Tough Questions Answered

A Christian Apologetics Blog

Does a 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth Prove Evolution is True?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

No, even though I often hear Christians talk as if it does.  Many believe that if you interpret the “days” in Genesis to be long periods of time and you accept the current scientific consensus that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, then you are “siding” with evolution.

The ironic thing is that when scientific evidence started showing that the universe is only billions of years old and not infinite, some bemoaned the fact that there just wasn’t enough time for the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to work.  They had been assuming a practically infinite amount of time.  Billions of years was not a boon to evolution; it was a serious problem!

In fact, one of the greatest challenges for Darwinian evolution in the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion, where over 95% of known animal phyla suddenly appeared over a period of 5 to 10 million years.   According to the fossil record, evolution had to work in an extremely short period of time for these animal phyla to appear, so the situation is even worse than billions of years – they have to deal with only millions of years!

Bottom line: whether it is thousands of years, millions of years, or billions of years, it doesn’t matter.  The random process of Darwinian evolution needs far more time to manufacture the biological complexity and diversity we see on earth.  Whether evolution is true or not has little to do with the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years.

When thinking about creation, learn to decouple evolution from the age of the earth.  They are two completely separate issues that need not be considered together.  It absolutely does not follow that a 4.5 billion year old earth or 13.8 billion year old universe lead inexorably to the truth of Darwinian evolution.


About The Author

Comments

  • docdeer

    Thank you for the post. While I am a “young earth” creationist, I think it’s important for those who believe in creation to understand what the other side of the debate really is – evolution. At its most basic, evolution is a theory assumed as fact. As you have pointed out, when we truly examine the scientific facts, we see them more and more pointing to the One who created us. Thanks again.

  • Tye

    and to combat the Cambrian explosion, they have come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium where evolution doesn’t hardly happen at all for long periods and then suddenly occurs in rapid short bursts.

  • Bill Pratt

    Glad to hear from you. Thanks for joining in.

  • kay

    I have heard that there could have been time between verses 1 and 2 of Genes1s, or somewhere near there.
    That would allow for the earth being older than 6,000 years.

  • Kyle

    All here have grossly misrepresented the Cambrian “explosion”. It is now considered to span much longer than 10,000,000 yrs. There are fossils of some of the phyla preceding the Cambrian several 10’s of millions of yrs. There are a few exceedingly rare fossils of some of the soft bodied animals that were likely swarming the oceans long before the Cambrian.

    The Cambrian “explosion” is NOT a sudden beginning for many phyla. It is a period of rapid evolution of many phyla, most of them probably preceding the Cambrian considerably. The driving force appears to be the evolution of sight. Sight was a boon to predators and created extreme evolutionary pressures. The most common resulting characteristics were further improved sight, speed, and hard shelled bodies. Hard shelled bodies fossilize almost infinitely better than soft ones. As evidence of that, there is an entire phyla of modern worms that comparative genomics shows to be of approximately Cambrian age, yet there has never been ONE fossil found of that phyla.

    I have to ask this question of those who think that the old Earth doesn’t “prove” evolution. BTW, “proof” is a horribly unscientific term. Let’s use “evidence” instead. I made two trips last year to the Blue Ridge Plateau to cane the New River. The River cuts perpendicularly through ridges that stand otherwise unbroken for hundreds of miles because the river is older than the Appalachian Mtns. The mountains slowly rose as the river kept cutting through them. The River is dated at a minimum of 320,000,000 yrs old.

    From my canoe, I could observe the distinctive patterns in the sedimentary rock layers, such that I could merge my observations from different places to construct a series of layers that would have been many thousands of feet thick prior to being folded. In some layers, perhaps a few inches thick, annual varves could be seen that indicated that it took many years to accumulate 1/4″ of sediment, yet the sediments were probably 2 miles thick.

    The interesting thing was that there were NO obvious fossils. Any sediments that were laid down post-Cambrian when there would have been lots of hard-bodied critters to leave fossils, had eroded away completely long ago. But if I were to go elsewhere, the Rocky Mtns perhaps, I could find fossils and they would clearly show the order of first appearance that science has long described, which correlate with taxonomies based upon phenotype, and now we know, they also correlate with genotype. In other words, there is massive, redundant, incontrovertible evidence from the twin nested hierarchies of the fossil record and phenotype, and now a third one of genotype. This shows life slowly evolving from common ancestors in a way that is completely incompatible with the creation story. Everything is completely out of order.

