Creation scientists

[4WD]

That is a big fat negative.

Aha, clearly Schroeder's article was quite beyond your ability to read and comprehend.  OK.

[Amo]

I'm quite sure that Charles Darwin would be encouraged by the understanding that the mechanism of inheritance and cell reproduction is entirely natural, not some magical process as it was assumed by people of his time.    The realization that the vast complexity of the cell operates by very simple and understandable mechanisms (which is why biochemistry is a science and vitalism is a religious belief) caused a revolution in biology.    It was possible in the 1800s and well into the 1900s to be a biologist with little understanding of math and physics.   No longer.

As he almost always did, Darwin had it right about this.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Wrong! If Darwin understood the incredible complexity of even a single cell, which we do not yet fully comprehend or understand, he likely would not have ever produced his false theory. Apart from this, Christ not only created cells and everything else, in Him they and everything else consists. Apart from Him they would not consist or function. That which is apart from God is naught. But for salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord, we and this world, would no longer be.

[Amo]

Aha, clearly Schroeder's article was quite beyond your ability to read and comprehend.  OK.

Of course it is 4WD, you said it didn't you? Just like you say the bibles creation account and no doubt therefore the fourth commandment then I presume, are both true and mean just what they say, while the theory of evolution is true as well. Without contradiction apparently. And this is true, regardless of the obvious contradictions because 4WD says so. What is Schroeder's argument, but your own. Is it not?

[4WD]

You didn't even bother to read it.  So, kiss off.

[The Barbarian]

I'm quite sure that Charles Darwin would be encouraged by the understanding that the mechanism of inheritance and cell reproduction is entirely natural, not some magical process as it was assumed by people of his time.    The realization that the vast complexity of the cell operates by very simple and understandable mechanisms (which is why biochemistry is a science and vitalism is a religious belief) caused a revolution in biology.    It was possible in the 1800s and well into the 1900s to be a biologist with little understanding of math and physics.   No longer.

As he almost always did, Darwin had it right about this.

Wrong!

No, it's correct.   Instead of some kind of magic vitalism, it turns out that the amazing complexity of life works by a few relatively simple laws, much as the amazing complexity of the solar system works by a few relatively simple laws.    Turns out, God is a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

If Darwin understood the incredible complexity of even a single cell,

At that time, no one realized that cells work entirely by natural laws.   But Darwin anticipated that they do.   

...he likely would not have ever produced his false theory.

As you learned a long time ago. all four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.   We directly observe evolution proceeding in the world around us.   No point in denial.

Apart from this, Christ not only created cells and everything else,

Right.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

[The Barbarian]

Most of the people that believe the scientific theories today, believe it as dogma.  They don't understand science anymore than the YECs you mention.

But biologists, for example, understand evolutionary theory as it is, and accept it based on the evidence.   I suppose physicists do the same thing, regarding quantum theory (which I notice has been modified from time to time, based on new evidence).    So has evolutionary theory.   We never understand everything in nature completely.   We just learn more and more about it.

[Amo]

But biologists, for example, understand evolutionary theory as it is, and accept it based on the evidence.   I suppose physicists do the same thing, regarding quantum theory (which I notice has been modified from time to time, based on new evidence).    So has evolutionary theory.   We never understand everything in nature completely.   We just learn more and more about it.

https://creation.com/dr-raymond-g-bohlin

In contradiction to your above statement, the following biologists from link provided above are creationists.

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin
Creationist Biologist

Biography

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin is Director of Research for Probe Ministries, Texas (USA) and is co-author (with Dr Lane P. Lester) of the important creationist book The Natural Limits to Biological Change.

Education

He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and North Texas State University, and his Ph.D. is from the University of Texas.



Kenneth B. Cumming
Professor of Biology (United States)

Education

B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965



Dr David DeWitt
Creationist Biochemist and Neuroscientist (USA)

Dr David A. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University. Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is active in teaching and research. Liberty University recognized Dr DeWitt with the 2000-2001 President's Award for Teaching Excellence. He teaches upper level biology courses in cell biology and biochemistry as well as 'History of Life.' The latter is a required course on the creation/evolution controversy. His primary research efforts have been to understand the mechanisms causing cellular damage in Alzheimer's disease. He has authored and co-authored articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Brain Research and Experimental Neurology.

Dr DeWitt is also associate director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California where he has taught graduate level cell biology. Dr DeWitt served on the board of directors of the Alexandra Foundation and currently is their Director of Creation Education. He has written articles and given many presentations on creation/evolution issues. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, the Creation Research Society, and is currently chair of the biology section of the Virginia Academy of Sciences. He lives in Lynchburg, Virginia with his wife Marci and his three daughters.



Carl B. Fliermans
Professor of Biology (United States)

Education

B.S., Asbury College, Wilmore, KY, 1966
M.Sc., University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 1969
Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1972



Robert H. Franks
Associate Professor of Biology (United States)

Education

B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960



Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
Creationist Molecular Biologist

Dr Jerlström is a Staff Scientist at Creation Ministries International, Australia, and Editorial Co-ordinator of the Journal of Creation (formerly TJ). As shown below, he comes with impeccable scientific credentials, and of course, he is convinced that the Bible is 100 % the Word of God.

Education

B.Sc. (Hons.) in Microbiology, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia, 1982.
Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, 1988. Thesis Title: 'L-Asparaginases in E. coli: a genetic study.'



Arthur Jones, biology
Dr Jones is a science and education consultant. He has a B.S. (Hons) from the University of Birmingham in biology; an M.Ed. from Bristol University and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Birmingham. Dr Jones has taught science and religion courses at London and Bristol Universities. He presently works for the Christian Schools' Trust as their research consultant for curriculum development. He is a member of the Institute of Biology, London.



Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology


Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology



Dr Lane P. Lester
Creationist Geneticist

Biography

Dr Lane P. Lester is Professor of Biology at Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs, Georgia. He serves on the board of directors of the Creation Research Society and is the managing editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Dr Lester's books include Designs in the Living World (biology textbook), The Natural Limits to Biological Change, and Human Cloning: Playing God or Scientific Breakthrough?.

Education

He is a graduate of the University of Florida and holds a Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University, and M.S. in ecology.



Dr Ian Macreadie
Creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist

Dr Ian Macreadie is a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO's top prize, the Chairman's Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology's top award, for outstanding contributions to research. He is also adjunct professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.



Dr. John P. Marcus, biochemistry
Dr. Marcus is research officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. He holds a B.A. in chemistry from Dordt College, an M.S. in biological chemistry and a Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the University of Michigan. Dr. Marcus's current research deals with novel antifungal proteins, their corresponding genes, and their application in genetic engineering of crop plants for disease resistance.


Chris D. Osborne
Assistant Professor of Biology

Education

B.A., California State University, Fullerton, CA, 1976
M.S., Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA., 1985
Ph.D., Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA., 1989



Gary Parker, Ed.D.
Creationist biologist

Biography

Biologist Dr Gary Parker was the head of the science department at Clearwater Christian College (CCC) in Florida. For twelve years, he served on the science faculty of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in the San Diego area. He is a popular and gifted speaker.

Dr Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation (available in pamphlet form), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department—defending the Bible—debated the Bible department—which was defending evolution!

En route to his B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and Ed.D. in Biology/Geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation.

He has published five programmed textbooks in biology and six books in creation science (the latter translated into a total of eight languages), has appeared in numerous films and television programs, and has lectured worldwide on creation.

Education

B.A. in Biology/Chemistry
M.S. in Biology/Physiology
Ed.D. in Biology/Geology



Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology



Ariel A. Roth, biology
Dr Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. He holds a B.A. in biology from Pacific Union College and an M.S. in biology and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan. His research has been supported by U.S. government agencies. During his career he held numerous university positions, including professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University. During the latter appointment, Dr. Roth directed a university team for underwater research on coral, which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has authored over 140 articles on origins issues and for 23 years edited the journal Origins.



Timothy G. Standish, biology
Dr. Standish is associate professor of biology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He holds a B.S. in zoology from Andrews University, an M.S. in biology from Andrews University, and a Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University (University of Virginia), Charlottesville, Virginia. He teaches genetics at Andrews University and is currently researching the genetics of cricket (Achita domesticus) behavior.



Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology



Henry Zuill, biology
Dr. Zuill is professor of biology at Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. He holds a B.A. in biology from Atlantic Union College, an M.A. in biology from Loma Linda University and a Ph.D. in biology from Loma Linda University. Dr. Zuill also serves as curator of the Joshua C. Turner Arboretum, which is an affiliate of the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum.

[Amo]

You didn't even bother to read it.  So, kiss off.

OK, now I read it, and it changes nothing. As I said, it is a theory which allows for what you wish to believe. Not anything scripture actually says. To the contrary, the fourth commandment completely contradicts the articles testimony, which was spoken right from the mouth of God, and written with His finger. The article presumes that God is limited to time and space as we are and or understand it presently. Hogwash! He created time and space, he is not limited by the confines of it as we are.

I have no need to do such though, since I already know God's word contradicts it. I simply do not think God would tell us He made the world in six days, when He did not. That would basically be a lie. Worse yet, He punished people who would not submit to this lie and honor this day He as you suggest, told a story about. Making them rest very seventh day because He created the world in some stretched out kind of days that lasted 15 billion years. Hogwash!

https://creation.com/gerald-schroeder-and-his-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-part-1

Quoted article below from link above.

Gerald Schroeder and his new variation on the "day-age" theory: Part 1

Several months ago, Dr Gerald Schroeder was a two-time guest on the Zola Levitt TV program. The titles of the programs were: "In the Beginning" and "The Days of Creation." Because we received a number of inquiries about these programs, We obtained and viewed the videos.

Dr Schroeder is a physicist from MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S.) who has resided in Israel for the past twenty years. Although he claims to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, including six literal twenty-four hour days, it becomes clear that he is using a bizarrely non-literal meaning of the word "literal". Rather, it turns out that his theory is nothing more than a new variation on the tired old "day-age" theory. That is because, like the older "day-age" theories, his theory asserts that the world really is the same age as evolutionists claim it is (currently perhaps 15 billion years old), but that we can arbitrarily divide that period into six age-long periods of time which he chooses to call "days." Like more recent proponents of the "day-age" theory, he believes that God used the big bang, and that it started the "first day." (See also What are some of the problems with the big bang theory? in our Q&A: Astronomy/Astrophysics section.)

According to Dr Schroeder, since the universe started in such a very tiny volume, the first twenty-four hour day was a time period of 8 billion years. As the universe continued to expand, the second day was only 4 billion years, the third day was 2 billion years, the fourth day was 1 billion years, the fifth day was 1/2 billion years and the sixth day was 1/4 billion years for a grand total of 15 3/4 billion years. He does not rest this choice of variable "day" lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any biblical basis for such a division. We are merely supposed to accept his re-definition of the word "day" and ignore all the biblical evidence (such as Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 20:8–11) that each creation day was essentially the same length of time as an ordinary day of the week today.

Moreover, Dr Schroeder's arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet completed the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.

Dr. Schroeder continues by saying that because we are in the "sixth day" of creation, the Sabbath Day, the seventh day of rest, has not yet occurred. However, Genesis 2:1–2 clearly states that God "ended his work", "he rested", and "he blessed it and sanctified it because in it he rested." All of these statements are made in the past tense. How could this be if we are still in the sixth day as Dr. Schroeder claims?

