Why I Am Not A Young Earth Creationist

I decided to take a bit of a break from the definite atonement series. I need to finally just put this out there. I will continue working on the definite atonement series in the coming weeks, but with college starting next week and all, I’m pretty swamped. Keep an eye out.

Introduction

A variety of viewpoints may be observed amongst conservative Christians, on this controversial topic of origins. I have trouble labeling myself, because I don’t fall easily into any established categories. But the classic categories are young earth creationism (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International), old earth creationism (Hugh Ross – Reasons to Believe), and evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution, the position of BioLogos). Each hold differing interpretations of Genesis. I hope, through this blog series, to lay out for you my own interpretation, and also make some comments about what I believe about science.

1. My View of Genesis 1:1-2:3

I was raised a young earth creationist. My church supports ministries like Answers in Genesis, and we even used their VBS this year. I’m no stranger to the idea that Genesis ought to be taken “literally.” I attended Christian schools for both elementary and high school, so I was never indoctrinated by the science teachers to believe in evolution; in fact, I was taught the controversy: given both sides, and then tasked with making an informed decision. In 9th grade biology class, we wrote long essays (graded in both science and English) on “creation vs. evolution,” and I sided with the creationists. That was that.

Then I entered senior year. Having become more and more grounded in my faith over the years prior, learning more and more about Reformed theology and how we ought to interpret the Bible, I entered my senior year Christian philosophy and apologetics class with high expectations. I couldn’t wait to learn about Aquinas, and Augustine, and Hume, and really learn to defend my faith against skeptics and those gosh-darned atheistic evolutionists. Alas, my high hopes proved to be misplaced.

My teacher was a flaming liberal! At least, he was from my perspective. He wasn’t Reformed, he didn’t believe the Bible was inerrant, he believed in evolution; this guy was whack. After the first semester, I kind of zoned out, only barely paying attention. (I must say, though, that the section on Mormonism was fun.) However, some things that he showed me and the class stuck in my brain and made me itch for months and months.

I did not think that there were any other credible views on Genesis besides my own. I had been taught that it ought to be read straightforwardly, as historical narrative. God created in six, literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the seventh. I was taught that it couldn’t possibly be interpreted any other way. My teacher, however, demonstrated rather effectively that if I was to truly take Genesis 1 literally, I would be forced into the position of flat earthism. I would have to accept the ancient cosmology embedded therein. Or so it seemed at the time.

Unfortunately, I found him to be telling the truth. He was absolutely right: Genesis 1 does indeed contain an ancient science, an ancient understanding of the cosmos, which I’ve written about before. In Genesis 1:6-8, God creates the firmament (Heb. raqiya) to separate the primordial waters (the “deep” over which the Spirit of God hovered, v. 2). Moses envisioned, as did other Old Testament authors, a hard, dome-like surface to keep the waters above from crashing down on the earth. On day four, God creates the sun, moon, and stars, and places them in the firmament; not above it out in space, but literally in “the firmament of the heavens” (v. 17), the very same place where birds fly (v. 20).

How could this be? The sun, moon, and stars are not anywhere near our atmosphere; the sun is a gigantic ball of burning gas, 93 million miles away, and we’re orbiting it at an incredibly fast speed. The moon is a giant space rock, a three days’ journey through space from earth, orbiting our blue planet; the stars are other burning balls of gas millions and billions of light years away from us; and there aren’t any waters above the atmosphere as the Hebrews would have envisioned them.

This shook me up a bit. Was my teacher right? Was the Bible not inerrant? Are there good exegetical reasons not to take Genesis “literally?”

So, being the good Calvinist that I am, I consulted Calvin’s commentary on Genesis to see what he said about this firmament and the waters above the earth.

Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses.

Calvin’s conclusion is essentially that God accommodated to his readers, using their cosmology and way of thinking to describe his creative acts. The Holy Spirit wasn’t intending to give us detailed astronomical information, because if he had, then those who are “rude and unlearned” wouldn’t be able to understand the account. Those who assert that we must believe that there are waters above the earth because the Bible says so are “not in accordance with the design of Moses.” In other words, the Bible isn’t necessarily a science book.

I still believe the Bible is inerrant, but I believe there are certain exegetical evidences that render the “literal” 6-day approach untenable. My position now is that Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 was a polemic against the creation myths of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, written in a 6-day literary structure; it was a counter-story, written to defend Yahweh against Baal and Dagon and Marduk. Comparing Genesis 1 with the story of the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation account) is a fascinating exercise, demonstrating that the author of Genesis sought to correct the mistaken notions about the origins of the universe in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.

For example, we hear from Babylonia that Marduk, the son of another god, fought with a goddess named Tiamat; Genesis tells us that there is but one true God. Marduk won the battle and used Tiamat’s body (divided in half) to create the earth and the sky; God created the earth and the skies himself not from the body of a dead goddess, but from nothing, a great feat of engineering. Marduk enslaves the other gods and goddesses over whom he reigns, until Marduk kills Tiamat’s husband, and sprinkles his blood across the earth, creating humanity, whose sole purpose is to work for the gods; Genesis tells us that God created humans in his own image, to be his stewards and co-laborers in maintaining the earth. [1]

The days in this narrative function as a literary device to accomplish the purpose of correcting the pagans (sometimes referred to as the “framework hypothesis,” probably most clearly enunciated by Meredith G. Kline; for a more detailed explanation, see here). [2] Notice, the pre-creation cosmos is described as “formless” and “empty,” two rhyming Hebrew words (tohu vabohu) that clue us in to the structure of the narrative. The first three days tell us about God’s activity in giving form to the earth and the material that was already there. During the remaining three days, God fills that which he has given form to. The chart below should be helpful.

Formless – Give it Form! Empty – Fill it Up!
Day One: Light Day Four: Luminaries – Sun, Moon, Stars
Day Two: Sea and Sky Day Five: Sea Creatures and Birds
Day Three: Dry Land Day Six: Land Animals and Humans

It could be contended that Genesis 1 refers solely to functional origins, rather than material origins, as argued by John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One. This means that Genesis 1 describes God giving order and functionality to the universe, rather than describing where the material, or stuff, of the universe came from. He argues convincingly from the ancient near eastern context in which Genesis was written, and I do recommend his book. It’s a worthwhile read, even if you disagree.

On the view here enunciated, none of the theology of creation is lost. God is the sovereign and sole creator of the entire cosmos, creating out of nothing; mankind is made in his image to rule over the creation; and the seventh day is a special day to be set apart for worship. In fact, the seventh day is still ongoing, because nowhere does the text tell us that it had an evening and a morning. Hebrews tells us that we ought to strive to enter God’s rest. Think about that. 🙂

Please note, that this interpretation was not motivated by a desire on my part to shoe-horn science into the text; I believe that to be a fool’s errand. I adopted this perspective before I even believed that modern science had anything good to say. I was, in truth, motivated by a desire to remain true to what the text was telling me, and that involved putting it in its ancient Near Eastern context.

Other Perspectives

Two classic interpretations of Genesis 1 exist for the old earth view: the day-age theory, and the gap theory.

The day-age theory basically says that the days in Genesis 1 are not necessarily literal, 24-hour days, but could refer to long stretches of time (amounting to billions of years). This view tries to account for the massive geological evidence giving testimony to the earth’s great age (calculated to be about 4.56 billion years) and the astrophysical evidence for the universe’s great age (about 13.7 billion years).

