Old earth vs. Young earth

@Lisa. You have certainly raised a credible question: why didn't Adam and Eve die immediately after they ate the forbidden fruit? My answer will be based on information given by Dr. Bill Gothard. Notice that God did not say that Adam and Eve would physically die in the same day that they ate the forbidden fruit. However, He did say that they would surely die the same day they ate the forbidden fruit. This must mean that a part of them died. You see, all humans are made up of three parts: spirit, soul, and body. We are, in essence, a spirit inside a body that has a soul. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, their spirits died. This spiritual death has been passed on to all their descendants, as Romans 5:12 tells us. The only way to regain spiritual vitality is to allow Jesus Christ to liven our spirits by declaring with our mouths that He is Lord and believing in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. This then livens our spirit, which is the body's center of joy. This is why Christians tend to have such radiant countenances after they have been born again.

Just a few thoughts. For more information, go to www.iblp.org and find Bill's book entitled The World's Greatest Question.

Solo Deo Gloria!

Dr. Voddie Baucham has said that he believes that when God told them that they would die, He meant physical death. And He meant they would die on the day they ate it. But it was a display of His great mercy that He allowed them to live on, even after they so rebelliously disobeyed Him.

Wasn't He saying that they would began to die?

@COSII Interesting thought. I never saw it in that light before.

If this is true, though, how does it tie in with the verse in Romans 5 which says, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." What is the "death" that is passed on to everyone, and when do we receive it?

I'm not trying to misunderstand or discredit you, but I am interested in hearing your take on the subject.

@ COS I always thought that it meant spiritual death. Because God that cannot lie ( Titus 1:3) It might be physical deat. I don't know it could be though. I just highly doubt it unless you can explain it more to me. And according to Romans 5:8 it would be our sin nature Right ? We are born in sin we are born spiritually dead.

@ Thomas Youngman, I am also interested in more subject material on the spirit soul and body. I am very familiar with the inward man and the outward man. Realizing we have a sin nature but we also have God's spirit dwelling in us when we are Christians and that there is a war between the two. Blessings,

@God's Bondslave, I would recommend that you email the IBLP store for more information. Their email address is orders@iblp.org. I hope this helps!

My guess would be that it is both spiritual and physical death that passed on to all men because all sinned.

Babies die in the womb sometimes, demonstrating that they are under the curse of sin. But according to Psalm 51:5, we are also conceived in a state of spiritual deadness. So I think both would apply.

Another example of God withholding death is demonstrated in punishment for sin. In the Garden, the punishment for one sin was death. Under the OC Law of Moses, God was merciful and narrowed it down to 35 (I believe) sins that received the death penalty. Now, under the NC, it seems as if God has lavished His mercy upon us by not directly requiring the death penalty for any sin (although governments can choose to require it for murder, adultery, etc.).

@COS, I agree with you. I also believe that, even though it was not instantaneous, physical death was a result of the curse.

I think it's interesting that Adam and Eve knew what death was before they sinned.

Where do you get that idea? How do you know that is true?

Hey guys. I love the topic of Creation vs. Evolution and have spent years looking for creationist arguments (as well as their evolution counterparts). A few of the most convincing ones that I have come across run as follows (some of them are arguments for Intelligent Design in general):

Probability:
Proteins perform functions by linking with other proteins that have the exact same 3-dimensional special arrangements. (e.g. key in lock)
The simplest conceivable form of life (bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules.
There are multiple trillion possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes.
Most scientists agree that any event with probability less than 1 in 1050 is considered an impossibility.
The possibility that even the simplest bacteria could form by randomly hooking up proteins is far less than 10450.
Why is this impossibility being taught as scientific fact in our schools today?
(See “A Closer Look at the Evidence” on August 7th)

Morals:
If there is no God, then there should be no moral standards
People live as though there are moral standards.
Therefore, there must be a God.

Cell Complexity:
In Darwin’s day, the cell was a simple glob of goo.
Now we see that it is extremely complex.
Michael Behe points out that it is irreducibly complex: one part of cell cannot function without all the others. They all hav to be in place at once.
This is in direct opposition with Darwinism, which says that cells became more complex over time.

Information in Cell:
Charles Lyle’s method of studying universe: use processes we see occurring today and then apply them to back then. “The present is the key to the past.”

