Archive for the ‘Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe’ Category

Comments on “Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part Three”

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Part Three of Ross’s apologetic for a Local Flood appears in the third issue of Volume 1 of the “New Reasons to Believe”.  Ross gives us the theological reasons why the flood must have been local not global as the Bible describes.  Ross starts out with an analogy to sin as a cancer and God as the Great Physician removing a tumor from the patient.

“God… works with perfect precision to cut away the malignancy, leaving the healthy or reparable tissue in place.”

Ross describes sin as a localized phenomenon in the earth, limited in range to the limited extent that people had migrated from where God first placed them in the garden.  So only a limited area of the earth must be covered with water to cleanse the earth of the malignancy.  How does this line up with what we read in Genesis?

Gen 6:11  Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.Gen 6:12  God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.Gen 6:13  Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.Gen 6:19  “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.Gen 7:4  “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”Gen 7:19  The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.Gen 7:20  The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.Gen 7:21  All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;Gen 7:22  of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.Gen 7:23  Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

If God were trying to tell us that the extent of the flood included the whole earth and every living creature on it, how else would He say it than how He says it here?  Just the sheer number of times He repeats the concept of “all” and “every” leaves the reader with no doubt that God meant “all” and “every”.  God is not presented as the exact physician delicately excising just the malignancy and preserving the healthy tissue.  He is portrayed and the great judge of the earth, cleansing his whole creation.  Does it make sense that God could even extract sin from the earth?  Paul says the whole of creation groans, not just a small contaminated part:

Rom 8:19  For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.Rom 8:20  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hopeRom 8:21  that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.Rom 8:22  For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

It is the whole of creation that suffers under sin.Ross expands his surgical analogy into what he calls a theological appeal, that turns out to be faulty logic:

“According to this theological perspective, the geographical extent of Noah’s Flood can be determined by the geographical extent of the human community and the soulish animals associated with it.  The basis for interpreting Noah’s Flood as an event of less than global geographical proportions is that human civilization at that time lacked the motivation and the means (economic, technical, and otherwise) to colonize distant regions of the planet.  Archeological evidence indicates that human habitation had not yet spread beyond the area in and around the juncture of three continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

Ross assumes a local flood, interprets the limited range of archeological relics in terms of a local flood, then claims to have shown that the flood was local based on the limited range of the relics.  We can take the same relics, assume a global flood, interpret the limited range of the relics based on the global flood, and so “prove” the global flood.  The limited range of the relics proves nothing.  It may be a necessary condition for his theory to work, but it is not sufficient.Not only is it not sufficient, it doesn’t line up with scripture.  Genesis 4 describes the descendants of Adam as musicians, metal workers, and shepherds, not poor and lazy.Ross concludes with the statement:”From a theological standpoint, no reason existed for God to deluge the whole of the planet earth. …  Such an interpretation holds true to the text and true to the revealed character of our Creator and Savior.”It is true that we cannot come up with a reason for God to deluge the whole of the planet.  We cannot come up with a reason to deluge even a part of the planet.  He could have sent a plague to wipe out man and animals.  He could have sent a meteor to blast them away.  He could have done it any number of ways, so we are forced to accept God’s account of how it happened because we were not there.  God said “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.” and they were.

Comments on “Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part Two”

Monday, November 30th, 2009

In Volume 1, No. 2 of New Reasons to Believe, Ross continues his explanation of why we should not believe the Bible when it says the flood covered the whole earth.  Ross presents Psalms 104 as a retelling of the creation story, particularly versus 5-9:Psa 104:5  He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.Psa 104:6  You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains.Psa 104:7  At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.Psa 104:8  The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.Psa 104:9  You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.We are again asked to commit the error of interpreting the Genesis account given by Moses in light of scripture written four hundred years later.   Without an agenda to fit the Bible into “Science”, we could just as easily say that verse 9 was written with regard to Noah’s flood waters not returning to cover the earth.Ross compounds the error by invoking several other later scriptures, including 2 Peter 2:5:

“…2 Peter 2:5 informs us that God brought the Flood upon the ‘world of the ungodly.’  If humanity had not yet migrated to all Earth’s continents, including Antarctica, Greenland, Australia, and North and South America, there would have been no apparent reason for God’s devastation to extend that far.”