The gap theory postulates that between verses one and two of Genesis, a great amount of time could have occurred. God created the earth with a number of creatures on it , but then it “became formless and empty,” rather than existing as formless and empty when God began to create. Thus, the geologic column that we observe today is the result of that former creation; the account of God remaking and reordering the creation is what we find in the rest of the chapter.

I find these positions to be eisegetical rather than exegetical. Wanting to find some way of reconciling the age of the earth with the Genesis account, Christians in the 1800s came up with these interpretations with little regard for the original context. Surely the ancient readers would not have understood there to be a gap between verses 1 and 2, and surely their minds would not have conceived of those days as billions of years long.

These two positions were made popular amongst fundamentalist Christians in the 19th century (and for much of the early 20th century) by CI Scofield through his reference Bible. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that Christians began rejecting the evidence for an old earth in favor of the common young earth interpretation, which says that the Genesis flood is responsible for the majority of the geologic column, thereby making the earth only about 6,000 years old.

The young earth view of Genesis 1 has already been summed up: take it on its face. The plain reading ought to be how we interpret it. This view, I think, does violence to the text by removing it entirely from its ancient near eastern context, reading it through our modern, 21st century eyes. It also refuses to acknowledge the ancient cosmology.

Each of these positions can be found among serious, conservative, Bible-believing Christians. The church has never been univocal on the first few chapters; there have always been differences. We must, however, keep a few key hermeneutical principles in mind:

  1. The Bible was written for us, but not necessarily to us. We must carefully examine the historical and cultural context in which it was written, to gain insights into how the original readers would have understood the text. Grammatical historical exegesis is our goal.
  2. God accommodates. This means that he speaks down to us, using human terms and thought processes to communicate. He must stoop down and speak to us as babes, as Calvin put it, because otherwise we would not be able to understand what he was saying, as his thoughts are infinitely above our own. [3]

2. The Uniformitarian Assumption

Uniformitarianism (also called actualism) is the rather reasonable assumption that the same laws and natural processes that are active now have always been active throughout all time, and are the same everywhere in the universe. This assumption is the guiding principle in most of modern science today. For example, we observe that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second today, and therefore, we assume that that speed has remained constant throughout all of time. In such an example, if a star is, say, 168,000 light years away (as the supernova SN 1987A is), then the light from that star will take 168,000 years to get to earth. We observed that supernova in 1987, but the supernova itself actually took place (assuming, again, that the speed of light has remained constant) 168,000 years before 1987.

This principle applies to biology, geology, astronomy, you name it. Ironically, while most people who hold to it are secularists, uniformitarianism only makes sense in a world where God’s providence exists. [4] In fact, if it were not for God’s providence, the natural world would be chaotic and irregular. But because we know that God exists, we can assume that the created order is functional and regular and orderly. The laws that God has set in place, such as gravity, have been operating just as they ought to from the beginning of creation.

I must, at this point, make this very clear: God is free to break his own natural laws whenever he wants to. In no way does uniformitarianism deny the miraculous or the supernatural. The resurrection, the incarnation, the parting of the Red Sea, any miraculous event in Scripture did indeed take place just as described. Many liberal theologians and scientists have perverted this principle (and others) to rule out any occurrence of the supernatural; they are quite mistaken to do so, however.

Because of my interpretation of Genesis 1, I do not feel obligated by the text to believe that the earth and universe are only 6-10 thousand years old. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the earth and universe aren’t 6-10 thousand years old; only that the interpretation I propose does not render judgment either way.

3. What about evolution, Adam and Eve, and the flood?

The theory of evolution makes an even bigger mess than geology and astronomy. Biology, it seems, is much more difficult to understand than the other disciplines, at least, in my mind. I have decided to leave evolution alone, and let the scientists figure it out. From what I have read, however, the evidence is rather compelling; evolution is not simply a fairy-tale invented out of nothing. If you’d like to traverse the dangerous waters of trying to understand what it claims, I recommend Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True. Be warned: Coyne is a rather militant atheist; take what he says with a grain of salt, and ignore his attempts to disparage the Creator, and you should end up alright.

The biblical text mandates that I believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people; I think there are good reasons, though, to believe that they were not necessarily the first humans on the planet, nor the parents of all of mankind. How that fits into Reformed theology, heck if I know. If you’d like to read up on what position I’m leaning toward at the moment, John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve is a good place to start.

As for the flood, I do believe that it was also a literal, historical event; but again, I don’t think that the text indicates that it was global in scope. It was certainly large and catastrophic, covering quite a large area. Essentially, what I’ve boiled it down to is the meaning of the phrase “kol eretz,” which is traditionally translated as “the whole earth,” or “the whole land.” The question then becomes, to what land is the text referring? Would “eretz,” in this context, have been understood by the Israelites as referring to the whole globe? These are important questions. I am continuing to study this out. Pray for me as I do; it would be much appreciated.

This, I think, will suffice as a sort of “position paper” as to where I’m at on the origins spectrum. Please, don’t hesitate to consult the resources that I’ve provided below that further expand on certain topics. As always, feel free to leave your thoughts and comments below, and don’t be afraid to join the chat channel. 🙂


  1. Read the Enuma Elish here.
  2. An excellent article advocating a view similar to the framework hypothesis can be found here.
  3. Quotes and a definition concerning accommodation can be found here.
  4. An excellent blog series on the biblical basis for uniformitarianism can be found here.
Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Why I Am Not A Young Earth Creationist

  1. You expect me to give your blog post a fair reading and understand things from your point of view…. you assume I have time and am not easily distrac…SQUIRREL…now what was I saying….oh well, must not have been important… 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Why do you believe that taking a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 leads to flat-Earthism? Nothing in that text leads me to contemplate a flat Earth in any form.

    Why do you take Gen 1:6-8 to be interpreted as a hard dome-like surface that keeps the heavenly waters from crashing down? Couldn’t it mean that the Earth was surrounded by a shroud of ice that remained in orbit? Many comets are made of ice. Couldn’t it also mean that the atmosphere was thick with moisture bearing clouds?

    Why do you state that Gen 1 shows that God would’ve put the moon and stars in the atmosphere of Earth? Couldn’t there have been three heavens…one being the atmosphere, the next being outer space, and the last being the eternal dwelling of God?

    Why do you state that Gen 1 is a polemic against other creation myths? What in the Bible would lead you to make that assertion? Couldn’t God communicate His creative acts without regard to other human myths?

    Why must Gen 1 be put into an ancient near-Eastern context? If that is the case, then God was only able to communicate clearly to a small population of ancient people without regard to the understanding of rest of the populated world throughout time. What God intended to be clear to them would be a difficult puzzle for the rest of the world to assemble.

    You state that uniformitarianism applies to biology, geology, and astronomy. We don’t know what happened in the past. Evolutionary biologists know that life popped onto the scene during what they call the Cambrian explosion. That was not a uniform and slow process. Higher and more complex orders of life subsequently exploded onto the scene without evidence of a slow transitional and uniform processes. Evolutionary biologists’ try to explain this by another theory called punctuated equilibrium which states evolution happens in quick, isolated and powerful events then tempered by long periods of little or no change. The geologic/fossil columns don’t seem to appear to have happened by slow uniform processes, but by tremendous catastrophic events whether isolated or global in nature. Gen 8:22 doesn’t lead me to think of uniform processes.

    Uniformitarianism is not a ‘natural’ law by any understanding.