Dr. Schroeder also states that the basic Hebrew root word for "evening" is "chaos" and the basic Hebrew root word for "morning" is "order." He cites no Hebrew scholar supporting his view, which appears to many scholars to be without foundation. The Hebrew word for "evening" is ('ereb); it appears to have no relation to the word most scholars would expect for "chaos" (tohu). Similarly, the word for "morning" (boqer) has no discernible connection to the word we would expect for "order" (seder). Since Dr Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously on this point. (In any case, even if there were a root word relationship, there are logical fallacies and dangers involved in using word roots to interpret the Bible, which have led people astray on many issues. For a study of the Hebrew word tohu, see The alleged biblical evidence for a gap.)

Proceeding with this argument nonetheless, Dr. Schroeder asserts that this shows the universe started with the chaos of the big bang and was later ordered by God. Does this then mean that each "day" started with chaos and ended with order? Did things go through a six "day" cycle of chaos-to-order-to-chaos-to-order?

In Dr Schroeder's creation scenario, the sun was actually created on Day Two. However, since the atmosphere was merely translucent, it could not be visibly discerned from the earth until the atmosphere became transparent on Day Four. In contrast, Genesis 1:14–19 clearly states that the sun and moon were made on Day Four and placed in the firmament. This is another standard claim of the old "day-age" theory, a claim which evaporates upon examination of the passages involved. For example, the biblical account does not use the Hebrew word for "appear" to say the sun and moon "appeared" on the fourth day. Instead, Genesis 1:16 says he "made" them then. [See the discussion in The sun: our special star, Note 1.

[Amo]

https://creation.com/gerald-schroeder-and-a-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-part-2

Quoted article below, the second part of article from my previous post, from link above.

Gerald Schroeder and a new variation on the "day-age" theory: Part 2

Several months ago, Dr Gerald Schroeder was a guest on the Zola Levitt TV program. Because we received a number of inquiries about these programs, we obtained and viewed the videos. This is part 2 of a 2-part review of the TV broadcasts.

Summary of part 1

Dr Schroeder is a physicist from MIT who has resided in Israel for the past twenty years. Although he claims to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, including six literal twenty-four hour days, it actually appears that his theory is nothing more than a new variation on the old 'day-age' theory. That is because, like the older 'day-age' theories, his theory asserts that the world really is the same age as evolutionists claim it is (currently perhaps 14 billion years old), but that we can arbitrarily divide that period into six age-long periods of time which he chooses to call "days". Like more recent proponents of the 'day-age' theory, he believes that God used the big bang, and that it started the "first day".

Part 1 of this review critiqued Dr Schroeder's conclusions, pointing out that: his math was arbitrary and wrong; that his understanding of the Hebrew text in Genesis was faulty; and that the Bible specifically argues against the big bang view. Here is part 2 ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Dr Schroeder may not believe in evolution per se, he bases his version of the 'day-age' theory on evolutionary dating methods and on an evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. If one accepts his theory (which places the fossil record before the advent of man), one must accept that billions of years of death, disease, and struggle preceded the entrance of man, and therefore the entrance of sin. This then takes away death as a penalty for sin, clearly taught by Genesis 2:17 and 3:19, and nullifies the work of Jesus on the cross. (It is CMI's understanding that Dr Schroeder is of the Jewish faith.)

It is sadly obvious that Dr Schroeder has compromised his understanding of the Bible due to evolutionary "science" with the standard evolutionary big bang theory. However he appears to have serious misunderstandings about even that theory.

Not realizing that the big bang theory has no 'edge' to its matter, Schroeder imagines such an edge and appears to believe that clocks near such an edge run slow compared to clocks on Earth. He does not appear to realize that standard big bang theory has all its clocks running at the same rate everywhere. Anyhow, he imagines that clocks at the edge of the universe would register only days, while clocks here would register billions of years. This is the exact opposite of how standard general relativity says clocks in a cosmos with an edge actually would behave, according to Dr Russell Humphreys' book Starlight and Time. Pages 103–104, 128, and 132 of the book point out this discrepancy in Schroeder's ideas of several years ago. It is not clear if Dr Schroeder has substantially modified his views since that time.

Even if Dr Schroeder's scientific view (that clocks far away tick slowly) were correct, they still would run aground on an important biblical question: where does God measure time? Did the days He mentioned in Genesis elapse at the edge of the universe, or did they elapse on Earth? The Bible teaches that the universe runs on Earth time, which involves (approximately) 24-hour, and very regular, rotations of the Earth. The Bible teaches a young Earth, but Schroeder's theory does not.

Finally, Dr Schroeder's numbers have not kept up-to-date with the latest scientific fashion. According to his theory, to get 6 days you need a 16 or 17 billion-year-old universe. This no longer fits the prevailing (ever-changing) 'accepted' age of the universe, which now is about 13 billion years. If we use his 'back of the envelope' method of finding out the equivalent of creation days to observed years, we get 16.4 billion years. But the universe is now said to be about 13 billion years old. Thus we find that we are in day 4.8 instead of 5.5! Creation Week is still going on, man has not been created and God has not rested yet!

The 1,000,000,000,000 figure on the expansion of the universe (see part 1) which Schroeder uses as the basis of all his numbers is founded on nothing. Note all the rounded out zeros! It is an order of magnitude number taken from an arbitrarily chosen stage of expansion in the alleged big bang. Another person could just have well taken a number a thousand times bigger, or a thousand times smaller.

In light of this, Dr Schroeder's theory appears to be not only an unnecessary compromise with evolutionists, not only confused in its facts, not only a rehash of the discredited 'day-age' theory, but also a house built on sand in a scientific sense as well.