Several logical disasters lurk in this statement.  First, Ross assumes the correctness of his argument to argue that his argument is correct.  He assumes that humanity had not migrated to all the earth, then tells us that since humanity had not migrated to all the earth, there was no need to wipe out all the earth.  I have no doubt that humanity had indeed migrated to all the earth.  But that leads us into Ross’ second error: he assumes many other things: billions of years, continental drift over billions of years, uniformitarianism, and the authority of the truth of Science over the Bible when he tells us that at the time of the flood the major continents were already in place on the earth.  Young earth creationists have long pointed out the evidence that Science is wrong on uniformitarianism, and that the continents could easily have drifted from an original single continent to their current locations in a very short time.  There is much evidence that this is indeed the case.  What does the Bible say about the continents?

Gen 10:25  Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

The earth was divided into continents well after the flood, if “divided” really means divided.Finally Ross is arguing that a global flood makes God look inefficient.  If man had not spread over the whole earth (an assumption) then God didn’t really need to wipe out the whole earth, just the part Man was living in.  Ross will be in Heaven arguing with God that at the final judgment, since Man had not extended his range to the bottoms of the oceans, that there was no need to destroy the bottoms of the ocean when God destroys all creation with fire, as the Bible says He will.  I think it is more prudent to let God decide what he is going to destroy and how he is going to do it.

Comments on “Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part One”

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

With the very first issue, Volume 1 , No.1,  of the “New Reasons to Believe”, RTB launches their an apologetic by Dr. Ross  for why we don’t need to believe the Bible when it says Noah’s flood did not cover the whole earth.  This is  a logical topic to include because this is a major point of divergence between young and old earth creationism, and a sensitive point for old earthers.  Dr. Ross and his followers are forced into the position that the whole surface of the earth was not covered by water during Noah’s flood because of Ross’s decision to agree with everything that Science teaches, and Science cannot hold to a global Noachian flood.  A recent global flood would allow for the rapid creation all the geologic layers that evolution depends on to create in illusion of billions of years.  Billions of years are a vital underpinning of evolution.  Without them, one cannot visualize premordial slime becoming people, even though billions is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the time that you would need to produce even one protein by random chance.Many Christians don’t realize the local flood teaching is so widely believed.  We learn about all the animals that were on the ark coming out and repopulating the whole earth and we assume that everyone means “the whole earth”, but unfortunately old earth believers mean “the small part of the whole of the earth that we call the whole earth when talking about Noah”.  This small part of the earth where Noah lived, somewhere in the Mideast fertile crescent or the Black Sea area of Russia is all that Ross needs for the local flood to cover to wipe out the population of the world.  Ross must impose upon us to believe that in the sixteen hundred years from creation to the flood, the entire population of the world, which could have been as large as a hundred million people, never strayed past this small boundary.  And what is the reason Ross must believe this?  It is the only way that he can reconcile Science with the Bible.Where does the Bible say the flood was?  Let’s look at the words used:In Hebrew, the word “earth” is a translation of ‘erets.  Strong’s defines ‘erets as:

‘erets (eh’-rets)  From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): -  X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

‘erets is used 309 times in Genesis alone.  It occurs 79 times in the first eleven chapters, where it is translated as the “land” or “country” where a people group dwells, or as “earth”, but not earth as in ground.  Later in Genesis, starting with the story of Lot, it is translated “ground”, usually with reference to bowing one’s face to the ‘erets.  On the other hand, “ground”, as in dirt, is ‘ădâmâh.Forced into a local flood, Ross explains why the Hebrew word ‘erets means a small part of the earth, rather than all of the earth:

“Ancient readers (mostly hearers, because manuscripts and reading ability were limited) never even imagined a terrestrial ball. “Earth” or “world” to them meant “land” or implied people and societies.