    I’m not sure why you’d deny a global flood, but adhere to the parting of the Red Sea? Are you evaluating scripture with equal scales and consistent hermeneutics? After all, you’d have to explain why God would have Noah spend many decades building an ark to escape a localized flood that could easily be escaped by every human and every beast in the flood zone.

    If Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans, but were the first to sin, then the pre-Adamic people were perfect and of no need for a Redeemer. These same people then died, though the curse of death had yet to be levied on the human race.

    Keep thinking and posting Jay. God bless you.
    Mike

    Like

    1. Mike,

      Sheesh. You write lots. I’ll try to hit the biggies. (Also, just so you know, I’ve heard these criticisms and questions before, and have even argued in this same way in the past. I’m no stranger to any of this.)

      Why do you believe that taking a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 leads to flat-Earthism? Nothing in that text leads me to contemplate a flat Earth in any form.

      I’ve pretty much said why in both this blog post and in the blog post before on the flat earth.

      Why do you take Gen 1:6-8 to be interpreted as a hard dome-like surface that keeps the heavenly waters from crashing down? Couldn’t it mean that the Earth was surrounded by a shroud of ice that remained in orbit? Many comets are made of ice. Couldn’t it also mean that the atmosphere was thick with moisture bearing clouds?

      Again, I believe I’ve outlined why I think that. As for the “ice canopy” theory that some YECs hold to, I don’t think that we need offer such an explanation. What that does is try to “save face,” so to speak. But if there was an ice canopy that surrounded the earth at one point, which then came crashing down during the flood (which is what I’ve heard many a YEC claim), then verses like Psalm 104:3 go unexplained; clearly, David thought there was water up there, and he was after the flood. The ancient cosmology permeates the Old Testament; I know that you don’t like to hear that, because that sounds like the Bible is then wrong or errant on the subject of cosmology. But again, back to Calvin’s point: God accommodates to his readers. God used Moses to speak in words and concepts that the Israelites understood, to get his points across. “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere.”

      We needn’t try to come up with things like the vapor canopy to try to make the Bible right. Just let the Bible be what it is, and it’ll do just fine.

      Why do you state that Gen 1 is a polemic against other creation myths? What in the Bible would lead you to make that assertion? Couldn’t God communicate His creative acts without regard to other human myths?

      Sure he could. But what if he didn’t? Again, placing the text in the cognitive and cultural environment of the ancient near east is key. And once that’s done, the polemical nature of Genesis 1 becomes that much more vibrant.

      Why must Gen 1 be put into an ancient near-Eastern context? If that is the case, then God was only able to communicate clearly to a small population of ancient people without regard to the understanding of rest of the populated world throughout time. What God intended to be clear to them would be a difficult puzzle for the rest of the world to assemble.

      Because grammatical historical exegesis is the goal. Sometimes we leave off the historical part and just do the grammar part. If we don’t allow the historical and cultural context of the ancient Israelites to inform our interpretation, we’re gonna miss a bunch of cool stuff.

      A good example of this comes from this article:

      An example of cultural significance in the New Testament is found in the story of the prodigal son as described in Luke 15. A straightforward reading of the parable — disregarding the context — teaches us about the love and forgiveness of a father toward his son, and consequently about God’s love toward his children. However, when the story is considered in its cultural framework, the reading is much more profound. According to Kenneth Bailey, the Jewish son not only acted disgracefully by asking for his inheritance, but he further debased himself by squandering it. The son’s behavior warranted a Kezazah, or cutting off ceremony, upon his return.12 This ceremony would have included rejection by the village and an angry confrontation by his father. Furthermore the son would have had to beg for permission to train for a job in the next village. Instead of this harsh and inhospitable reception, a loving and merciful homecoming awaited the son. As soon as the father saw his son returning, he raced to see him. This is also a significant detail since men of the father’s age and distinction in the Middle Eastern culture always walked in a slow, dignified manner. By running, the father took on the shame and humiliation due his prodigal son. He then kissed his son, gave him his best robe and called to have the fatted calf slaughtered for a feast. When Jesus originally told this story to a Middle Eastern audience, it is likely that they would have understood the father’s love in a more nuanced and deep way than modern-day readers would derive from a quick read-through. As this example shows, filtering a Scripture passage through an awareness of the original audience and its culture can greatly expand one’s understanding of the passage.

      Presuppositions, as always, play a role in our interpretations. The ancient Israelites didn’t necessarily come at the text with the same presuppositions that we do, and therefore our understanding of the text, without any knowledge of their assumptions, may end up being slightly off the mark. It’s always important to place a text in its context.

      I’m not gonna copy and paste your next paragraph, because it’s too long. And honestly, I’m not good at arguing science. What I’ve written already will have to suffice. Evolution is still a sticky subject for me; a few weeks ago, I was much too eager to accept it. I’m reevaluating still.

      Uniformitarianism is not a ‘natural’ law by any understanding.

      Not sure what you mean there. It is a principle, though I suppose it isn’t a “natural law,” like gravity or something.

      I’m not sure why you’d deny a global flood, but adhere to the parting of the Red Sea? Are you evaluating scripture with equal scales and consistent hermeneutics? After all, you’d have to explain why God would have Noah spend many decades building an ark to escape a localized flood that could easily be escaped by every human and every beast in the flood zone.

      If Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans, but were the first to sin, then the pre-Adamic people were perfect and of no need for a Redeemer. These same people then died, though the curse of death had yet to be levied on the human race.

      Like I said, I’m still studying these things out. As regards Adam and Eve, however, I think your issue is with the concept death before the Fall. John Walton’s book The Lost World of Adam and Eve, I think, does a pretty good job of trying to explain that. Essentially, the argument is that Adam and Eve were created mortal, and given the antidote to that mortality in the garden, after God entered into covenant with them. When they broke that covenant, they were again subject to death as punishment, and the rest of the nascent human race would have fallen with them (assuming that they were not the first humans), because of Adam’s representation (or federal headship).

      Beyond this, Genesis 2 and 3 seems more concerned with Adam and Eve as archetypal figures (real human beings whose histories speak not only about them, but about all of us), and this is carried over into the New Testament. For example, Genesis 2 says that God formed Adam from the dust. In the Psalms, we find that we too are made of dust, but we were born of woman. So the statement “God formed Adam from the dust of the ground” does not rule out the possibility of being born of woman. You see how that works, sort of?

      Anyway. Thanks for your thoughts. Hopefully I’ve addressed a few concerns with some level of decency and competency.

      Blessings,
      Jay

      Like

      1. Jay, hope all is well and you’re having a great experience at college.
        Just something for you to work out as you think about origins, Genesis 1:31 states there was evening and morning which was the sixth day. Man and women were created during the sixth day. How long is that day and how old would the man and woman be?

        Like

    2. Hi, since Jay mentioned he didn’t want to argue the science, do you mind if I jump in?

      You state that “Evolutionary biologists know that life popped onto the scene during what they call the Cambrian explosion.”

      This is not at all true: the first fossils of life, the stromatolites, occurred 3.7 billion years ago, but the Cambrian period was only about half a billion years ago, and lasted 55 million years. The Cambrian was when a lot of sea creatures first grew shells that fossilized well, so we see a lot of them, but there are lots of other fossils predating the Cambrian Period!

      ” The geologic/fossil columns don’t seem to appear to have happened by slow uniform processes, but by tremendous catastrophic events whether isolated or global in nature.”