[Amo]

I'm quite sure that Charles Darwin would be encouraged by the understanding that the mechanism of inheritance and cell reproduction is entirely natural, not some magical process as it was assumed by people of his time.    The realization that the vast complexity of the cell operates by very simple and understandable mechanisms (which is why biochemistry is a science and vitalism is a religious belief) caused a revolution in biology.    It was possible in the 1800s and well into the 1900s to be a biologist with little understanding of math and physics.   No longer.

As he almost always did, Darwin had it right about this.

No, it's correct.   Instead of some kind of magic vitalism, it turns out that the amazing complexity of life works by a few relatively simple laws, much as the amazing complexity of the solar system works by a few relatively simple laws.    Turns out, God is a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

At that time, no one realized that cells work entirely by natural laws.   But Darwin anticipated that they do.   



As you learned a long time ago. all four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.   We directly observe evolution proceeding in the world around us.   No point in denial.

Right.  You just don't approve of the way He did it.

I have learned nothing from your delusions of grandeur. Accepting that Darwin and his cronies are the exact people the following scriptures were referring to. In that they believe when they tell people something, it means those people have learned the truth of the matter. Even though they know the constant changing nature of what they teach, due to their extremely limited knowledge, which must always be changed as new information is learned.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

[The Barbarian]

Criticizing existing theories is productive when it's accompanied by an alternate hypothesis. 

That isn't what's happening here, though.

This happens a lot.   Neutralist theories and punctuated equiibrium have been added to evolutionary theory to fit new data.

[The Barbarian]

I have learned nothing from your delusions of grandeur.

Perhaps you have not.   You are exactly the person to which God referred in the following scripture:

Timothy 1:[6] From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.

[Amo]

I understand your question perfectly.  I answered your question.I haven't denied anything the scripture emphatically states; I have only denied your interpretation of some such scriptures.Of course I believe it.It is a real pity that you do not even understand that it is your own views in this debate that you are defending. Your view, apart from just exactly what God's word states and declares, is based upon your interpretation of what the Hebrew word "yom" intends in the Genesis creation account. Your view is that Genesis 1:5 says, "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first 24-hour period of time".  You think that is just exactly what God's word states and declares.  It does not.But Amo, your argument, at least in part, is that since God's word says nothing about evolution then evolution must not be real or correct.  As some would suggest, that since, in the NT at least, they see nothing in God's word about musical instruments in worship, it must wrong and unacceptable. You are employing the same false argument.Have you not read of so many who try to argue that every time that the Bible speaks of the acceptability of God's people drinking wine, it must be unfermented wine, i.e., grape juice? They do to the word "wine" exactly what you do to the word "day".I think you truly do believe that.  That doesn't make you right.

Same old dung 4WD, faulty accusations, built upon faulty premise. God's word does declare exactly what I am telling you. You just choose to ignore or disbelieve the account of scripture in which God descended upon a mountain, shaking its foundation and causing it to smoke like a chimney stack. Then speaking words which rolled like thunder from the mountain. In which He emphatically declared Himself, to the entire nation of Israel that He created the world in six days, and rested the seventh, which is why they were to rest on the seventh day. Then He wrote that very same thing in tables of stone twice. How say you the scriptures say nothing about the creation taking place in six days, like it says nothing about musical instruments in worship, and wine always being fruit juice. By way of the rejection of truth, that his how. You deny the words of scripture, pretending they do not even exist, that you may choose your own path.

You deny the creation account as it plainly states, the fourth commandment as God plainly stated it, and the flood account as scripture testifies as a global event, because none of this allows for your chosen faith in the theory of evolution. Then you lie, and say I am doing the same thing people who have no scripture to back their positions up with, do. When you in fact are the one doing this very thing. There simply is no scripture backing up the theory of evolution or even deep time, to support your decision to make one word mean such, when it most obviously does not. How very lefty progressive of you.

Then again, and again, and again, and again, please do supply the scriptures which do back up this theory of yours. That the days were actually billions of years. Scripture, not more theories of other men. I won't hold my breath, though I am sure you wish I would.

[Amo]

Perhaps you have not.   You are exactly the person to which God referred in the following scripture:

Timothy 1:[6] From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Let's put a little context around that verse.

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Here we are. You show me how your theory of evolution is sound biblical doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, and I'll show you how my belief in the biblical account of creation does. You go first please.

[4WD]

OK, now I read it, and it changes nothing.

Obviously that is because you didn't understand any of it.  And for what it is worth, it would seem that the author of the creation.com articles didn't understand it either.

In the words of that once famous Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise".

I have no need to do such though, since I already know God's word contradicts it.

Again, it only contradicts your interpretation of God's word.

[4WD]

Then again, and again, and again, and again, please do supply the scriptures which do back up this theory of yours. That the days were actually billions of years. Scripture, not more theories of other men. I won't hold my breath, though I am sure you wish I would.

God's general revelation does that quite adequately, a revelation that you refuse to even consider, much less give credence to.

There are places in the universe, in fact in our own galaxy, The Milky Way, in which time advances so slowly that in the passage of 24-hours measured there literally millions, perhaps billions, of years will have passed as measured here.

[Rella]

@Amo

I do not want to get into this between you and 4WD but I would like to ask you if it is 6 literal 24 hour days for creation of all, can you explain since the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day, how you are certain day 1, 2, and 3 are only 24hours?

And ignoring the KJV translation of the bible are you familiar with the NASB translations that say more accurately that

"And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day." Note the time period from "evening" to "morning" brackets only the night. As Collins states: "This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the author's [Moses] own presentation.