The purely speculative ideas that ancient readers didn’t know the earth was a ball (the people just after the flood mapped the whole earth, the  Greeks even knew its diameter) and didn’t know how to read,  stem from the evolutionary belief that we gradually over time emerged from apes into less intelligent humans, and then into homo sapiens.  Ross apparently forgets the origin of this belief in evolution, and holds to it in spite of the Bible’s specifically mentioning that before the flood these were not primitive people:

Gen 4:20  Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.Gen 4:21  His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.Gen 4:22  As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron…

We agree that in the first eleven chapters, ‘erets could mean “the land of a people”.  But did it just mean that? Obviously in Genesis 1:1 it means the whole earth.  All the way up to Genesis 6 it means the whole earth, but suddenly when the story of Noah starts, we must stop believing the Bible when it says “whole earth”.  Why?  The text still seems to be saying “the whole earth.  A reader without an agenda to force fit the Bible into Science would never have it cross their mind, especially when God uses the word “all” over forty times in Genesis 6-11 to describe the extent of the flood.Then how does the Bible use the word ‘erets that we translate “earth”?  Let’s take a look at Genesis 1:10 where God actually defines it for us.  (I have included the Strong’s Dictionary numbers here to let you track the original words, not the words the translators decided to use):

Gen 1:9  Then GodH430 saidH559, “Let the watersH4325 belowH4480 H8478 the heavensH8064 be gatheredH6960b into oneH259 placeH4725, and let the dryH3004 landH3004 appearH7200″; and it was soH3651.Gen 1:10  GodH430 calledH7121 the dryH3004 landH3004 earthH776, and the gatheringH4723b of the watersH4325 He calledH7121 seasH3220; and GodH430 sawH7200 that it was goodH2896a.

So it was the “dry land” that God called ‘erets (earthH447).   Notice that “dry land” comes from H3004:H3004יבּשׂהyabbâśâhyab-baw-shaw’From H3001; dry ground: - dry (ground, land).The word is repeated in the Hebrew, which is significant.  For example in Genesis 2:17 God tells them to not eat of the tree:

Gen 2:17  but from the treeH6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896b and evilH7451b you shall not eatH398, for in the dayH3117 that you eatH398 from it you will surelyH4191 dieH4191.”

The word die, H4191, is repeated.  If you search the Old Testament you will find that everywhere else that H4191 is repeated it is translated as “put to death” except for this verse.  And isn’t that what God is saying here, that Adam and Eve would be put to death for eating of the tree?  Why is this verse mistranslated?  But I digress.So God says He called the “dry dry” land ‘erets.   If you read through all the verses where ‘erets is used in Genesis 1-11 and put “dry land” in place of ‘erets, you will find it makes perfect sense.  Everywhere ‘erets is used it is talking about dry land.  It is not used in reference to any animals that live in the ocean.  It refers to the “dry land” occupied by specific people groups.  And most importantly, it makes sense in chapters six and seven when relating the events of the flood.  There was only one continent at the time of the flood, and God called it all ‘erets.Finally Hugh tries to use verses later in the Bible to interpret the use of ‘erets in Genesis:

Two familiar Old Testament passages narrate “worldwide” events other than the Flood: Genesis 41:56–42:6 and 1 Kings 10. The same Hebrew word, ’eres, translated as “the earth” in the Flood account, is translated as “the world” in these passages. So their meaning is essentially interchangeable.

In Genesis 41:57 we read, “[A]ll the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.” Genesis 42:5–6 clarifies that the famine had spread throughout the whole of the Egyptian Empire and the land of Canaan. “The world” in this context refers to a major region of human civilization rather than to the entire globe.

Justifying the age of the earth, the miles thick layers of sediment laid down by water, the fossil layers, the entire arguments regarding cosmology, all on the interpretation of the word that the author of the chronicle of Joseph chose to call  the extent of the famine is putting one’s self a bit out on a limb.  The Mediterranean was a well traveled area for ocean going trade vessels.  How can we say that Joseph was not supplying a large part of the world with grain for that seven year period?  It would not be pertinent to the story of Joseph as passed down to us in the Bible.  It was only important to recount Egypt and Canaan as being in drought to explain why Joseph’s brothers were forced to come to Egypt for aid.  The same can be said about 1 Kings 10: can we really assume that our ancestors were unable to sail around the world in ships?  Again, evolutionary teaching that we are descended from apes prevents Hugh from acknowledging that these people were capable of this and more.  There is much evidence that they did, but that will be a topic for another day.

