If you wish read the creation account click here first!

An honest ,straightforward reading of the creation account in Genesis1 seems to imply that this whole planet was made in just six days. Most honest Hebrew scholars would say that the text says just that - even if they do not believe that it was so created.

eg: Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who does not believe Genesis is true history :

‘ … so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’¹

Nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said:

‘ … if, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours,     the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.’²

Martin Luther of the "95 Theses" fame agreed with the 6-day interpretation and said:

‘The Days of Creation were ordinary days in length.  We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers.  Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders.  Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.’³

So, what is the truth?

There is much scientific evidence that the earth may be quite young.

Just a few such examples:

Not enough mud on the sea floor.

At current rates erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years - too short for evolutionists.^4,5

Not enough sodium in the sea.

The differential between sodium entering and leaving the sea leaves way too little sodium if the earth is billions of years old. Calculations that are generous to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of the earth of 62 million years.^6,7,8,9

Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

Carbon 14 is a radioactive form of carbon that decays in such a manner that NO traceable amount of a sample will be left after about 250 000 years. Yet, amounts of carbon 14 have been found in rock strata and coal millions of years old. Even some diamonds have been found with carbon 14 left inside. You cannot contaminate diamond from the outside - it is too hard! The implication is that the earth must only be thousands, not millions or billions, of years old.¹⁰

Polystrate Fossils

There are, for example, tree trunks that extend through rock layers supposedly separated by millions of years. Yet, if that were so, the tree would have rotted away by the time the top lay of sediment covered it. The trunk had to have been covered quickly -days,weeks,months perhaps. See AIG site for numerous examples.

^{And many more!}

True science does not conflict with the Bible. We all have the same facts. It just depends with which bias we look at the facts. I have looked at the facts and have come to the conclusion that the earth MUST be young, and the book of Genesis MUST be correct!

Bible quote :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."

If the six days and also the seventh do not mean literal days of 24 hours each, then the command to
work for six days and rest for one is meaningless!!

Comparison Between The Order Of Creation in the Bible Verses Evolution / Long-Age Hypothesis

As can be seen from the above table, the two views are totally contradictory.

Short anecdote (Some creationists have told this story or a variation thereof:):

If you come up to me and tell me you believe in evolution,I will reply thus: According to evolution,
you came about by chance,random processes. If that is the case, then your brain came about by chance
random processes.If that is so, then your thought processes came about by chance,random processes.
Then,how do you even know you are thinking the right thoughts? Even worse:If you are biologist/geologist
etc, how can I trust your research regarding evolution if it comes from chance, random processes?!

References:

1.Barr, James, Letter to David C.C. Watson, April 23, 1984.

2. Dods, M., Expositor’s Bible, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, p. 4., 1888, as cited by Kelly, D.F., Creation and Change, Christian Focus Publications, Fearn, U.K., p. 112, 1997.

3. Luther, M., as cited in Plass, E.M., What Martin Luther Says, a Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri,  p. 1523, 1991.

4.Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525-544 (1992).

5.Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933-14,940 (10 December 1988).

6.Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).

7.Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767-779 (1979).

8.Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17-33, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.

9.Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.

10. Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable ¹⁴C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142. Archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.

Acknowledgement is given to Answers in Genesis (AIG) and :Institute for Creation Research (ICR) I used their resources in compiling this very brief piece

Please consult  "The Answers Book"  by Answers in Genesis (book is online at AIG) or Impact Article 384 by ICR for the MUCH longer list of evidences.

Back To Article Listing