  • http://www.calvaryle.org Steve Wright

    Kyle, the worldwide flood perfectly explains not only the existence of the earth layers, fossils and the like, but also the problems in this same layer/fossil record which are totally inconsistent with the principles of uniformitarianism.

    The only reason for the theory of punctuated equilibrium is the utter failure of the fossil record to support evolutionary transistions of organisms – of which there should be countless numbers available to study. It simply is moving the goalposts to keep Darwinian theory alive when it is clear he was horribly wrong on how the fossil record would prove him right.

  • Shaun

    Steve,

    Actually no a single global flood event does not explain the earth layers and distribution of fossils. As a geologist in Texas I have looked at thousands of core samples taken to depths of hundreds of feet. What we see in the core is a gradual process of transgression and regression of the ancient oceans. I recommend you visit one of the many oil and gas companies here in Texas visit with their staff geologist and have a look at their core samples yourself as well as receive an earth science education. Also concerning the Cambiran explotion what we are seeing in the precambrian rock are fossilized remains of soft bodied creatures which supports a longer period of time for the diversity of life.

  • http://twitter.com/LordGriggs MORGAN-L.G Lamberth

    Kyle and Saun, yes,sirs! This explosion and the Big Bang reflect long periods of time. Punctuated equilibrium is just a variation of what we already knew- different rates,not the same rate. The two mean developed the theory to illuminate how the rates can differ, and thus why we see fossils as we do, not to debunk religion.
    Morriss should have been a comedian! His presentation of fossils in different layers ressemble the atual orders not whatsoever!
    Scientists discover hoaxes whilst creationists parade them as though the ever counted,yet instead of producing evidence for their claims they commit hoaxes: the Paluxy River Bed and the Bombadier Beetle and their misuse of quotes come to mind.
    For the record .