      There are certainly geologic and fossil columns which contain evidence of catastrophic events, especially since such events may, by their nature, move a lot of rock and dirt around, but there are many, many more which do indeed seem to have happened by slow uniform processes, and which Flood partisans ignore rather stubbornly. If you could cite a comprehensive study of world geology which supports this extraordinary claim, I will be amazed!

      “I’m not sure why you’d deny a global flood…? Are you evaluating scripture with equal scales and consistent hermeneutics?”

      Have you looked at how many times the phrase “the whole earth” or “the whole land” appear in the Bible, and if they are meant to mean “the whole globe” in all those other cases? The Hebrew word is the same for both, and translators simply adjust it based on context (sometimes even translating it as “country!”) I think you’ll find “consistency” difficult to maintain.

      “After all, you’d have to explain why God would have Noah spend many decades building an ark to escape a localized flood that could easily be escaped by every human and every beast in the flood zone.”

      I must have missed where it said ‘many decades’ in the Bible. On top of that, God sometimes asks for tests of faith that seem bizarre at the time.

      Other than the above, I think Jay answered most of your other points pretty well!

      Like

    3. Mike,

      Just something for you to work out as you think about origins, Genesis 1:31 states there was evening and morning which was the sixth day. Man and women were created during the sixth day. How long is that day and how old would the man and woman be?”

      Assuming the day was a literal, 24-hour day, and Adam and Eve were created de novo, and that Genesis 2 describes what happens on day six, then they would only be a few hours old by the time the day ended.

      But that’s quite a few assumptions. First, the day was not literal; as I explained above, the days are a literary device used by the author to communicate God’s creative activities in logical (not chronological) sequence. Any attempt to squeeze chronology into Genesis 1 invariably fails, because that just isn’t the purpose of the text.

      Second, nowhere does the text indicate that Adam and Eve were created on day six. The text tells us that mankind was created in general (male and female) on “day” six (logically coinciding with the creation of land and vegetation on day three). It doesn’t tell us that a single pair was created, nor does it say later on that Adam and Eve were the first, or the only humans, when they were created. And, as I attempted to explain in my last comment, being created from the dust of the ground does not negate the possibility that Adam was born of woman. We are all created from the dust, according to the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. Again, I point you to John Walton’s book The Lost World of Adam and Eve.

      Third, I have no problem with God creating Adam and Eve (or the world/universe) mature. My problem (as I explained to Steven) is God creating Adam and Eve (or the world/universe) with a history that they did not have. 168,000-year-old supernovas, geological formations that could only have been created over long periods of time; these don’t make sense. It’s equivalent to God creating Adam and Eve not only mature, but with bruises and scars from wounds they never received. That, for me, creates a real ethical dilemma.

      Blessings,
      Jay

      Like

  3. Might the universe have been created with the appearance of age? Just as we assume and and Eve were not formed as infants, perhaps the cosmos appear older, as well. Could God, for example, create a star and its light at the same time?

    Like

    1. Steven,

      That explanation has never sat well with me. If it looks old, and we can indeed verify through science that it is old, then why would we need to assume that God “deceived” us in such a way? Isn’t it better to say that it’s just old? Why go through the hoop of saying that it just looks that way?

      I understand the commitment to the YEC “literal” interpretation of Genesis that is the primary motivation for saying something like that. I would ask you, then: when did supernova 1987A occur? It’s one thing to talk about starlight in transit, but it’s something completely different when we’re talking about the explosion of a star, something that actually happened in space and time; an event, so to speak. If the speed of light has remained constant throughout time, then the light from an explosion (one that we did, in fact, observe) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us could only have occurred 168,000 years ago; anything else means that it was merely an illusion put in the sky by God. You can argue that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past than it is today, but that introduces a whole host of other problems.

      In short, no, I don’t think God created the universe to look old. I think it is old. And there are multiple lines of geological, paleontological, and astrophysical evidence that support such a claim.

      This is how I’ve rationalized it. If you find any errors in my thinking, please let me know.

      Blessings,
      Jay

      Like

    2. Also, it’s not just that God made the earth mature. I have no problem saying that he did. I don’t believe, though, that God would create the world and universe with the illusion of a false history. Million-year-old meteor impacts that never happened, thousand-years-old supernovas that never happened. It’s akin to God creating Adam not only mature but with a belly button and scars from cuts he never endured. That seems, to me at least, to be a real ethical dilemma.

      (I tried to make this distinction in my first reply; I was rather inarticulate. Hopefully, this makes more sense.)

      Like

  4. Reading over this and remembering blogs form the past, it seems that you’re saying two different things. In this blog, you mentioned how God has to put things in a way that we can understand it. You also said that you believe the Creation story was just that; a story to contradict polytheistic creation beliefs. So which is it; from God, or from Moses. I don’t think it could be from both, because why would God write a little story that was not even literal to contradict other beliefs?

    Like

    1. Tara,

      You’ll have to point me to the specific blog posts, because I’m not entirely sure what your criticism is. Could you provide examples or quotations where I appear to be speaking out of both sides of my mouth?

      All of Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore comes from Him. Moses was the author, however. So Genesis comes from both Moses and God. Moses “spoke from God as [he was] carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

      I would need you also to define “literal” in order to answer your question.

      Blessings,
      Jay

      Like

  5. Great article! My story is much the same as yours, so I enjoyed the read.

    I want to give you something to think about. Be very careful with evolution, because evolutionists love to equivocate in the term and will catch you when they do if you aren’t paying close enough attention.

    There are two basic types of evolution, micro and macro, and while evolutionists are now trying to get away from these terms, they are still valid and helpful. Micro speaks of changes inside of species as they adapt to their surroundings. Macro speaks of changes that break the species barrier. Evolutionists want to argue that macro is simply the culmination of micro, but that is what the whole argument is about! Thus, they seek to both equivocate and assume what needs to be proven. Since everyone agrees that micro evolution happens, they simply infer that macro, since defined as the culmination of micro, must also be true.

    But this is false. There is simply no evidence that macro evolution happens. It has never be witnessed actively, nor has it ever been seen in the past historical records. In fact, both naturalism and macro evolution defy all that we know about how all of nature works.

    A) Things do not go from less complex to more without intelligence being involved.
    B) Nothing comes from nothing, no cause is uncaused.
    C) To say that God used Macro evolution is to say God doesn’t have any consistency in nature, because nature demonstrates the previous 2 points, that is to say: Evolution would be God’s greatest and most direct involvement in nature, because evolution (Macro) couldn’t happen without the direct and constant manipulation of God (how else would things jump gaps without any little steps as expected?).
    D) This is to argue that one cannot argue for evolution (macro) nor creationism, without ending up with a God who has to be directly involved. The funny thing to me is that evolution actually requires more of God’s involvement, because it, in the end, violates more of the laws of nature than classical providence does.

    To keep this reply short, please, please, please, slow down and think through evolution a little more closely. Books like Total Truth would serve you very well in thinking through all these issues.

    All us Framework guys need to stick together.

    Please if you want to discuss more reach out to me 🙂

    Keep up the great work!

    Like

    1. A) I take it you have never examined a snowflake.
      B) This statement is clearly fallacious. Either the Universe came from nothing, or God did; or they came from something else; you can’t go around making this claim without entertaining the suggestion that something caused God.
      C) I’m unsure what gaps you are referring to; could you provide some specific examples?
      D) The mechanisms of evolution, properly understood, are entirely compatible with the laws of nature. Are you trying to reference the old debunked Thermodynamics argument, or is there some other claim here I’m unaware of?