NASB95 Gen 1- 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

That "evening and morning" can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90, which is attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, "morning" defines the beginning of life and "evening" the end of life. Thus, "morning and evening" brackets the entire human lifespan.

NASB continues with .... God called the  expanse "heaven." And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.and follows through..............

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure you understand my question, so let me zero in on it again. Do you think the prophets of God of old, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were and are wrong in warning he world of the dangers of rejecting the truths they proclaimed?

The issue is your addition of other things to their words.

I do truly believe that those who believe the deep time theory of evolution do reject the plain testimony of scripture.

Since the plain testimony says nothing either way, you're just wrong.    Let God be God; you should accept what He says, and add nothing to it. 

[The Barbarian]

The OT has reference to a number of musical instruments used to praise and worship God:

Ezra 3:10 And when the masons laid the foundations of the temple of the Lord, the priests stood in their ornaments with trumpets: and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise God by the hands of David king of Israel.

Psalms 150:1 Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the firmament of his power. [2] Praise ye him for his mighty acts: praise ye him according to the multitude of his greatness. [3] Praise him with sound of trumpet: praise him with psaltery and harp. [4] Praise him with timbrel and choir: praise him with strings and organs. [5] Praise him on high sounding cymbals: praise him on cymbals of joy: let every spirit praise the Lord. Alleluia.

There are more, I think.    How many more would you like?

[The Barbarian]

https://creation.com/dr-raymond-g-bohlin

In contradiction to your above statement, the following biologists from link provided above are creationists.

Comparing lists of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and Project Steve (guys named "Steve" with doctorates in biology or a related field who accept evolution), we find that about 0.3% of PhD biologists don't accept evolution.   That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.   

You see now why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationists?

[Jaime]

Mathew 7: 13–14

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Jesus wasn't crazy about the bandwagon arguement either.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

My concern is for what the Bible actually says.  It doesn't say that God acts like Aladdin's genie, poofing things into existence, subverting the laws of nature at a whim. 

As you read the quasi-accurate translation that King Jimmy had written it is very suggestive of exactly that.

Gen 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 5 ........ And the evening and the morning were the first day.

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

Gen 7  .......  and it was so.

Gen 8  .......And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 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.

NOW, for the sake of time I shall stop posting the verses. You can clearly see that these are highly suggestive of an "instant pot" suggestion as to the actual creation of the way God worked. He said and poof... it was done.

Quasi-accurate... nailed it in one.  All the verbs are translated into past-tense in the KJV.  They aren't that way in Hebrew; everything is present and/or imperfect in tense.

It says "God is saying..." and "light is existing."  In Hebrew, God doesn't just speak and it happens.  It is His ongoing Word that is causing things to happen/exist.

God is portrayed as immutable, unchanging, the One who establishes the laws of nature, and will wait for the eventual fruition of His long-term plans.

Your statement is true. Bt it is also true if God had wanted it done instantly it would have been. We have all been conditioned to believe the bible was God inspired, therefore accurate. So if the suggestion in the bible is that it was instant, can you not see why many, if not most would see it to mean what it says?

The Bible doesn't actually suggest that.  If that was the idea, Genesis 1 would have been a lot shorter.

Jarrod

[Rella]

Quasi-accurate... nailed it in one.  All the verbs are translated into past-tense in the KJV.  They aren't that way in Hebrew; everything is present and/or imperfect in tense.


The Bible doesn't actually suggest that.  If that was the idea, Genesis 1 would have been a lot shorter.

Jarrod[/size]

I agree, but I tend to look at things the way a commoner, without the education that you have had, would read and see things.

I admit to never have studied Hebrew grammar..... just what I can see from reading the interlinears, which most people do not even know exist.

So I see why people read Gen 1 and also Gen 2 and understand them to mean creation took 6 - 24 hour days. They get all hung up on their preferred translations... for whatever reason, and to them all else has to be wrong.

What I do not understand is why people believe that someone who lived long before them and came up with a translation is to be trusted that they actually know what the original meaning was to be.

IOW... When King Jimmy commissioned his men to do his bible translation.... how do we know that his men got it right.
Seems to me that if there needed to me more then one or two working on it... then they came to a concensus when anyone go stumped.

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers and editors.

https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/#:~:text=At%20least%20sixty%20men%20were%20directly%20involved%20in,revisers%20and%20editors.%20Some%20served%20in%20several%20roles.

Not to mention then by 1769 there were some changes made to the 1611 that people swear by. And I wonder if they know what they read and study today?

OK.. pay my ramblings no mind.

[The Barbarian]

Let's put a little context around that verse.

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

I preferred to not to describe your misunderstanding of what you say, to be described as "vain jangling."    But the verse precisely describes your attempts to revise scripture to fit your own desires.   If atoms and valence numbers are not in scripture, that neither confirms nor denies their reality.  Likewise, if scripture doesn't mention the observed process of evolution, that neither confirms nor denies it.   Such things only matter as confirmed or denied by evidence.   Let God be God and accept His word as it is.   And none of this will trouble you any longer.

[DaveW]

The insistence of YEC bozos that the chapter is a series of inexplicable miracles shortcutting the process is a direct contradiction to the point being made.

First off, our creator God is THE purveyor of "inexplicable miracles."

Secondly, I think we surely disagree on "the point being made." 

Thirdly, calling people (including myself) "bozos" sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

First off, our creator God is THE purveyor of "inexplicable miracles."

Is He, though?  My Bible doesn't suggest to me that I should be a seeker of signs and miracles; rather the opposite.  I find Jesus upbraiding the Jews because they do not believe without signs and wonders.  I find the gospels warning me that signs and wonders can be wrought by the enemy as well as God.

