Stratigraphy

Posted: February 8th, 2010 under Uncategorized.

Although young earth creationists can frequently turn around scientific data to fit their needs, they cannot provide answers to simple questions when it comes to stratigraphy, which is the study of the earth’s rock layers.  The order of the earth’s rocks provide conclusive proof of an old earth, even if all the other data for an old earth is proven false.  To begin reading this five-part series, click here.

2 Comments

  • Comment by Rayburne F. — June 25, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

    1

    By the way, speaking of your interpretation (evidence must be interpreted) of the supposed difficulties of the geology of the Grand Canyon according to young-earth creationists, do those difficulties extend to plate teconics in general because Dr. John Baumgartner (B.S, M.S., Ph.D (UCLA)), Geophysicist and world-class plate tectonics expert–whose 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonics was highly praised in an article in New Scientist, 1993–would strongly disagree with your understanding of the geology of the Grand canyon and of flood geology in general. Of course, Dr. Baumgartner is on the staff of the Creation Institute, but we won’t hold that against him.


  • Comment by Rayburne F. — June 25, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

    2

    Greg would have you, the reader, believe that whether or not you believe in a young earth and interpret each “day” in the creation week of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with believing the Gospel and the inspiration of scripture. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    If you read your Bible, it is very obvious that disagreement over the age of the earth (millions of years) makes havoc out of the Bible’s teaching of the historicity of Adam and Eve, and is clearly an attack on the inspiration of Scripture ( and creationists’ interpretations have nothing to do with it).

    Let’s take the idea that God took a 1000 years to create Adam by evolutionary processes (natural selection , mutation), you know what theistic evolutionists take out of context; namely, “a thousand years is like a day” (never mind, that the second part “and a day like a thousand years,” cancels out the first part, showing how much God can accomplish in far less time than we). If this is so-that “one day is as a 1000 years” (never mind millions of years), what happened when God created Eve–did he need a 1000 years to create her (through evolution) from adam’s rib? Moreover, did he have to wait a 1000 years before he could have fellowship with Adam and Eve, which He did? Presumably not, as Adam died at 930 years according to scripture. Yet, we have to be consistent if we are going to make sense out of the intended meaning of scripture in its biblical ,historical context.

    Enough of this nonsense. Supernatural Creation (ex nihilo) is diametrically opposite to evolutionary processes(development) from some ape-like creature ( and ultimately from one common ancestor over eons of time).

    Moreover, the Bible tells us that Adam was created on day 6 (Genesis 1:26), that he lived through day 6 and day 7 , and died when he was 930 years old–which means the creation days could not have been millions of years. Such interpretation makes absurdity out of the plain meaning of scripture. Again, take the plain meaning of Exodus 20:8-11. God’s pattern of creation according to scripture forms the blueprint or basis for of our work week of six literal days, in which the plural Hebrew form of days used here (“yamin”) for “days” in verse 11 always refers in the Old Testament to a literal 24-day ( and that 845 times). In other words, God established a blueprint for our lives, six days of work and one day of rest, based on the same pattern as creation. How could God say it more plainly? It makes complete nonsense of the obvious meaning of scripture to have each work day equal millions/ billions of years according to the uniformitarian evolutionary time frame.

    There is no “testable, repeatable, observable phenomena” on the origin of the universe. All dating methods are based on fallible assumptions , and a majority contradict the secular dates anyway. How do they know that Genesis 1 is describing multiple and/or sequential indefinite periods of time? They might get such an idea from Astronomer Hugh Ross, whose skewed and strained “progressive creationist” (billions of years) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation has been biblically, comprehensively, and scientifically ( no straw-dummy arguments I assure you) refuted with brilliant clarity by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in his newest and “must-read” book “Refuting Compromise”. But they certainly do not develop such a position from scripture.

    If death and struggle (the tooth and claw of evolution) were here eons before Adam sinned and which first brought death into the world accordind to scripture–(Romans 5:12; Genesis 3), as evolution requires, this clearly means that God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31) had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin , as scripture plainly declares (Romans 5:12, Genesis 3). This means that Christ’s death (for sin) and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the plain biblical teaching (i.e. Romans 8; Rev. 21) of the final restoration of this fallen world to the original state before the Fall–no sin, no curse, no death– is sheer nonsense. And someone affirms that this does not disagree with the historicity and doctrine of the inspiration of scripture? You got to be kidding!

    In short, evolutionary teaching, especially theistic evolution, denies this creation-Fall-redemption paradigm, which is everywhere affirmed in both Old and New Testaments and is the revelational and historical foundation which makes the saving Gospel of Christ “Good News” and meaningful. The “Good News” becomes “Bad News” if Adam and the Fall are not historic figures and events.The apostle Paul built his theology on the historicity of Adam and the Fall (1 Corinthians 15: 22-58; Romans 5; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) and Jesus predicated marriage on the historical truth of the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve–the first humans, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), and not an evolutionary development from some race of hairy anthropids (ape-like men/women). When Jesus referred to marriage, instituted by God, and the creation of Adam and Eve, he accepted both as historical fact (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6).
    Moreover,this is not a fringe view. Many noted scholars, including Oxford fellow Dr. John Lennox, hold that Genesis is real history, denying both chemical and biological “macro-evolution”–that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. If scripture itself treats the creation and Fall of Adam as historical event, there is no warrant for treating the rest of the creation narrative as symbolism, allegory or other literary device–and that includes modern scientific opinion (i.e. based on radiometric dating), which is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis or any portion of scripture. Science has been wrong before on many things. Christians do not discount the findings of fallible scientists (they should be thrilled about such) but that does not mean that they place such findings above the historicity and inspiration of scripture when such findings disagree with the plain teaching of God’s infallible, inspired Word.

    For a thorough discussion of the question of whether or not the Bible teaches a literal creation in six-24 hour ordinary days–and whether it matters or not, go to:

    http://christiannews.co.nz/2010/randy-alcorn-do-you-believe-god-created-the-earth-in-six-literal-24-hour-days/


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.