      Like

      1. A) Please explain how you believe a snowflake proves macro evolution? Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by complex. Would you argue that a pile of nicely stacked logs being changed by a tornado has added complexity to the pile?

        B) You seem to be unaware of Christian theology: God is uncreated, uncaused, and eternally existing. An argument that is completely logical and reasonable. Matter cannot be uncreated, uncaused, and eternally existing. Nothing can come from nothing. Christianity doesn’t argue that something came from nothing, we argue that everything came from an eternally existing, immaterial Being. Yet, we have something here, so either all our observation and knowledge that points to nothing creates nothing is false, or God exists. If you take a moment to look around and think about this, your only conclusion can be God exists.

        C) Man came from another lower species, argues Evolution (macro), yet there is no evidence of any other species slowly evolving into man, no transitions, and no evidence that man is evolving into something else. This is true for all living creatures. Thus for something to spontaneously go from one thing into a completely different thing, seems to me, to be the act of something completely outside of nature, since no observation of nature nor discovery of any law in nature, proves any other cause (don’t assume evolution is true in the quest to prove it). Thus evolution is actually a higher more complex argument for God, then creationism, and if we know one thing about possible explanations for things: the simpler is the better, thus creationism (if God must exist in both) is the truer one.

        What I am simply saying here is evolution’s only explanation, currently, is an “ignorance” of the gaps, that is there are huge gaps in knowledge and explanation, and you want me to accept on faith, that you will find some naturalistic explanation for everything unknown. I am simply jumping the gun and helping you get to where you will eventually get anyways: that God exists, He created the world, and He expects us all to act a certain way, I just hope, for your sake, you discover this truth this side of the grave.

        D) Oh they are? Please explain, using the laws of nature, how our blood system, eye ball, etc came into existence? I am sure you are aware of the concept of irreducible complexity, which states that things, in order to function, cannot be reduced to their parts beyond a irreducible complex point. The famous example is a mousetrap: all the pieces just laying on the ground do not catch a few mice, they catch none. Likewise if you put the board and cheese together, it doesn’t become slightly more efficient, it still catches no mice, all the pieces have to be there and put together, and wound against their individual nature (springs don’t wind themselves) in order to function as a whole. Mouse traps don’t just appear or evolve from simpler kinds. Take blood clotting for example, how does evolution explain this? The first creature to “evolve” blood that is cut where the blood pours out is able to evolve so quickly in response to this to stop the bleeding mid bleed? Or would you argue that the blood came evolved with clotting in expectation of being cut, sure sounds like intelligence, which would disprove evolution (macro). So either you have to believe in reactive evolution happening in a rapid pace, say minutes (this clearly would be a speed of evolution never argued before, and would surely be observable) or you have to believe in an involvement of intelligence in the whole thing.

        Like

            1. A) Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by the word complexity. Is the snowflake meant to be the neatly stacked pile of logs, or the tornado debris? Either way, I would say there’s definitely a change in complexity involved! And whether it’s losing or gaining complexity, nature is perfectly capable of melting, evaporating, or recrystallizing that snow.

              B)”Matter cannot be uncreated, uncaused, and eternally existing.” Why on earth not? If you get to posit a complex intelligence existing for no reason, surely I can posit matter.

              C) Um… I hate to burst your bubble, but there are thousands of fossils transitional just between apes and humans, let alone the rest of the animal kingdom, etc! Some are clearly offshoot species, but many are exactly what you would expect to see if you were looking for a lineage of incremental steps between a chimp-like ancestor and us. That you can blithely claim that there’s nothing of the sort tells me you have never actually looked for evidence.

              “For one thing to spontaneously go from one thing into a completely different thing…” Only in magic tales does this happen. Careful observation will show you that no living thing is ‘completely different’ from other living things. Most grow along pretty similar lines, in fact. I don’t understand how Creationists can accept that a housecat and a lion started out the same species, but a housecat and a dog or a raccoon are impossibly different!

              I think you’ve clearly demonstrated huge gaps in knowledge and explanation. But I would suggest that half an hour googling would start to fill them in for you.

              Which brings us to D)! Certain organisms have little clusters of light-sensitive cells called ‘eyespots.’ Slightly more complex organisms organize these cells into a round shape which better collects light. It is perfectly possible to trace examples which develop lenses until you get to a fish eye, and then lids, and lashes are added on last. This is just off the top of my head, you understand; I would have to google some technical chemistry to get you a decent blood clotting explanation, but suffice for now to say that blood would eventually dry over minor wounds even without clotting molecules, and even modest, slight improvements would be helpful (depending on wound severity) over the lifetime of an animal.

              Perhaps you are not aware that the original example of irreducible complexity, the bacterium’s flagella, was fully explained only a few years after Behe made a big thing about how inexplicable it was in his book.

              Like

    2. Sorry I’m late. I figured I’d try to clarify anyway, even though you two have moved on.

      A) I take it you have never examined a snowflake.

      Here, Lynniam was simply providing a counter example to your claim that things do not go from less complex to more complex naturally. In the case of a snowflake, the intricate fractal patterns arise naturally in the clouds; the ice’s shape does go from less complex to more complex.

      Granted, it’s not a 1:1 parallel (analogies only go so far), and it does not prove macroevolution, but it does provide an exception to your rule.

      B) This statement is clearly fallacious. Either the Universe came from nothing, or God did; or they came from something else; you can’t go around making this claim without entertaining the suggestion that something caused God.

      Perhaps I was mistaken, but in an earlier comment, Lynniam sounded very much like a theist. Here, the objection is that causality is a tricky business. You stated, “Nothing comes from nothing, no cause is uncaused.” However, it is the First Cause, that is, God, that is uncaused. There is a Cause that is not an effect of another cause. You are right to state that nothing comes from nothing. God did, however, create ex nihilo, “out of nothing,” in the beginning, and he can do so because he is God.

      C) I’m unsure what gaps you are referring to; could you provide some specific examples?

      I’m not actually sure what you (Ryan) stated here. But, the question is self-explanatory.

      D) The mechanisms of evolution, properly understood, are entirely compatible with the laws of nature. Are you trying to reference the old debunked Thermodynamics argument, or is there some other claim here I’m unaware of?

      Also self-explanatory.

      Alright, you kids have fun. I’m gonna watch. 🙂

      Blessings,
      Jay

      Like

      1. You are a very intelligent guy Jay, allow me to give you a few things to consider:

        A) Do you really think a snowflake is more complex than a water droplet simply because it appears so outwardly? It is still made up of all the same matter and atoms. This is a very simplistic way to think about complexity. We are talking about gaining complexity that is meaningful, that is for a purpose. Evolution doesn’t simply argue that simple molecules are arranged in more complicated patterns, they argue that they actually evolve into more complicated purposes, and eventually change into new molecules all together.

        Note that the snowflake will act just like water again once heat is added, and just like water when enough heat is added to steam it. There is no system in evolution for de-evolution, that is things going from complex to less complex, in other words, fish devolving to not have sight anymore and then back to an ameba. But this is what, upon the simplistic thinking of complexity, a snowflake does: it becomes a more “complex” snowflake, then it melts and become back to a less complex water droplet. Thus it is not analogous at all to what evolution is claiming.