  • zuma

    The reliability of percentage remaining (50% of the remaining rule) that has been used by scientists for the relative half-lives elapsed in responding to radiometric dating method is in question.Refer to the right hand side of the table in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life. A list of percentage remaining that corresponds to the number of the relative half-lives elapsed are presented as follows:No. of half –lives; Fraction remaining; Percentage remaining0—————————–1/1————-100%1—————————–1/2————-50% (=100% above x 50%)2—————————–1/4————-25% (=50% as above x 50%)3—————————–1/8————-12.5% (=25% as above x 50%)———————–so on and so forth—————————–n—————————–1/2^n———- (100%)/(2^n)Using the above principle, we could arrive with weird and illogical conclusion below that would place the reliability of radiometric dating method into question:If anyone of atoms, let’s say, atom A, has been selected from a parent isotope, let’s say, lutetium, to test the radioactive decay, this atom would surely have 50% of its atomic nucleus to be activated in radioactive decay in accordance to the 50% remaining rule as mentioned above. The rule has turned up to find favour in selecting an atom if one would examine the possible decay from parent isotope since it might not be possible if there would be more than one atom is selected as mentioned below:If any two atoms, let’s say, atoms A and B, would be selected to test the decay, atom A might not respond to radioactive decay due to the existence of atom B in accordance to the 50% remaining rule. Or in other words, there would only be one atom responds to decay if there are two.If any three atoms, let’s say, atoms A, B and C, would be selected to test the decay, atom A might not respond to radioactive decay due to the existence of atoms B and C in accordance to 50% remaining rule. If any four atoms, let say, atoms A, B, C and D, would be selected to test the decay, atom A would have much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the existence of atoms B, C and D. There would turn up to have 2 atoms to respond if there are four as a result of 50% remaining rule is applied.If there is a piece of 10,000 kg big rock[, let’s say, 10^(a billion) atoms], 50% of the big rock (turns up to be 0.5×10^(a billion) atoms would not activate in radioactive decay and these would cause the above four selected atoms, i.e. atoms A, B, C and D, to have even much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the possible present of many half lives in the future as a result of the existence of numerous atoms. As a result of the wide spread of the 50% inactive atoms within this piece of big rock, it is easily to destroy a piece a rock so as to locate a small portion that does not respond to decay due to it might need to wait for many half lives later in order to respond to decay as a result of the present of numerous atoms in accordance to 50% remaining rule. This is not true since scientists could anyhow pick up any rock, let’s say, lutetium, and yet still could locate decay emitted from it and this has placed 50% remaining rule into query.If there is a gigantic mountain with 5,000 km height, 50% of this mountain would not respond to radioactive decay. This mountain certainly consists of a huge sum of atoms when huge volume is covered. As 50% of inactive atoms would have spread throughout the whole mountain as a result of 50% remaining rule applied, it would turn up that it would be easily to locate a small portion of rock from the mountain that would not respond to radioactive decay. However, that is not true when scientists would pick up any substance, let’s say, Carbon-14, from environments for examination since they could easily locate a small portion that would respond to decay. This has placed the reliability of 50% remaining rule into question as a result of the ease in locating a small portion of substance that would respond to decay despite its immense size. The main problem here lies on scientists have placed 50% remaining rule on each half life and that half life is meant to be a very long years. For example, for Carbon-14, it would take 5730 years for the 50% of the initial remaining to turn up to lose its capability in radioactive decay in order to have 50% of what has remained after the initial remaining to activate radioactive dating. What if actual result of decay would not follow the sequence of 50% remaining rule in which it would take a shorter period to become inactive in decay instead of that 5730 years, using 5730 years as a base to presume that the decay would last in every half year would simply falsify the age that would be computed through radioactive dating method. What if the so-called, radioactive decay, would not cause any decay but it would restart its initial operation after numerous years later, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question.The following is the extract from the last paragraph that is located in the website address, http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/03/q-are-all-atoms-radioactive/:…But in general, the heavier something is, the shorter its half-life (it’s easier for stuff to tunnel out).]The percentage remaining (50% of the remaining) to the responding to the number of half-lives elapsed contradicts the phrase, the heavier something is the shorter its half-life, as stated above. This is by virtue of the biggest the rock the heaviest it is and the biggest the rock the wide spread will be the 50% of the non-activation of nucleus to be in decay and it would lead to the longer the half-life due to the application of 50% remaining rule as spelt out above and this leads to the contradiction of the statement as stated in this website in which the heavier would lead to shorter half-life.What if this 50% remaining rule as mentioned above would have applied to Carbon-14 (the Parent Isotope), the following condition would appear:Years —————Half lives—Percentage Remaining0———————-0———-100%5730—————–1———-50% (100%*50%)11460 (=5730*2)–2———-25% [50% (the above)*50%]17190 (=5730*3)–3———-12.5% [25% (the above)*50%]22920 (=5730*4)–4———-6.25% [25% (the above)*50%]——————and so on and so forth—————————4,500,000,000——837988—8^(-1)x10^(-251397)Note that the above years have been computed up to 4.5 billion years due to the scientists suggest the age of the earth to be that.From the 50% remaining rule that has been computed for Carbon-14 above, it could come to the conclusion that 50 atoms out of 100 would remain active in radioactive decay in 5730 years and the rest would turn up to have lost their value in radioactive decay. 25 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay by 11460 years and the rest would turn up to have lost their decay. 12.5 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay and the balance would turn up to have lost their decay by 17190 years. 6.25 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay and leaving the balance to have lost their decay by 22920 years. 1 atom out of 8×10^(251397) would remain active in decay and the balance would have lost their capability in radioactive decay by 4.5 billion years. As 1 atom for Carbon-14 out of 8×10^(251397) would remain in active by 4.5 billion years in accordance to 50% remaining rule, it implies that it would need to get large amount of atoms from Carbon-14 so as to detect the existence of radioactive decay. This is not true in science since it is easily to locate Carbon-14 that would emit radioactive decay and this has put the reliability of 50% remaining rule into query.Some might support that the 50% remaining rule is subjected to exponential progress. Let’s assume that what they say is correct and presume that the half lives for Carbon-14 in 4.5 billion years would be shortened by 80% as the result of exponential progress. The percentage remaining would turn up to be (100-80)%x8x10^(251397) and that is equal to 16×10^(251396). Or in other words, only 1 atom would respond to decay out of 16×10^(251396) and the rest of them should have turned up to have lost their value in decay. The ease to locate Carbon-14 that would respond to decay currently has put the reliability of radiometric dating method into question…