Hugh’s other examples are as easily dismissed:

In Romans 1:8 Paul says of the Roman Christians, “Your faith is being reported all over the world.” 

  One cannot take an example from New Testament Greek and use it to interpret Hebrew writing from another culture written thousands of years before.  One cannot ever use verses written later to interpret earlier writings.  How would we expect the people in Moses’ day to understand what was being written about creation if they had to wait for 1 Kings or Romans to be written to understand what the text meant?  We cannot expect them to wait for Paul to be born to know what God was saying to the patriarchs.

 So Part 1 of Ross’s apologetic ends and the Emperor has no clothes as yet.  Let’s see what Part 2 brings.

Neanderthals with “Humans” - a sidetrack

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

We must dwell for a moment on the root of the entire discussion:  why are Neanderthals an issue?  The old earth view is that Neanderthals lived a long time ago, showing up long before humans, and died out as humans were coming into dominance.  The RTB view must match the old age view, but must not allow Neanderthals to be humans, lest the beginning of Man be pushed back to 150,000 years ago.  Man showing up 150,000 years ago would make it hard to fit “Science” with the Bible, since the Bible records only about 6,000 years of history.  To demonstrate the young earth view let’s go back to the Ark, and the meaning of “Kind”.

Noah took a pair of each kind of animal onto the ark.  After the flood, as the animal pairs multiplied and spread across the land, the genetic potential in the first pair was unevenly distributed into their offspring, just as genetics tells us today.  The dog kind split out in succeeding generations into wolf, fox, coyote, domestic dog, hyena, dingo, and etc.  They differ genetically somewhat, but they are all dog kind.  The horse kind likewise subdivided into horse, zebra, and all the varieties of wild horses found in the world.  Man likewise divided into what we call the Races.  It is a simple matter for Neanderthal to be part of Man Kind, genetically similar, but not identical.  And if their DNA is not identical, well, horses and zebras, of the same Kind, have different numbers of chromosomes, so they are not identical either.

Neanderthals interbreed with “Humans” - the RTB side - article 2

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

This short article on the RTB website refers to a study, just completed, to sequence the Neanderthal genome.  The results of the study will be to show the degree of similarity between human and Neanderthal DNA:

“…a joint team of scientists from Germany and the U.S. announced plans to complete a draft of the Neanderthal genome (an organism’s entire genetic makeup) within the next two years. This research program provides an unimaginable opportunity to test various theories about humanity’s origin. Since that first fossil’s discovery, Neanderthal’s identity and place in humanity’s origin have fascinated scientist and layperson alike. Traditional evolutionary models assert that Neanderthals played some role in human evolution. The Reasons To Believe model, on the other hand, maintains that there is no evolutionary connection between Neanderthals and modern humans.”

First of all, the degree of similarity between two species so close as humans and chimpanzees is a variation of only a few percent.  Research has shown that the variation within humans is on the same order of a few percent, so any results of this study, which will show only a small variation, will be interpreted by any group the way they want to interpret it.

Secondly, what if the genomes turns out to be identical?  RTB can just say God created Man just like Neanderthals, but those Neanderthals are STILL NOT HUMAN! They just look human, and act human, that’s all.  And lived a really long time ago.

In current evolutionary thought, mutations no longer drive gradual improvement.  It is done by gene transfers from one specie to another.  RTB will of course follow “Science” in this paradigm shift, since the basis of their ministry is that we can trust all the conclusions that “Science” has come to in their interpretation of creation from their naturalistic, Godless worldview.  Gene transfers will be used by “Science” to explain the great similarity between Human and Neanderthal.  RTB will be scrambling to figure out how to fit this into their convoluted worldview.

Neanderthals interbreed with “Humans” - the RTB side

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

What does RTB have to say about Neanderthals breeding with humans?  The RTB website has a articles by Ross’s Rottweiler, Fuz Rana, on this very subject.

The first article we will look at makes uses the argument that, while some scientists believe humans and Neanderthals interbred, NOT ALL OF THEM DO!  So it must not be true!  This is a bit like the 50,000,000 Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong argument: we come to the Truth by a majority vote.  Let us hope that the Bible is voting on our side.

Fuz claims that:

“The case for Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding relies exclusively on morphological (structural, bodily) evidence.”

As we saw in my previous article, this is not at all true.  The case for the human Neanderthal is forced along by the presence of strictly human religious activities associated with Neanderthal bones.  That there are fossil bones exhibiting both human and Neanderthal characteristics is also important, but is not driving this.  Fuz fails to mention the religious activities anywhere in his article.

Quoting Fuz:

New research from the Max Plank Institute provides direct evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed.6 This work compared mitochondrial DNA recovered from four Neanderthals with mitochondrial DNA isolated from the remains of five modern human fossils. The Neanderthal and modern human specimens all date between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago and were recovered from the same geographical locations. Investigators readily recovered Neanderthal-type DNA from the Neanderthal specimens, but only human DNA in the modern human remains. Based on statistical analysis these workers concluded that it was unlikely that Neanderthals made any genetic contribution to the earliest modern humans. In other words, there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred nor any hint of a possible evolutionary connection.

Fuz concludes that since the Neanderthals contained Neanderthal DNA and the “human” fossils contained human DNA, that there was no interbreeding.  Well, the lion sperm contained lion DNA and the tiger egg contained tiger DNA and they interbred.  The horse sperm contained horse DNA and the donkey egg contained donkey DNA and they interbred, so what have we proved here? Nothing.  The degree of similarity of two fossils boils down to an opinion of two scientists.  If the two scientists were looking at a four foot skeleton of an oriental person next to a skeleton of a over six foot Norwegian or African, they would come to the same conclusion that these were two different species.  Darwin popularized the idea that the races are different species at different evolutionary levels and that brought us the Holocast.  Fuz’s comment that “…there is no… hint of a possible evolutionary connection” is disturbing.  Fuz is looking for an evolutionary connection?  Fuz is a progressive creationist that believes that God created Neanderthals at their time in the fossil record, and humans at their time.  There is no evolutionary connection necessary.  Perhaps this was just a slip.

Neanderthals interbreed with “Humans”

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

The TimesOnline reports on a soon to be published paper that yet again breaks the news that Neanderthals were not the low brow, stupid race of human like creatures that they have been made out to be for the last sixty years. This article proposes that Homo Sapiens had sexual relations for the “10,000 years” that they coexisted with modern humans in Africa.  The author would not commit to there being any offspring, but he obviously believes there were some since he intends to spend a lot of time and effort to compare the Neanderthal genome with the human genome.  The author comments:

“What I’m really interested in is, did we have children back then and did those children contribute to our variation today?” he said. “I’m sure that they had sex, but did it give offspring that contributed to us? We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence.”

How does this link to progressive creationism?  Since progressive creationists insist on accepting without question all that “Science” decrees, they must accept all that is “known” about Neanderthals.  Neanderthals supposedly got their start as much as 100,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, putting them well before Adam and Eve.  But progressive creationists cannot allow any “thing” here tens of thousands of years before Adam and Eve to be fully human because the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first fully humans.   To avoid Neanderthals being fully human, Ross teaches that they were soulless human-like creatures that only appear human.  This worked as long as “Science” taught the myth of the stupid Neanderthal.  But since that myth is crumbling in the atheist circles, progressive creationists are left with no ground to stand on.  The article reports on the humanlike behaviors of Neanderthals:

  “I used to believe Neanderthals were primitive,” said Stringer, “but in the last 10,000-15,000 years before they died out, around 30,000 years ago, Neanderthals were giving their dead complex burials and making tools and jewelery, such as pierced beads, like modern humans.”

This information has been reported in the young earth creationist literature for a long time, and as long as it stayed out of the mainstream it could be ignored.  As long as “Science” didn’t talk about Neanderthal humanness there was no problem, but now Hugh’s story, concocted to patch up his compromise, is being attacked from both sides, young earth creationists and old earth evolutionists.  If Neanderthals looked human, acted human, bred with humans producing human offspring, how can we say they were not human?  And if they were human, then they needed a redeemer.  What is progressive creationist to do?  Perhaps interpret science with the Bible, instead of the Bible with “Science”.

