Could it be that dinosaurs all died off shortly after the fall? The fossil record tends to tell us that humans were not dying at the same time the dinosaurs were dying.

The fossil record does not support evolution any more that it supports creation for reasons discussed in length in other threads. Anyone claiming that the fossil record supports their belief of orgins is being less than honest with themselves. The fossil record is a bit perplexing and we simply do not know exactly what went on and how ancient history was played out.



I find it blasphamous to suggest God would lie. Jesus made reference to the Flood and Jesus did not lie. The answer is God wouldn't lie and God didn't hide the evidence.

I agree. Therefore I conclude the literal interpretation of these oldest books in the Bible is not the right way to understand it, nor is it correct to understand Jesus and the NT authors words as giving assent to the literal scientific accuracy of these very old books.

There are other ways of understanding the Bible than this literalistic approach.

/Bevin

Taylor,

we have a VERY long history of theologians loosing to scientists when it comes to clashes between their understanding of the Bible and the scientists of the world around them.

The world is NOT flat.
Dead meat does NOT turn into bees.
Putting colored sticks in front of animals does NOT affect the color of their offspring.
The earth is NOT the center of the universe.

When a theory, such as the earth going around the sun, correctly predicts the results of experimental measurements that are more exact than possible when the theory was developed, it gains a lot of credibility.

Long ages, continental drift, and the evolution of life of earth has stood up to experiments WAY beyond any possible in Darwin's day.

Consider that we can now sequence DNA and compare the DNA of various animals - men and chimps, for instance. And we find that it is 96% identical. That is a stunning success for the Theory of Evolution. No creationist can give a good reason why it is that close.

Consider, for instance, the hand-wave given in AIG in 1996...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/dna.asp


with the actual facts a few years later

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68706,00.html


AIG's bluff is called. Practically the whole genome is compared - and its a match. Evolution said it should be. AIG didn't like it. Evolution 1, AIG 0.

/Bevin

Doesn't sound too convincing. According to the Bible, the very premise that evolution is built on, that all things have always been the same, is false. (2 Peter 3:4)

Thanks for bringing us this Wiens article. It certainly outlines the issues well -- and does it from a Christian viewpoint. I plan to print it out and read it more carefully so I can digest (or try to) the subject.