  • zuma

    The following is the extract from website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom:
    (The atom is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons.)
    The phrase, The atom…consists of a dense central nucleus, as mentioned above gives us the fact that an atom is made up of a nucleus instead of more than one.
    The above-mentioned truth is also confirmed by the extracted sentence below from
    the website address,
    http://www.tutorvista.com/content/physics/physics-iv/atoms-and-nuclei/atoms-and-nucleiindex.php#:
    (Every atom consists of a nucleus containing the entire +ve charge. The whole mass of atom is concentrated at this core.)
    As every atom is made up of a nucleus, the assumption that I have made in the very beginning for the weird and illogical conclusion would stand. Or in other words, if there would be one atom, let’s say, atom A, has been selected for examination, 50% of its nucleus would turn up to be activated in decay when 50% remaining rule is applied. If there would be two atoms, let’s say, atom A and B, have been selected for examination, the chance that atom A would have immediate response would reduce as a result of the existence of atom B when 50% remaining rule is mentioned. If there would be more than 10,000 atoms to be selected for examination, the possibility of atom A to respond to decay would reduce further due to the potentiality of the existence of many half lives as a result of the existence of numerous atoms when 50% remaining rule is concerned.
    From the above illustration, a weird and illogical conclusion would be that the lesser the atoms in selection would cause the lesser chance or the lesser half lives to get atom A to respond to decay.
    The best selection is to have the single atom to be used for examination since atom A would turn up to have immediate response to decay due to the absence of other atoms when 50% remaining rule is concerned.
    The weird and illogical conclusion that has been resulted from above has placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question.
    I have mentioned before that the rock would be as hard as diamond that would not be affected by decay. The phrase, as hard as diamond, as mentioned above should not be interpreted as parent isotopes could be as solid as diamond so much so that it could not be breakable. Instead, it implies that (how do you know?) the parent isotope, let’s say, uranium-238, could resist the decay so much so that its existence could not have any influence upon the isotope and to cause them to be transformed into the appointed daughter isotope, lead-206, as suggested by the scientists as if that it is as hard as diamond. Even if the decay could have influence upon the parent isotope, the decay might not be so strong that it would cause the parent isotope, let’s say, uranium-238, to turn up to be daughter isotope, lead-206, as if that it is as hard as diamond.
    Indeed, nobody did witness physical transformation from parent isotopes to the daughter isotope through radioactive decay since they need to wait for half life, that is more than the life of a man, so as to witness for the change.
    Some might argue that they did see the transformation through experiments. Yet the transformation is caused by other substances instead of by means of radioactive decay. As radioactive decay was not used as a source to transform parent isotope, let’s say, uranium-238, to daughter isotope, lead-206, it does not provide a good evidence that the decay could be so powerful that it could transform parent isotope into daughter isotope.
    As there is no evidence that the decay from parent isotope, let’s say, uranium-238, could be so powerful that could transform the isotope into the daughter isotope, lead-206, it is irrational to link up these two elements to establish one should be the parent isotope of another or else these isotopes would have turned up to be used to falsify the age of fossils and the earth.

  • zuma

    Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
    As both the words, evening, and, morning, as mentioned above are in singular tense, the phrase, the first day, should undoubtedly refer to the same day literally instead of years.
    For instance, if a day as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should be meant for a few thousand years to support evolution, the words, evening, and, morning, should be in plural tense.
    From the above illustration, it would come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth in six days literally.
    The same is mentioned in the following extracts:
    Genesis 1:8, “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
    Genesis 1:13, “And the evening and the morning were the third day.”
    Genesis 1:19, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”
    Genesis 1:23, “And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.”
    Genesis 1:31, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

  • zuma

    Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
    The sabbath day as mentioned above implies the seventh day in which the Lord rested.
    In Jewish’s custom, the sabbath day refers to a day literally instead of a few thousand years.
    As sabbath day is literally to be interpreted to be a day, the seventh day as mentioned in Genesis 2:2 should undoubtedly refer to literally a day.
    From the above verse, we could come to the conclusion that God created heaven and earth in 6 days literally.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Ryan/511764596 Andrew Ryan

    That’s a shame for bible literalists then, because the evidence clearly shows that’s not what happened.

  • Steve Sommer

    Disappointed with the stance you take in this article. If the Bible can’t be trusted in terms of the creation account of Genesis (which clearly describes a literal six-day creation that Jesus and His disciples also believed in), what else can’t be trusted about Christian doctorine? Sorry to say, but you open the door to doubt about what the Bible says about Christ (birth, death, resurrection). You are literally undermining your own faith. Lovingly, I strongly suggest you do A LOT more research in the area of creationism and how Genesis is foundational to our faith before blithely stating that how God created and the timeframe He used isn’t a central issue.

  • zuma

    The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:
    The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:
    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
    As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.
    As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?
    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:
    4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
    – 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
    Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
    – 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
    – 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
    of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
    Moon’s orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
    EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
    – Earth’s original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
    escapes Earth’s gravity.
    – 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
    of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
    – 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
    The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
    EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
    – Earth’s atmosphere becomes mostly
    carbon dioxide, water vapor,
    methane, and ammonia.
    – Formation of carbonate minerals starts
    reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    – There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.
    My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.
    As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.
    Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.
    The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.