        To say that a snowflake is more complex than water, to be analogous to evolution, would be to say it evolved into snowflake which now can eat through living tissue like an acid, that is, it now has a new function for a new purpose, made up of new properties from new information. Evolution wants to argue that simple things (defined as things with less information) evolve into more complex things (where information is increased) yet there is no mechanism in evolution that adds information, and all our observation tells us that only intelligence can add information to systems, they cannot self add create it.

        B) You make an important error here. God is not the first Cause, He is uncaused. Some times he is called the “uncaused, cause” in short-hand, but an uncaused cause is no cause at all. I would argue He is better stated as an “uncaused, causer.” Because a cause is something that is acted upon, but God isn’t acted upon, He acts.

        Also, be careful in talking about God’s existence, He didn’t come into existence (He didn’t create Himself from nothing), He has always existed, He created matter and energy from nothing – that is – from non-matter and energy, from Himself. Thus, when we speak of God creating from nothing, we are not speaking of His non-existence, then His popping into existence and creating at the same time (which is how your sentence reads). No, we speak of God creating from nothing, that is, from no prior material. He is in eternal existence, and then He creates everything (not himself of course) from His own Being.

        I am glad you can see that nothing comes from nothing, and thus something has to eternally exist. I hope you also can see how there cannot be an infinite regress of matter. I think Peter (only linking him here because some of his argument on this topic is helpful, not my endorsement of him in his whole of beliefs) is helpful in giving analogy as to why matter cannot have infinite regress: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

        C) I dont know what you are saying here, are you saying my argue is self-explanatory or his response?

        D) Again are you agreeing that evolution is 100% compatible with the laws of nature? Because I have proven that it isn’t.

        1) Evolution believes only matter exists, yet matter cannot cause itself, and evolution cannot explain the first 2 laws of thermodynamics. Evolution believes in an infinite causal chain, which is impossible and absurd.
        2) Evolution believes things can increase their own information and specified complexity, but all our observations and testing in the world shows the opposite: that things do not gain information on their own, but must be acted upon by outside forces. Think of a computer program. It doesn’t evolve and write itself new code to do new things, everything it does must be programmed into it, even the “new” things it does must be programmed into it before hand by an intelligence.
        3) Evolution cannot explain the existence of the laws of physics in the first place. It cannot explain the conditions to create the conditions to create the conditions….etc…etc…etc to get us where we are today.
        4) It cannot explain how life comes from non-life.

        E) This is my best advice to you: do not be caught up in the storytelling of evolution. There is sparse evidence for it, and more problems than answers, and the top evolutionists know this and are looking for a better non-creation solution. In lieu of evidence, they like to tell stories of how things might have got here, but stories don’t necessarily reflect reality.

        Lets say I was telling a friend how you got to my house: “Well Jay first took a boat to Florida, then he jumped on a rocket ship and rode around the sun 2 times! After that he landed on Mars for a lunch break, and was back to California by dinner time. Then superman came to pick him up at the airport and dropped him at my house by 6:30pm.” Well we know that you, Jay, exist, and that you got to my house by 6:30pm, we can verify all that, but the rest of it, while plausible and a convincing story, isn’t actually based in reality at all. You actually drove over making 3 right turns and 2 left turns for a total trip distance of 5.32 miles.

        But this is how the evolutionist argues. They know matter exists, and the laws of physics, and that we are here today in all our human glory and complexity. But they cannot explain how everything got here from nothing, how life got here from non-life, nor how things evolved and gained information and new purposes (that are irreducibly complex). So they tell a story about a long length of time, and little tiny changes, and throw in some random mutations, and eventually, so the story goes, we will arrive here. But its all a story and if we look at each of the claims individually, we see huge gaps of missing information or plain wrong explanations.

        F) You see Jay, evolution is more of a world view philosophy than it is true science. It is a predetermined commitment to naturalism and materialism that is forced upon all pursuits of knowledge. It says: “you may pursue knowledge anyway you want, but we will only consider the pursuits that come to our predetermined conclusions the valid ones.”

        This is why I encouraged you not to go down the theistic evolutionists path.

        1) It is based on philosophical conclusions and explanations of scientific evidence (science should simply state knowledge it cannot explain its findings in relation to reality, philosophy does that – this is why evolution is more of a philosophy than anything else). It is not based on an unbiased look at the evidence while trying to draw the most accurate implications, because it ignores the immaterial, and creationist viewpoints from the offset, thus it is not truly open to all options.

        2) It is based on bad theology. While I agree with you on the Framework interpretation of Scripture, that is a huge jump from denying a literally first Adam and Eve and God being the direct providential creator.

        3) It is based on older data. For example a couple years ago I was talking with a scientist about where the evidence was pointing to Adam and Eve, and he was saying at the time that they conclusively have it down to less than 50 first people required, but new evidence at the current time was pointing towards it being less than 12. So you see, the information is going in “the Bibles” direction of 2 people, not away.

        4) To jump on board with philosophical evolution and marry it to christianity runs the very real risk, that christianity will eventually give way to the evolution. Like adding a leprechaun to a pot of water and claiming he made the water boil, the water would boil without the leprechaun, thus we can get rid of him. Likewise, if evolution is true, it is only a small step to getting rid of God.

        Do not be ignorant of the implications of evolution. It demands the ultimate view that everything is meaningless, pre-programmed, and material only. Scripture claims otherwise.

        Like

      2. A snowflake is still made up of all the same matter and atoms? So are we! Our building blocks are simply the existing elements of the earth, and if you added enough heat, we’d sure go right back to them! I believe there’s even a bible verse that says this. ;P

        Evolution is perfectly capable of making things less complex, as well as more; viruses are good examples of this, as they’ve been pared down to very simple and lightweight forms by the pressures of selection.

        A snowflake, unlike a water drop, can freeze living tissue—or more accurately, a lot of them could—will this do in place of acidicly eating skin?

        But I’m glad you’ve finally arrived at the new information argument! This is really the crux of the whole debate, in my opinion. Because when you take a detailed look at how life and evolution work, it becomes abundantly clear that increases in information are everywhere, and there’s nothing mysterious about them!

        Say you have a genetic sequence. There are different types of mutations that can occur: a letter can be switched, deleted, or inserted, or the sequence can be duplicated, in whole or in part. Duplication is key: once you have a duplicated gene, a mutation can then change it into a gene that does something else, without losing the functionality of the original gene. It’s quite simple and easy, and the proof is in the pudding: our genetic code is full of genes that look like the other genes that they came from, and of even more randomly duplicated, messy raw material.

        I am glad you mentioned computer codes, as well. Because there are computer programs that simulate this evolutionary process: look up evolutionary algorithms! They can very rapidly and effectively add information that they come up with on their own, by any reasonable definition.

        You say that evolution can’t explain the laws of physics, or abiogenesis; I am shocked that you expect it to! The Theory of Evolution explains the common ancestry of life and how it changes. The word evolution may also be used to describe other systematic changes, such as the ‘life’ of a star, but… are you sure you’re not using ‘evolution’ as a synonym for ‘science’ here?

        You say “there is sparse evidence for it, and more problems than answers, and the top evolutionists know this and are looking for a better non-creation solution.” I don’t suppose you would care to support these outrageous claims? The evidence for evolution is unbelievably extensive! The problem is some people just don’t want to examine it fairly. Everything evolution describes holds up under close examination, contrary to your claims.

        The real risk to Christianity is that of sticking stubbornly to clearly false physical descriptions of the world. Abiogenesis is not yet fully mapped out (though you may be surprised how much detail has been worked out), but when it has been, will you allow that new knowledge to knock out one of the pillars of argument for your belief? Will you simply retreat to yet more ‘God of the gaps’ arguments? I don’t see this approach being sustainable (logically or ethically) in the long run.

        Like

      3. Your replies are longer than my average blog post.

        A) Alright, you don’t think the snowflake acts as a sufficient counter-example. Noted.
        B) Nowhere did I insinuate that God was created. The language of an Uncaused Cause is rather well-established when it comes to philosophical discourse. Perhaps Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” works better. You seem to be misunderstanding the word “cause.” A cause is something that causes something else (in your mind, that’s a “causer,” but that’s not a word). However, within the universe, all causes are also effects. This is not true of God, who is not an effect because he was never acted upon by an outside cause. He is the end of the regress, because of his eternality. So I’m not entirely sure what your criticism is, although I grant that I could have been more articulate in my last comment.
        C) I was saying that Lynniam’s statement was self-explanatory; I didn’t need to clarify anything.
        D) So far as I can tell, no law of nature prohibits macroevolution from occurring. A case can be made from thermodynamics, I suppose.

        I’m afraid that you (like many others before you) have confused the theory of evolution as a Greater Theory of Everything (i.e. a philosophical/scientific construct that attempts to explain all of reality, held to by most atheists) with evolution as a scientific theory that has been (arguably) validated to the point of fact (Tim Keller explains this here. Evolution does not claim that something came from nothing; evolution claims that organisms move from simple to complex through the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift, etc. Evolution is silent on the universe’s origins; that’s what the Big Bang theory is all about. Evolution, as it stands currently, can only guess at how life first arose; the area of abiogenesis is still fraught with debate. I personally have no problem believing that God assembled the first cells, but then, that would be considered a “God-of-the-gaps” approach. However it happened, according to the doctrine of God’s providence and his eternal decree, God was intimately involved.

        F) I’ve already stated that I cannot give up a literal Adam and Eve. There are evolutionary creationists that believe that Adam and Eve were real people and brought death to mankind when they fell. You must be careful when using the term “theistic evolution,” because the camp is wider than you think. There is much diversity of opinion on certain things. Broad brushes don’t help.

        Do not be ignorant of the implications of evolution. It demands the ultimate view that everything is meaningless, pre-programmed, and material only.

        The theory itself does none of those things; the philosophical extrapolations provided by certain atheistic biologists do that. From a theistic perspective, evolution is not inherently dysteleological, nor does it require that one think of life as meaningless, random, or pre-programmed, nor does it require materialism. You are confusing categories, as I tried to point out. The philosophical evolutionary worldview is separate and distinct from the scientific theory of evolution itself. You must not miss that distinction.

        Blessings,
        Jay

        Like

  6. A) Allow me to clarify, when I say complex, I have in mind the evolution of say a blind fish into a seeing fish. The change inview is permanent and for a purpose. A snowflake is not a good analogy because, it is neither living, nor permanent. One removes heat from water it will form ice (or snowflakes in the proper conditions), but if one applies heat the ice and flake will melt back into water. The change is unimportant and is not complex in any meaningful way nor how I am meaning to critique evolutions claim of complexity coming from non-complexity. The water drop didn’t evolve into a snowflake, it was transformed, and then melted back into a water drop later on. But let us not get stuck on snowflakes for the are unimportant in view of the bigger things.

    B) First matter and an immaterial being are not the same thing, one cannot posit an immaterial being and likewise logically posit matter. a) The universe is expanding from a single point, this demonstrates a beginning. b) we do not see matter being created nor destroyed, and things seem to be decaying (I am curious about your evidence that disproves the first 2 laws of thermodynamics). c) All effects must have a cause (God is not an effect or a cause, but the causer). d) something cannot create itself, it cannot not exist and exist at the same time, and it must exist to create itself (law of non-contradiction). e) we are in time, time cannot be infinite, if it were then we would never arrive at now if it was infinite in both directions (God isn’t in time). So it does seem that matter didn’t create itself, and it couldn’t have gotten here.

    Thus, we get to God. We see evidence for God in a few ways. a) As I just named the existence of matter. b) The complexity (both specified – for a purpose and irreducibility) of the universe and life. c) the existence of immaterial things like thoughts and morals. d) His revelation of Himself in Scripture witnessed over thousands of years, by many trustworthy people.

    Honestly, if you can’t see that God exists by looking at nature itself, the Bible is such a clear proof of His existence; it hasn’t been disproven in over 2000 years of many, many very, very smart people attempting to do so. If you would love to discuss Scripture and how it proves God, we can.

    C) You are very mistaken, please provide proof of transitional fossils. Fyi you didn’t quote me in your response, I don’t know who you are critiquing. I have done tons of digging, there isn’t a single transitional fossil that proves a connection between any species, please provide one that is meaningful and accepted as such, not someones wishful thinking that is un-verified and un-supported by the community.

    D) Nice story, really convincing, but it doesn’t go anywhere near proving how eyes could evolve nor blood clotting. You have fallen into the evolutionist trap of telling stories in lieu of evidence. Just because you can explain something with a story doesn’t mean there is actually any evidence to prove such a thing.

    Remember for a “mutation” to be passed to the next generation, it must be helpful towards the existence of the creature, but for something like blood to be helpful, it must be harmful if spilled. Sure seems like a stretch to think that the a creature with blood, but no clotting mechanism received a slight wound which dried (and thus nothing more would have been needed) and then figured out that maybe it needs to clot in case next time it gets cut worse? Man that sounds like intelligence to me. No, for evolution to work, that creature would have had to receive such a wound that would kill it via blood loss, and either it died (and thus how did it pass on the information that blood clotting would be needed to its unborn children) or it quickly, mid-bleed, knew it would die (even though it never experienced death) and thus reacted to the situation.

    All of this posits intelligence, and you cannot even think of the situation without thinking about it from the preconception of intelligence, and if you attempt, like I am, to be a consistent evolutionist, you will see that blood clotting couldn’t evolve.

    To reiterate: for a beneficial change to be passed on, it has to be beneficial, and has to exist prior to the offspring being sired. If blood is beneficial, its loss would mean death (or else it really isn’t beneficial), death would mean the end of the beneficial change. If it bled slowly enough to dry, then it wouldn’t learn anything about the need to clot, if it bled fast enough to die when drying wouldn’t stop it, it would die to fast to know it needs to learn to clot (besides the fact that clotting is very complex and irreducibly so).

    Even if you want to tell the story (we have no proof of this by-the-way) that blood evolved along side of other functioning systems. Then you have to posit that the creature, knew that blood was a benefit, and when it lost all of its blood, and thus relying on the existing other system, it then knew that it needed to heal the hole, create new blood, and create it in a way that blood clotting would work (irreducibly so). But then you are expecting a whole system of blood clotting to be evolved in a single creature, not over a span of creatures over time, but in one creature. Because it would have to create a working system of blood clotting for it to even pass such knowledge onto the next generation. Or else you must posit that somehow the plans for working on a clotting system is passed onto the next generation to work on and so on.

    But this posits an intelligence that knows the future potential of blood clotting, knows how to record pertinent information, that the next generation knows how to read said information and continue working on the project. This system in and of itself for passing on beneficial mutations is highly complex and cries out for an intelligence behind it.