There is a storehouse of information in a cell’s DNA. Where does that come from? Today, the only place we see information generate is from more information. Sure there is the mere chemical reaction when the ink touches the paper in a newspaper headline, but ultimately, the information contained therein can be traced back to the mind of a journalist, typing away on a keyboard.

Apply this to back then: the information we see in a cell’s DNA must have come from more information…Intelligent Design.

Salt In Ocean:
Streams and rivers flow into the oceans. The water that rushes through those waterways runs over many rocks, depositing salt into the ocean. The water then evaporates out of the ocean, rains, and the process starts all over again.
If earth was really billions of years old, then the ocean should have much more salt in it then it does now.

Strength of the Earth’s Magnetic Pole:
Dynamo vs. Rapid Decay theory

Dynamo: earth’s magnetic pole is spinning around randomly, which creates the magnet.
Rapid Decay: Earth starts out with a certain amount strength in the magnet field which decays over time.
The rapid decay theory has accurately predicted the amount of magnetic field on other planets. Dynamo has not.
Looking at the amount of magnetic field the earth has today and using the Rapid Decay theory, if the earth was really billions of years old, the earth would have had such a large magnetic field that it would have exploded.

Fossil Record:
In Laetoli, Tanzania, human like footprints were found and were dated at 3.7 million years ago. Experts confirm that these foot prints are exactly the same as modern day humans. Even the space the footprints were away from each other is equivalent to a modern day stroll. According to Evolution, humans should not have been around then. Also National Geographic April, 1979 monthly cover.
(September 17th, A Closer Look at the Evidence)

Structural Homology:
Because the bones in many organisms are so very similar, it makes sense that they evolved from the same ancestor, right? Science has now revealed, however, that the DNA/nucleotide sequences of these organisms are incredibly different. This bit of information changed an argument that used to be for evolution to against it. (See Exploring Creation with Biology by Jay Wile.)

Molecular Biology:
You would expect an organism that appears to be “simpler” to be more closely related with an organism that is also “simpler” than with one which is more “complex”.
This however, we can clearly see is not true when we look at the nucleotide sequences in them. See Dr. Jay Wile’s diagrams in “Exploring Creation with Biology”.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid:
Microevolution allows for change within a species. This is a well-established scientific theory. This would simply result from variations in an organism’s DNA.
Macroevolution, however, would require information to be added or taken away from an organism’s DNA. Evolutionists claim this occurs by mutations. As far as modern scientists have seen, mutations have always resulted for the worse.

Fine Tuning:
There are many cosmological constants which, if adjusted the minutest amount, would make life on earth impossible.
e.g.
“A few of these cosmic constants will be real to us: the strength of gravity, the axial tilt, the oxygen to nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere, the ozone level, seismic activity, carbon dioxide and water vapor levels, the speed of the stars flying apart from one another, the expansion of the universe, the velocity of light, the entropy level of the universe, the force of electricity and mass of the proton” (Know Why You Believe by Paul E. Little, 124).
Could random chance have produced this?

Could God have used evolution to create the world?
By definition, evolution is mindless, purposeless, and unguided. Thus, it is quite unlikely.

God sustains it, literally.
Scientists have come a long ways in studying molecules. Now, however, they have determined that all the processes and chemicals in a molecule should explode away from each other, and they can’t figure out why they don’t. Guess what? The Bible says God sustains the whole world…I guess it means LITERALLY!

Evolutionist Argument:
Can you touch, see, taste, smell, or hear God?
Then according to the laws of science, God does not exist.

In order to create the universe and everything in it, God would have to be outside of time, space, and energy.
If you could “scientifically” test God (touch, see, taste, smell, or hear), he would not be outside and separate of everything else in the cosmos, and thus, could not have created it. In order for God to be what Christians claim he is, he cannot be “scientifically” tested. Instead, we must look at the evidence and decide what is most likely from that.

Also, there are many other things in the world today which cannot be scientifically tested but indubitably exist: Falling in love, for example.

EVOLUTION CONTRADICTS THESE LAWS:
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Law of Biogenesis

Anyway, sorry if this is kinda hard to read, I just copied and pasted this from a document I had compiled earlier. I plan to write a research paper some time or another when I find the time and motivation to.

(lol, it's kinda weird posting here since I don't even know if any body is still reading the posts on this topic)

God bless!

~Anthony

Nice arguments, Antonius! :) Very convincing. I think the best argument out of all of these is the argument of morals. C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity explains this argument in detail very well.

I just had one comment I wanted to make, concerning this quote: "As far as modern scientists have seen, mutations have always resulted for the worse." An educated evolutionist would attack this one little phrase and say, "Good mutations have been observed before! Just take a look at pathogenic bacteria. Mutations can happen in a particular species that make them resistant to a certain antibiotic. This is not for the worse for the bacteria, but for the better!" What's your answer to this?

EDIT: BTW, I'm Matthew Minica. This is the account I use for Bible Bee. :)

Ah! Good point. I imagine I would say that good mutations CAN happen, but are much more rare than detrimental ones. So it would take a VERY long time. Therefore, if arguing against evolution in general, I suppose that I would have to use multiple arguments besides that one. But if arguing Old Earth vs. Young Earth, then that argument would still work.

Oh, btw, "TrueU: Does God Exist" is an excellent source for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design and against evolution. Expelled with Ben Stein is also a good documentary on the subject (lol, he actually interviews Steven Meyers, the author of TrueU, in it).

Oh, and another argument:

Fossil Record:
Evolutionists are alwasy looking for the Missing Link (haha, actually there are MANY missing links). But think about it: if animals were slowly changing over time into another species, would you expect there to be more fossils of the individual species, or of the links between them? You would expect the fossil record to be littered with the in-between links!
(of course, to this argument, an evolutionist would just turn to a later twist in the theory of evolution: punctuated equilibrium. This basically says, if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), that the time it took to change from one species to another was relatively quickly due to high radiation, but then there was a long period of time before it started developing into another species. So basically they're arguing from a lack of evidence now!)

Not only is the cell irreducibly complex and totally dependent on each part, but many other things in the world are as well. The organs in the human body, the interdependence of certain animals on each other, and other things that I can't think of at the moment. :) Not only is it statistically impossible for one thing to evolve, but for two or more interdependent things to evolve AT THE SAME TIME? Far more statistically impossible.

I would say I don't get how they believe this fallacy of evolution, but I do. "What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." They really do know the truth, they just suppress it in unrighteousness.

Good scripture! I think you're absolutely right. Though I do think people can get to a stage where, since they have suppressed the truth long enough, the falsehood becomes their reality.

What I think is interesting is that Dawkins himself admitted the possibility that we were created by aliens, but he couldn't admit to a God. But that begs the question: WHERE DID THE ALIENS COME FROM?
Either matter existed forever, or else it had something beyond time, space, and energy create it. So SOMETHING has to have lived forever, whether it is matter or God. I tend to think the latter option is more probable.
I think why people don''t like to admit to the existence of God is because they don't like the idea that they are accountable to a Supreme Being. That's why Dawkins can admit to aliens, but not a God (it's my theory, anyway).

Oh, and one other bit of information:
You've prolly seen the charts of the fossil record with the "less complex" species at the bottom and as you progress layers the animals get more complicated. Such a record (if it is actually true), is inconlusive, though. cuz the layers of rocks can be formed over long periods of time OR by a natural disaster such as the flood. If the layers were formed over a long period of time, then it would be evidence for evolution. However, there is no way of knowing that they were formed that way. If the layers were formed by the flood all at once, then that would be an equally convincing explanation.

Anywho, That scripture you gave is awesome, one of my favs.

This is a funny way I've heard to summarize evolution:

Billions of years ago, nothing blew up, and that created a disorganized everything. Somehow, over billions of years, that disorganized stuff became organized and formed dust particles. Those dust particles, over billions of more years, formed stars, and, eventually, planets. Earth was eventually formed, and it was nothing but a big sphere of boiling rock. But after many more years, tiny living bacteria formed from the nonliving rock and eventually turned into plants, which eventually turned into fish, which eventually turned into amphibians, which eventually turned into birds and reptiles, which eventually turned into mammals, which eventually included apes, which eventually turned into humans.