So who were these people and when did they live?  Obviously we don’t buy in to the atheist time scale.  Let’s look at just the fact, and then interpret them in light of the Bible, instead of in light of Billions and Billions of Years.

Neanderthals lived before the modern European humans.  They lived a hunting lifestyle.  They were physiologically a little bit different from the modern occupants of Europe.

These facts can be explained quite simply by these being tribes forcibly dispersed by the confusion of languages after the Tower of Babel. This would have happened during the ice age in the first several hundred years after the flood.  Life would have been hard, they would not have been able to settle down and farm.  But there would have been plenty of game, and a temperate climate due to the warm oceans necessary to create the snow to have an ice age.  That they are different from modern Europeans is not surprising, given the diversity in human appearance throughout the world, and the fact that all races were being produced by the genetic pool of Shem, Ham, and Japeth.  They would have lived to the much older age of about 500 years if they were the first generations after Noah.  A 500 year life span could lead to a different physical appearance.

So it’s not so hard after all to just believe the Bible: no playing with the meanings of words, no heroic efforts to make the text say something else than it obviously says.  Just believe it the way it is written that it says what it means to say:  “…for in six days God created the heavens and the earth…” Exodus 19:11

The Hugh Ross Worldview

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

A Reasons to Believe speaker presented a lecture in our area a few months ago on why we can believe the Bible based on “Science”.  I went up afterward just to say hello and introduce myself, since the emcee had made it a point to mention that a few young earthers had shown up.  After a little discussion on the topic, the speaker asked me what my response would be if “Science” found an evidence of the earth being billions of years old that could not be refuted.  I said something about having to think hard about my interpretation of the Bible, thinking all the while that I need not worry about such a thing happening, since the earth is young, after all, the Bible says so.

Unfortunately, that was the wrong answer, as I realized later.  That I responded that way is evidence of my conditioning to analyse the Bible in light of “Science”, a conditioning that we are all subjected to as we go through public school, and of which we are mostly unaware.

The correct response would have been that since we interpret all things in light of the Bible, rather than interpret the Bible in light of all things,  we would interpret whatever evidence we would ever find in light of the Genesis account of the six day creation.  The difference between my first response and the correct response highlights the error in Reasons to Believe’s approach to the Bible.  That they could even ask their question reveals that their approach is to put the Bible in subjection to the scrutiny of “Science” as a baseline or measure against which religion must align.

There are of course, many evidences that have already  been discovered that have been interpreted to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old.  For example, the quantity of radioactive decay products in granite could only be there after billions of years of years of time.  The old earth interpretation is of course that the earth is old.  This conclusion is based on the principle of “Science” that the present is the key to the past: whatever is happening today is whatever happened in the past, and we know the rate of decay today, so we know the rate of decay since the beginning. Having assumed an old earth, the old earth interpretation of radioactive dating of rocks proves the earth is old.  One gets dizzy from the circular logic.

There are, and this may surprise some people, other interpretations of radioactive decay products in rock.  ICR took a hard look at this problem and discovered that there is more to the story:  billions of years of radioactive decay in granite would produce a calculable amount of Helium, which , since Helium is a very small and mobile atom, would have diffused away from the granite in a short time, geologically.  ICR found the Helium to still be in the granite.  The Helium would not still be there if the earth were billions of years old, so the only conclusion we can reach, from an honest perspective, is that the rock is young, and the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant.  It either varies by some mechanism we don’t know about, or it started out very fast and slowed, or God caused it to speed up for a time.

There are other examples, but this illustrates my point.  We err when we fall into the trap of using any man made interpretations of what we see around us to interpret the Bible.  The Bible stands alone as the inspired word of God, against which all things are measured.  It reveals truth to us that we cannot know by any other means, because while science can study the world we see, it cannot tell us what happened in the past.  It can only speculate.  God was there and has revealed the history of the world to us in the Bible, and the Bible is the authority against which we will measure all that “Science” attempts to tell us.