Tell you what, you can point out some miracles to me, and I'll bet you I can find 100 non-miracles for every miracle.  Bet?

The point of Genesis 1 is that God took a creation that was at first chaotic, without definition, and set up boundaries, divisions, definitions - rules and laws of nature.  Can you seriously disagree with this?

Secondly, I think we surely disagree on "the point being made."

Really?  REALLY?  If you don't see that the point is that God brought order to chaos and formed the creation into its present form, then what on earth do you think it says?

Thirdly, calling people (including myself) "bozos" sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.

I didn't target anybody here.  I launched a pretty benign insult at a nebulous group of people.  But if the clown-shoes fit, by all means...

[Amo]

I preferred to not to describe your misunderstanding of what you say, to be described as "vain jangling."    But the verse precisely describes your attempts to revise scripture to fit your own desires.   If atoms and valence numbers are not in scripture, that neither confirms nor denies their reality.  Likewise, if scripture doesn't mention the observed process of evolution, that neither confirms nor denies it.   Such things only matter as confirmed or denied by evidence.   Let God be God and accept His word as it is.   And none of this will trouble you any longer.

Your argument is moot as always. It is the argument which is built upon nothing but, what God's word does not say at all. While completely ignoring what it actually does say. You have never, and will not ever, try to explain how what it says equals the theory of evolution. You do not, simply because it cannot be done. So that makes the biblical testimony either a fairy tale, or some sort of symbolic or allegorical account which none can figure out or express, or simply a lie. So which is it to you Barb, and what are the scriptures which verify its literal interpretation all about? I am not the one here, trying to conform scripture to outside extra biblical theories or doctrines of humanity if you will. To the contrary, it is your belief or faith, which requires either ignoring large amounts of scripture, or professing that there simply is no properly understanding and therefore interpreting them. This leaves you in the dark, not me.

Psa 119:98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Therefore is your knowledge darkened, because you refuse to accept and or understand large portions of God's word. You cannot be made wise through God's commandments concerning Him, because you reject the testimony of the one which points out exactly who He is, and what He did, which establishes His rightful authority over all of this world. Including you, though you deny the commandment itself, and what it states.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 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. 

No doubt, you neither keep the commandment, nor believe what it says. Unless it can be made to mean deep time evolution, which it cannot. Nevertheless, here we are again, and again, and again, and again. Please do show us how it does mean the deep time evolution of your chosen faith. You will not, because you cannot, because you do war against the plain testimony of God's word concerning this point. So be it.

Psa 119:126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law. 127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. 128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. 129 Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. 130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In this thing, that is your faith in the theory of evolution, there is no light in you. Because as the scriptures plainly state, the commandments and word of God bring light and wisdom. The WORD OF GOD Himself declaring that they shall not be changed but by those who will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Yet you neither no doubt keep the fourth commandment of God, nor believe it. As you do constantly testify against its plain and simple testimony. Therefore in this thing, there is no light in you, and you are in, and profess darkness. So be it.

[4WD]

In this thing, that is your faith in the theory of evolution, there is no light in you.

And there you go again pronouncing the judgment of condemnation on another as if you were God Himself; a truly despicable to do. But that is who Amo is.  Always condemning those who disagree with your interpretation.

[Amo]

And there you go again pronouncing the judgment of condemnation on another as if you were God Himself; a truly despicable to do. But that is who Amo is.  Always condemning those who disagree with your interpretation.

Yep, there is a judgment unto condemnation. This is 100% biblical. To determine that no one can give warning of that judgment concerning rejection of what scriptures declare, is basically to determine there is no warning to give concerning such judgment. This again would constitute contradicting scriptural testimony. If the scriptures say -

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

and Christ says -

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Then those who do not speak according to God's law, change that law, and say what the law states is not true, are in darkness, and will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. I know this not because of my own extra biblical thoughts or feelings, but because scripture plainly states that it is so. Of course no doubt, you and Barb will probably interpret those scriptures to mean something else. So be it.

[Alan]

Amo, if you truly believe any English translations of the Bible are word for word literal translations of scripture, you'll believe pretty much anything.

[Amo]

Amo, if you truly believe any English translations of the Bible are word for word literal translations of scripture, you'll believe pretty much anything.

I never said any translation is word for word. I certainly do beleive however, that God has seen to it, that the truths of His word have been preserved for us. He is the God of light, not darkness, and He has not left us in the dark. I understand many wish we were in the dark, somewhat at least, in order to cast doubt upon certain issues which may contradict their own chosen views. So be it. I am quite sure that those who have translated the scriptures were more knowledgable than you and I in doing so. None of them to my knowledge, ever translated the word day, which is under so much scrutiny from deep timers, as anything else but a day as we know and understand it. No doubt, there is a good reason for that.

[Amo]

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/top-scientific-problems-with-evolution-fossils/

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Fossils

Jonathan Wells

February 12, 2022, 7:01 AM

A fossil is "a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages."1 The study of fossils (called paleontology) started long before Darwin. They provide our best glimpse of the history of life before the present. Assuming that fossils in one layer of rock are younger than fossils in layers below them, pre-Darwinian paleontologists had already grouped them according to their relative ages. The result is known as the fossil record.

Darwin wrote this about the fossil record in On the Origin of Species:

"By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.2"

But the "inconceivably great" numbers of transitional links postulated by Darwin have never been found. Indeed, one of the most prominent features of the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion, in which the major groups of animals (called phyla) appeared around the same geological time in a period called the Cambrian, fully formed and without fossil evidence that they diverged from a common ancestor.