(Please don't ask how nothing created everything, how disorganized matter became organized, how dust particles formed stars and planets, how life came from non-life, how single-celled organisms turned into thousands-of-celled organisms that somehow could turn sunlight, water, and soil into sugar to feed themselves, how those organisms became things that live in the water and filter oxygen from that water, how those things somehow came back out of the water and could breathe on land, how things that could not fly somehow developed the ability to fly, or how we cannot find any fossils showing the intermediate species that must have been involved in all of this. We can't explain any of it, but that doesn't mean it's not true!)

Haha, that's great. xD

Here's what I would say to an evolutionist who brought up the argument I mentioned: "Yes, it is possible (though not probable) for mutations to happen that benefit an organism. However, in the example you gave (bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics), the bacteria lost information in its DNA, which is what caused it to become immune. This is in fact the case with all mutations - information is lost! Now concerning the mutations that macroevolution requires: mutations will never in the long run benefit life (i.e. cause it to evolve into a higher creature), because they always cause the organism to lose information from its DNA. THERE IS NO MUTATION THAT CAN POSSIBLY CAUSE AN ORGANISM TO GAIN INFORMATION!" (Sorry, I would use italics if they were available.)
The problem lies in the definition of the word "beneficial" in the phrase "beneficial mutations". If "beneficial" means good for the organism, then yes, beneficial mutations can happen. But if "beneficial" means information is added to an organism's DNA (which is what the Hypothesis [I'm NOT going to call it a theory] of Evolution requires), beneficial mutations are impossible.

Aha! Excellent point! Good distinction.

Hey Matthew, one objection to your post. A hypothesis is an educated guess–this doesn't describe evolution at all! :) If anyone looks at all the evidence against it, they can see that believing in macroevolution is not a very educated belief!
I have decided to call it the fallacy of evolution–a fallacy is anything that goes against revealed truth (Scripture) or unrevealed truth (that which we have found is true but that is not mentioned in Scripture). Evolution goes against both! :)

Hey, has anyone mentioned Answers in Genesis? They are VERY active on this subject.

@SBG, your answer is correct, but you must look at this subject from the perspective of the evolutionist as well. In their mind, they are right, so they must have at least some answer to all the evidence thrown up against them. In fact, somewhere along the way, they must have obtained evidence that gave them the idea that evolution was true in the first place! Now, I am not trying to disagree with you, but I would simply like to make you aware of a key thought that I learned from The Ultimate Proof: evidence alone cannot disprove evolution. The reason for this is that evolutionists get their evidence from the same place we do; they just interpret it differently. The real key is to test which worldview is rationally sound. Evolutionists can explain away most, if not all, forms of evidence that creationists bring against them. When it comes to questions like morality and logic, however, they run into difficulties. You see, morality makes absolutely no sense to the evolutionist, since we all are evolved creatures anyhow. (For example, why should an evolved lion be jailed for killing an evolved antelope?) Also, if evolution were true, why should we assume that the laws of nature have remained constant if nature itself is constantly changing? Furthermore, why should we always expect winter after fall comes? Why not expect spring or summer? Again, please realize that I am not trying to attack your argument at all. Rather, I am using material that Dr. Lisle used in his book. He mentions that we must argue legally. Legal argument goes beyond disproving a position with evidence, and disproves a position because it is rationally unsound.

Hope this helps! Solo Deo Gloria!

I love Answers In Genesis! I can't wait for the October issue that talks about the Young Earth!

I finally got my Answers magazine last night. It gave what they believe are the ten best evidences for a young earth. I might try and list them later along with a brief summary.

We got ours a couple of days ago, and I've read over a few of the articles. I love how well written their magazine always is, and how it always defends a literal reading of the beginning chapters of Genesis so well!

Gotta love ANSWERS! :)

(1) The earth's rotation speed slows down a tiny bit every year. However many zillion years ago people think the earth existed, it would have been going way too fast to support life. You'd get dizzy.
(2) The moon gets a tiny bit further away from the earth every year. If the earth is however many zillion years old people say it is, the moon would have to have traveled through the earth. Messy.

I'll probably bring you more later.

Evolutionists also say that the earth's atmosphere was different millions of years ago than it is now, and its conditions back then were perfect for life to form. But that brings up the question: Was there oxygen in that atmosphere? Because if there was oxygen present, all the amino acids would die before they could put themselves together and become a living thing. However, all life requires oxygen, so if there was no oxygen way back then, the living thing that formed in those "perfect" conditions would die pretty quickly because it had no oxygen.