    Remember, that according to the evolutionary theory, all mutations are unguided, unintended, random, processes with no intelligence behind it. The blood clotting system and how it would even evolve breaks all these rules and screams intelligence.

    All I ask you to do is step back and think about this from an unbiased point of view (do not pre-assume evolution is true). If you looked at the blood clotting system, does it seem like it is highly complex made for a purpose to stop the flow of blood, and thus the death of the creature? If you saw a cellphone ringing in a pile of debri from a storm, would you assume the storm created it? No, you know how to identify complex things made for purposes, so why can you not see that the eyeball and blood clotting, and the human body, and the sun, are all in existence for a purpose?

    Like

    1. I have done tons of digging, there isn’t a single transitional fossil that proves a connection between any species, please provide one that is meaningful and accepted as such, not someones wishful thinking that is un-verified and un-supported by the community.

      There’s always Tiktaalik. 😉

      Like

    2. A) Thanks for clarifying, Jay! I’ll try to keep this brief so we don’t get too stuck: you (Ryan) stated that “Things do not go from less complex to more without intelligence being involved.” I provided a counter-example; for you to now claim that it’s not a good example because it’s “neither living nor permanent” makes me wonder what could possibly qualify. A fish isn’t permanent either! Furthermore, evolution doesn’t claim that blind fish evolved into seeing fish, and even if it did, it wouldn’t be permanent because seeing fish can and do evolve back into blind fish, as in caves. And “for a purpose”? This looks really hard to define or support. When wind, rain, and freeze/thaw cycles wear down mountains, is that their purpose? Are you defining purpose as ‘things living things do?’ Because that’s not really a fair way to make the argument you’re trying to make!

      I would never say a water drop just “transformed” into a snowflake; evolved is a much better word to describe how it started as a single grain and crystals grew incrementally, randomly, yet within rules, from the condensation of water vapor.

      B) a)Just because there was a beginning doesn’t mean there was nothing before it. b) We do too see matter being created or destroyed, it just takes a lot of energy! It’s exactly what got Einstein famous: Energy=matter x (speed of light) squared.

      C) I did actually quote you, from your then most recent comment.

      You ask for “a single transitional fossil that proves a connection between any species.” Do you mean a fossil which shares characteristics of both species? Or are you holding out for something which is exactly halfway in between? Even better, what if there were a whole spectrum or series of fossils demonstrating slow, gradual change from one to the next? The fossil Lucy is one widely acclaimed example of something with both apelike and humanlike characteristics, as well as the Taung Child, KNM ER 1813, Turkana Boy, the Dmanisi fossils, and many more. I don’t understand how anyone can actually look at all the fossils we have like these, and say they’re not transitional.

      D) Hoo boy, we’re gonna get into this, okay. You are approaching the problem assuming a sophisticated mammalian blood circulatory system, for starters. By the time mammals came along, blood (and its clotting process) were already very well established. We have to go back a lot further, to more primitive forms of life, if we want to understand how such a thing could evolve.

      This article goes into a lot of detail about how blood clotting could evolve step-by-step. If it’s too dense or technical, I can try to address any questions you have, but at this point it’s probably more useful to link you than to try to rewrite the whole thing myself!

      http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

      Like

      1. Here is what I propose: lets deal with the bug issues before we address smaller ones.

        I disagree with your analysis of snowflakes and how their complexity is akin to the meaningful and purposeful complexity that is in debate, but lets table this less important issue for now.

        Also lucy has been disproven as a link and the others too, but again lets table that less important issue as well.

        Again, I read and understood your clotting article, it is so full of story, assumptions, and over simplification that it would bog us down for a long time working through. Simply put, the clotting system isn’t as simple that we wants to make it out to be (from an evolutionary standpoint), nor did he explain adequately how it could evolve in pieces (no evidence just a story), he adds the typical 600millon years magic and thinks presto we have modern mans highly purposed and robust clotting system. I dont buy the story sans evidence and neither should you. But even this isn’t important compared to the huge elephant in the room: how does evolutionary materialism account for the existence of anything?

        If matter and energy had a beginning, by definition there was no matter or energy before it.

        But we both agree that something had to exist before matter and energy could come into existence. My argument is something immaterial, outside matter and energy, had to create matter and energy. This universe has all the markings of intelligence behind it, and it is the best explanation for everything in the universe from matter, to imaterial dreams and morality, to human nature, suffering, evil, etc.

        Evolution argues matter and energy just spontaneously popped into existence, which is both illogical and irrational and something that has never been obsevered happening in our universe nor something that fits in with our observations of the known universe. Thus to posit it is not science (science can only address testable things) but philosophy. Which means that science is not the only way to know or discover reality in the universe.

        What is your explaination of how everything got here?

        And what evidence would convince you, you are wrong and to change your mind?

        Like

  7. “Lucy has been disproven as a link…” How? Does she not have a mix of apelike and humanlike characteristics? Don’t gloss over the evidence you asked for and I provided to talk philosophy, which is inherently unprovable, not factual!

    You say the clotting explanation has no evidence, but the end of it is all about the evidence! The genes that were duplicated still resemble each other, and you can draw gene ‘family trees’ tracing their evolution back into the past! If that’s not evidence, I don’t know what is! Unless you’re looking for the actual genetic code, fully detailed, so you can construct the trees yourself; I can probably look that up for you, too, if you’re genuinely interested in that level of detail. But only if you wouldn’t just dismiss it as not important.

    We both agree our human knowledge is limited. You say everything beyond those limits must be ‘God.’ I say the limits are frontiers; they are a feature, not a bug! We don’t know everything yet, and that’s exciting! Since you seem interested in my personal theology, I will say I’m a pantheist; God is everything. You can’t posit an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God and follow up the logical conclusions without ending up at pantheism, in my opinion.

    I have some things to say to your other comment to Jay, so I’ll just post this one and start in on that!

    Like

  8. Wow, this is an interesting conversation, especially because of my fondness for science. And speaking of science…

    “b) We do too see matter being created or destroyed, it just takes a lot of energy! It’s exactly what got Einstein famous: Energy=matter x (speed of light) squared.”
    Lynniam

    E=m^2 isnt about energy being created nor destroyed; it’s about it being transformed. This equation is showing the relationship between how much mass = how much energy. So the mass isn’t being destroyed, it’s being turned into energy, which Einstein stated are the same thing. So if they are really the same thing, then they are not being created or destroyed, only transformed into a different state.

     So that does beg the question, if matter and energy still can't be created or destroyed, then where does our current energy and matter come from? Either Someone created it, or it was always there, in the supposed "Big Bang". Personally, I don't see why a random, unexplained ball of all mass and matter thatthat breaks about every law of everything we've got, is easier for you to believe rather than a God whom we get to know and love, and it rather irks me when scientist say it is a fact when it is no more than an educated guess of something that happened so long ago that they can't record it.
    

    Anyways, that’s my take. I might post something more if i can think of anything. Please feel free, Lynniam, to say whatbypu think about this, and any flaws you can find in my reasoning.

    Like

    1. Glad you’re enjoying the discussion, Tara! Fair point that the total energy/mass of the universe doesn’t normally change.

      Astronomers are quite confident that the universe is expanding and that it has been doing so for about 13 billion years. Outside of that, there is room for multiple scenarios and speculation. Personally, I’d be skeptical that an infinite being outside of time and space would be particularly interested in talking to humans; but I wouldn’t call it impossible. Overall, I’m fine so long as no one claims the universe/earth is only six or ten thousand years old!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s