A Serious Problem for the Theory

Darwin knew about this evidence in 1859, and he acknowledged it to be a serious problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory.3 He hoped that future fossil discoveries would help to fill in many of the blanks, but more than 150 years of additional fossil collecting has only made the problem worse. In 1991, a team of paleontologists concluded that the Cambrian explosion "was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned."4

The abruptness seen in the Cambrian explosion can also be seen on smaller scales throughout the fossil record. Species tend to appear abruptly in the fossil record and then persist unchanged for some period of time (a phenomenon called stasis) before they disappear. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould called this pattern punctuated equilibria.5 According to Gould, "every paleontologist always knew" that it is the dominant pattern in the fossil record.6 In other words, the "inconceivably great" numbers of transitional links postulated by Darwin are missing not just in the Cambrian explosion, but throughout the fossil record.

Two Human Skeletons

Even if we did have a good fossil record, we would still need our imagination to produce narratives about ancestor-descendant relationships. Here's why: If you found two human skeletons buried in a field, how could you know whether one was descended from the other? Without identifying marks and written records, or perhaps in some cases DNA, it would be impossible to know. Yet you would be dealing with two skeletons from the same recent, living species. With two different, ancient, extinct species — often far removed from each other in time and space — there would be no way to demonstrate an ancestor-descendant relationship.

Decades ago, paleontologist Gareth Nelson wrote, "The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion."7 In 1999, evolutionary biologist Henry Gee wrote that "it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way." He concluded, "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils-still-say-no-cretaceous-conundrum/

Quoted article below from link above.

The Fossils Still Say No: Capping a Cretaceous Conundrum

BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2021

The Cretaceous system of the geologic column, like the other systems below it, is a conundrum to evolutionists because it represents a continuance of many life forms found buried in lower strata combined with one of the most popularized mass extinctions at its conclusion.

In addition, many unique types of plants and animals make mysterious sudden appearances in the Cretaceous with no evolutionary precursors. This diverse and unexplained fossil assemblage also coincides with the accelerating final stages of the separation of the former mega-continent Pangaea. However, the evolutionary conundrum of this unique mix of catastrophically buried fossils and violent tectonics is solved by the model of progressive burial by ecological zonation and rapid plate tectonics of the global Flood of Genesis.

Darwin's Abominable Mystery Begins

Charles Darwin acknowledged that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (representing one fundamental type of creature evolving into another) was "a valid argument" against his theory of gradualistic evolution over millions of years.1 Not only were undisputed transitional fossil forms lacking for the animal kingdom, the fossil record for plants was even more problematic and deeply troubled Darwin.

About 20 years after Darwin published his famous book on evolution, he wrote a letter to his personal friend, the famous botanist Joseph Hooker, complaining, "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery."2 The chief reason for this abomination is the sudden appearance of many unique kinds of flowering plants (angiosperms) beginning in the Cretaceous—a trend that became even more problematic in higher rock layers.3

Dinosaur Fossils and Soft Tissue Amaze

While dinosaurs are often touted as proof of long evolutionary ages, their mysterious existence and mass burial is actually evidence of creation and the global Flood. As I noted in previous articles in this series, dinosaurs make their first sudden appearance (without evolutionary ancestors) in the Triassic, with even more unique sudden appearances of specialized kinds continuing through the Jurassic and through the Cretaceous.4,5 In fact, the Cretaceous contains many new dinosaur kinds that appear suddenly without evolutionary precursors.6

Perhaps the most well-known dinosaur among the public's perception is Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex), which is found in Upper Cretaceous rocks.6 The T. rex was part of a group of dinosaurs known as tyrannosaurids, which were considered to be the largest predators in their various ecosystems. Tyrannosaurids were huge bipedal reptiles with massive skulls filled with large sharp teeth. Despite their immense size, they had large muscular legs that were long and perfectly proportioned for fast movement. In contrast to their back legs, their arms were small with two functional digits. The largest of this dinosaur type was T. rex, which could get over 40 feet in length and up to 8 tons in weight.

The T. rex has made headlines not only for its unique and imposing appearance but also because its fossils have yielded soft tissue, debunking the idea they lived millions of years ago. A variety of research papers show that T. rex bones contain intact osteocytes (bone cells with intact finger-like extensions), intact blood vessels (with blood cells), and collagen fibers and proteins.7,8 The reason that these tissues, cells, and biomolecules are still present is because these dinosaurs were buried about 4,300 years ago in the Genesis Flood. If they were millions of years old, these features would have degraded.

Another popular dinosaur of the Cretaceous that appears suddenly with no evolutionary ancestors is the Triceratops. This intriguing dinosaur had a unique beak-like mouth and three distinctive horns protruding out of its head, which was framed by a spectacular frill. This imposing creature was a plant-eater up to 30 feet long and weighed 12 tons. Although it was a vegetarian, it had a formidable defense with its horned head and must have been involved in many battles with other dinosaurs, as evidenced by many bite marks and scars in fossil bones that have been discovered (including a bitten- off horn from a T. rex). Like the T. rex, Triceratops fossils have also been found with spectacular examples of soft fibrillar bone tissue that should not be present if these creatures were actually millions of years old as claimed by evolutionists.9

One more example from the Cretaceous is the duck-billed hadrosaur. Hadrosaurids are called facultative bipeds, meaning the younger ones may have walked mostly on two legs while the adults walked mostly on four legs. Their jaws were uniquely designed for grinding and eating plants, with multiple rows of teeth that could replace each other as the older teeth wore down. Hadrosaurs were quite large and could get up to 26 feet in length and weigh up to 4 tons. Not to be outdone by T. rex and Triceratops, hadrosaur fossils have also yielded spectacular soft tissue discoveries, including osteocytes, cartilage, collagen proteins, and chondrocytes (cartilage cells) with chromosomal DNA.10

Mammals and Birds Abound

As I reported in my previous article, mammals were found living alongside dinosaurs in the Triassic and the Jurassic—and the same evolutionary conundrum carries into the Cretaceous, where new mammal types appear suddenly. In fact, Cretaceous fossils have revealed that these various types of mammals were ecologically diverse, exhibiting unique adaptations of gliding, swimming, burrowing, and climbing. This unexpected fossil appearance prompted renowned evolutionary paleontologist David Krause to comment, "The explosion of early-mammal discoveries, particularly from China, over the last two decades has been eye-opening, mind-numbing and absolutely dazzling."11

Not only do mammals appear suddenly living alongside dinosaurs, but so do birds. A recent fossil discovery in China puts fully avian birds appearing suddenly at the beginning of the Cretaceous.12 Until recently, the oldest Chinese fossil birds from Lower Cretaceous deposits seemed better adapted to climbing or occasional gliding than powered flight. Because only modern-looking bird anatomies were found in Upper Cretaceous rocks, evolutionists believed they had a magic window of about 40 million years for modern-looking birds to evolve. However, that critical window of time has now been shattered with the finding of a fully flying avian fossil in Lower Cretaceous rocks. In other words, fully formed birds appear suddenly alongside dinosaurs without any evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution.

Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction: Smoke and Mirrors

Evolutionary speculation is filled with fanciful tales of repeated mass extinctions, but the evidence is better explained by the global Flood that progressively inundated and buried higher ecosystems as the tsunami-like waters rose. Perhaps the most fanciful and popularized of all these alleged extinction events is at the end of the Cretaceous, known as the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction. In this story, we are told about a massive asteroid that hit the earth in Mexico at a site called the Chicxulub crater. This impact supposedly caused a major global cataclysm that selectively led to the demise of the dinosaurs but somehow had no effect on other reptiles, amphibians, mammals, insects, and plants that persisted on into the next geological system (Cenozoic).

While the convoluted story of the K-Pg extinction itself has serious problems, so does the issue of an asteroid impact.13,14 The Chicxulub crater is a semicircular anomaly along the northwestern edge of the Yucatán Peninsula with a diameter of about 110 miles that was supposedly made by a six-mile-wide asteroid or meteorite. It isn't readily visible because it is covered by younger sediments and is only observed with geophysical methods. However, its validity as a real impact site is negated by a number of serious issues. First and foremost is the fact that it lacks any substantial iridium signature—a hallmark of such impacts. In addition, the so-called "melt layers" are too thin and sparse for an impact of this size. And any high-pressure signatures in the rocks and deformed minerals can also be formed by volcanic eruptions and are not unique to impacts. In reality, the paucity of so-called "circumstantial" evidence can easily be explained by other non-impact processes.

Explaining the Cretaceous Conundrum with the Global Flood

As I mentioned in my previous two articles,4,5 the break up of the pre-Flood mega-continent (called Pangaea) began in the Triassic. The continental separation accelerated in the Jurassic and through the Cretaceous. The Jurassic and Cretaceous also involved the rapid injection of new, hot, buoyant ocean crust forming between the separating continents. Furthermore, the high-water mark for the global Flood most likely occurred during the deposition of the last Cretaceous sediments, which comprise the end of the fifth megasequence known as the Zuni.15 Interestingly, the Zuni also represents a massive increase in the overall amount of sediments being deposited. The average thickness nearly doubles globally from previous megasequences. The deposition of the Zuni likely began about day 100 of the Flood (mid-Jurassic), with the highest water level coming about day 150 (end of the Cretaceous). At this point, the separated continents were completely submerged and all land life was exterminated.

This increasing tectonic activity in the Cretaceous accelerated the violence of the Flood by forcing tsunami-like waves higher and farther inland. The violent action thrust larger marine reptiles (e.g., Mosasaurus), along with deeper-water ocean fish, onto the divided continents, mixing marine with land creatures living at higher elevations. This violent back-and-forth action also transported some land creatures (e.g., dinosaurs) to be buried deep in ocean sediments.15 Land life buried in Cretaceous rocks represents both an increase in water height and depositional violence along with the continuing progressive burial of ecosystems living farther inward.

The Dinosaur Peninsula model developed by ICR scientist Dr. Tim Clarey, which I noted in my previous article, explains their fossil record in the American West from the Triassic through the Jurassic5,15 and continuing through the Cretaceous. In the progressive destruction of the Dinosaur Peninsula, the Cretaceous represented the last massive herds of dinosaurs fleeing the rising floodwaters, which included hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, and tyrannosaurs. And like many land animal fossils, Cretaceous dinosaurs are found mixed with marine creatures. All of this data taken together points directly to the global Flood of Genesis.

[The Barbarian]

Darwin wrote this about the fossil record in On the Origin of Species:

"By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.2"

But the "inconceivably great" numbers of transitional links postulated by Darwin have never been found. Indeed, one of the most prominent features of the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion, in which the major groups of animals (called phyla) appeared around the same geological time in a period called the Cambrian, fully formed and without fossil evidence that they diverged from a common ancestor.

Sounds like a testable belief.   Let's ask some informed YE creationists about that...

Evidences for Darwin's second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

[The Barbarian]

In addition, many unique types of plants and animals make mysterious sudden appearances in the Cretaceous with no evolutionary precursors.

When I was just starting to learn biology,l there were fewr or no known "evolutionary precursors" for :

Anapsids to turtles
Hominids to humans
Wasps to ants
Ungulates to whales
Reptiles to mammals
Fish to tetrapods
lizards to snakes
Roaches to termites
Salamanders to frogs
Dinosaurs to birds
(long list; there are more if you'd like to see more)

Now we have many for all of these.    Basing your religious beliefs in what we don't yet know, is not a very wise move.