  • zuma

    Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:
    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm, under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:
    ‘This is an artist’s impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”
    The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:
    ‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’
    My comment: Genesis 1:3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (King James Version)
    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
    Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.
    Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.
    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html, to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:
    ‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’
    My comment: Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”
    Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”
    As the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.
    It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes might erupt in the water or the earth could be in molten stage. This is by virtue of any of these disasters would cause the earth to be shone with brightness especially the presence of larva. The word, darkness, as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of the earth in molten stage or the presence of eruption from volcanoes.
    The following is the extract from the ninth paragraph of the website, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/28/starsgalaxiesandplan… :
    ‘Early Earth was a very different place to the planet we inhabit today. Initially the planet didn’t have a crust, mantle and core, and instead all the elements were evenly mixed. There were no oceans nor continents and no atmosphere. Meteorite collisions, radioactive decay and planetary compression made Earth become hotter and hotter. After a few hundred million years the temperature of Earth reached 2,000C – the melting point of iron – and Earth’s core was formed.’
    My comment: As Genesis 1:2 supports that the whole earth was covered with water, it opposes scientific evolution of earth that supports the non-existence of ocean.
    As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was filled with darkness and water, it is impossible for the earth to become hotter due to the absence of sign that the earth was in molten stage or the sign of larva from the eruption of volcanoes. The presence of eruption of volcanoes or the earth in molten stage would cause some brightness on the earth.
    The following is the extract from the twenty second paragraph under the heading, How our earth was formed (Apr, 1923), from the website, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/how-our-earth-was-formed/ :
    It- is reasonably certain that the earth at first was very hot, hot enough to be molten all the way through. Its surface was a sea of melted rock in which great flaming tides hundreds of feet high raced twice daily around the globe. Gradually the rock grew cooler. It hardened. After awhile there was a solid surface crust. And slowly, after many millions of years, this crust grew cool enough for water to collect in hollows on it and to stay there. The first oceans were formed.
    My comment: As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was in darkness, it is irrational to support that the earth was in molten stage due to the absence of sign of brightness on earth.

  • zuma

    Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

    The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :

    ‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
    Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
    A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

    My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:

    ‘Stars do give off light, that’s why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

    As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.

  • zuma

    Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.

    What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
    Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
    Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

    Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

    The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

    Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

    When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

    Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

    Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

    From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

    Is God omnipotent?

    Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
    Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
    Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
    Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.”

    So there are two options – 1) You’re interpreting the scripture wrong. 2) Scripture is incorrect.

    The choice is yours.

  • Jule Koch

    Belief in evolution requires believing that a giraffe could be born without sperm from a male giraffe and eggs from a female giraffe; similarly, that an elephant could be born without elephant parents; that a barley plant could grow without parent barley plants; that mosquitoes could be born without mosquito parents; that a pine tree could grow without seed from parent pine trees; that ants could be born without ant parents. I could fill pages and pages with examples.
    It requires believing that a fish born with abnormal gills – i.e. with gills that were starting to become lungs – would live just fine. Of course we know that they would die instantly.
    What would happen to a partially evolved dolphin? How did they survive while their complex systems were “evolving”? What was a whale before it “evolved” into a whale? How did animals survive while their hearts were “evolving”? How did plants survive while their ability to use photosynthesis was “evolving”?

  • Andrew Ryan

    Julie, evolution doesn’t involve any of those things. You profoundly misunderstand evolution. Your post is so full of errors I can’t even begin to go through them. Suffice to say: no, no, and no again.

  • Jule Koch

    Well, let’s take it one at a time. What’s my first error?

  • Andrew Ryan

    For a start, we have amphibians on earth. So there’s no need for your bafflement at how one could have a half-way stage between fish and land-dwellers.

    Another point – your idea of elephants being born to non-elephant parents makes no sense either. The whole notion of what makes an elephant is a man-made construction. It just means the collection of animals that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. There was no point when an animal we’d recognise as an elephant was born to two animals we would not recognise as elephants.

  • Jule Koch

    Exactly. There was no point when an animal we’d recognise as an elephant was born to two animals we would not recognise as elephants.

    “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields
    seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth'; and it was so.

    So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

    Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according
    to its kind'; and it was so.”

    Genesis 1: 11, 21, 24

  • Andrew Ryan

    “Exactly”

    So you understand and accept where you went wrong? Good.

  • Pingback: What Is the Age of the Earth? | Max Doubt()

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline