Creation vs Evolution FAQ



Site: Jayden12.com Rock Creation/Evolution Archeology (Mobile) - Full Site

Field: AstronomyArchaeologyChemistryBiologyPhilosophyTheologyConclusion





Archaeology



Are not sedimentary layers and petrified plants evidence of millions of years?
In the case of the rock layers you are incorrectly comparing rock layer formation with tree rings. Trees have been observed to grow a ring for every year they are alive. Rocks are not alive so the analogy is not appropriate. When Mount Saint Helens erupted on May 18, 1980 it unleashed the equivalent of 33,000 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs (minus the radiation). This caused ash to be deposited, and after being compressed into solid rock was 25 feet thick in some places. In only a few hours a canyon was formed which revealed sedimentary layers resembling those found in thousands of other places around the world, except these were obviously laid down in an extremely short amount of time, not thousands or millions of years as was once assumed. Thousands of trees were uprooted and tossed into the surrounding ash and lakes, immediately petrifying and still observable in this state today, destroying the previous "given" that long ages are mandatory to form rock layers and petrified plants. The only thing rock layers tell us for sure is what order the rocks (things) were laid down. (1 Corinthians 1:19-20,27-29)
» MSH Creation Information Center
» AIG: 'I got excited at Mount St Helens!'
» AIG: Creation Road Trip
How could you possibly form Grand Canyon without millions of years of erosion?
There is so much evidence that Grand Canyon (GC) was formed by a lot of water and a little time, not a little water and a lot of time. Here's a quick summary and is not exhaustive.
  • Bent rock layers: Rocks are hard, so when you bend them, they break. But there are numerous places in GC where the rock layers (many of which are thousands of feet thick) curve up and down, indicating the material was exposed to incredible forces between the time the material showed up in this location and the time it turned into solid rock. If the exact same curve is found in multiple layers then that dictates they must have been bent at the same time. (What's the best way to bend rock? When they're freshly wet minerals that've just been deposited and before they dry out.)
  • Polystrate petrified fossils: Trees are organic. Big individual trees may last a couple hundred years. Under the right circumstances (mainly including rapid burial) organic things can petrify. Petrified trees that stick up through the rock layers is evidence for a short-time-scale flood and is evidence against a long-time-scale explanation. Even a petrified tree would not survive millions of years sticking up out of the ground if that is indeed how the layers were formed.
  • Erosion: There is no erosion between the rock layers... (more detail coming soon)
  • Water veins pointing "backwards": ... (more detail coming soon)
  • Cross-continental layers: (This is not evidence in GC exclusively, it's larger evidence GC exposes to us that would be less dramatically visible otherwise.) ... (more detail coming soon)
  • » Polystrate Fossils & Petrified Wood
Are not stalactites examples of things that require millions of years to form?
No. Answers in Genesis has an article every few years about another man dug mine that is only a few decades old but is filled with these. Long time isn't required to make stalactites and stalagmites, all that's necessary are the right conditions. (2 Peter 3:8)
» AIG: Caving in to reality, the shrinking 'age' of stalactites and stalagmites
» Rapid stalactite growth in Siberia
Doesn't the fossil column (or geologic column) have observable proof for evolution?
Fact: the geologic column is observable science. Fiction: the geologic column is conclusive. Fact: the strata can be found in the wrong order lots of places around the world. Fiction: the progression of amoebas to vertebrates can be seen. Fact: all the "evidence" for slow, gradual (or any) change from one species to the next is implied (assumed), there are no transitional creatures and no proto-creatures. The implication of gradual change has its origins in the presuppositions of the person doing the interpreting. Here are some facts that are fundamentally non-helpful to evolutionary interpretation of the fossil column:
  • Polystrate fossils exist (fossils that stick up through multiple rock layers).
  • Living fossils exist (animals that are found far down in the column so are supposed to be many millions of years old, but are not found higher up in the fossil record so are supposed to have die off millions of years ago, but yet are found alive in the world, unchanged today).
  • The fossil column is found all over the world, is fairly (though not entirely) consistent everywhere, yet contains no examples of transitional organisms nor proto-organisms.
  • Soft red tissue has been found in T-Rex bone(s).
We can argue about this observation and that observation, but the fact remains fossils have no birth certificate connected to them. The Biblical interpretation of the billions of fossils around the world (both on the surface and buried in the rock layers) is the flood that happened during Noah's life (Genesis 7:21-23). Remember God made everything good in less than a week (Genesis 1:31) and suffering entered the world only after Adam ignored God's direct command (Genesis 2:15-17, Genesis 3:6).

While creationists (as a category) have strong answers for all the issues, everyone can't have every answer all the time. If a question is asked and we (as individuals) don't have the background to answer it, it's ok to say we are unfamiliar with that specific issue and need the chance to research the facts before giving an intelligent response. If criticism follows that answer, then criticism was the point to begin with. It's important to remember that we don't have a burden of pulverizing all alternative interpretations (remember the last part of 1 Peter 3:15). Our burden is to understand the Word of our Creator and how the facts corroborate it. Our worldview isn't (shouldn't be) affected by how polished or how many holes there are in the alternatives. We're not right because we're creationists, that would be dogma and circular reasoning. Supernatural creation is right and evolution is wrong because both science and history (hence reality) overwhelmingly corroborate this.
» ICR: Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
» AiG: Unlocking the Geologic Record
» AiG: Order in the Fossil Record
» AiG: Where Are All the Bunny Fossils?
» AiG: Living Fossils
» AiG: Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?
» Dinosaur Shocker
» ICR: The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
» AiG: The Scrambling Continues
» AiG: Solid Answers on Soft Tissue
What about dinosaur bones/​fossils?
These were obviously deposited as the result of a catastrophe, otherwise the bodies would have decomposed or been devoured or otherwise dispersed. If the flood were real, we would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. Dino's are just some of those billions of things that we do find. Many evolutionists believe a giant meteor hit the Earth millions of years ago resulting in a radical climate change across the planet. However the evidence fits subtly better if you consider the possibility of the global flood in Genesis being our catastrophe (Genesis 6:5-9:16, Psalm 104:5-7,9). By the way, the only thing we can surely conclude from the fact that human and dinosaur bones have never been discovered together is that they were not buried together.
How would Dinosaurs fit on the ark? They were huge!
Easy, God did not send fully grown dinosaurs to Noah. There would be no reason to bring fully grown dino's, kids or teenagers would work better for repopulating the planet anyway. (Genesis 7:2-3, 7:8-9 & 8:17)
Where did the surviving dinos go?
Another easy one. How did many creatures go extinct? We killed them off. A few must have survived the flood because something like them is referenced twice in Job (Behemoth, Leviathan) and the word "dragon" can be found in historical non-fiction. The term "dinosaur" was only coined in the mid 1800's. If you read the King James Version of the Bible you may notice that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a psalmist were contemporaries of dragons:
  • Isaiah 27:1 KJV  hub
  • Isaiah 51:9 KJV  hub
  • Jeremiah 51:34 KJV  hub
  • Psalms 74:13 KJV  hub
  • Psalm 91:13 KJV  hub
And Isaiah used the term "fiery flying serpent":
  • Isaiah 14:29 KJV  hub
  • Isaiah 30:6 KJV  hub
Why am I referencing KJV (published in 1611 AD) instead of something a little more modern? Perhaps the more modern translators thought using such language would be too hard to accept for their modern readers. (Compare to how NIV translates a word into "living creatures" in Revelation but into "animals" most everywhere else in the New Testament. See Heaven by Randy Alchorn, page 379.) And curiously in Revelation 13:11 hub, John nonchalantly mentions a dragon's voice.
» Amazon: Randy Alcorn's Heaven
Are there not man-made constructs older than the flood?
According to Wikipedia, the oldest pyramid is dated about 2670 BC. According to Archbishop James Ussher in his book, The Annals of the World, the flood ended in 2348 BC. Assuming both of those dates are accurate, that's a difference of 321 years. The keyword is "assuming." Ussher based his calculations on the genealogies recorded in the Bible, the earliest of which were very intentional to say the exact age fathers were when their sons were born (Genesis 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, etc.) Like radiometric dating and much of origins science, there's a lot of assuming required to draw any conclusions. To think that one or both of these numbers is slightly inaccurate is not a terrible stretch, though I'm not educated enough to say if either or both are right or wrong. Ussher also concluded that the incident at the tower of Babel happened about a century after the flood, roughly 2240 BC. If we assume the oldest pyramid was built a hundred years after that (2140 BC) then the archeologists who dated the oldest pyramid would only be off by 25% or less. Not bad considering how hard it is to precisely date things that happened long ago, and convenient if you want to try to discredit the Bible.

The Chinese say their culture is over 5,000 years old. That would mean it dates back to at least 3000 BC. The evidence for their culture being so old is based on pottery and similar archeological finds, which are again conclusions drawn using assumptions. Assumptions that are no more scientific nor accurate than the fossil column. It's not a stretch to say those assumptions are off by up to 28%. The oldest Chinese writing is found on Oracle Bones which are dated around 1250-1350 BC. This is about a thousand years after the flood, and there is fascinating evidence of the history of Genesis found embedded in the design of the language. My favorite example is how strongly the word boat reminds us of Noah's ark (Genesis 7:13).

Boat

Ark

Eight

Mouth
If you're going to be picky and say the "eight" isn't perfect, the point is not how modern Google renders the characters but how the Chinese did over three millennia ago. My second favorite character alludes that the people who invented the Chinese language also believed in the hope of the savior promised by God.

Come

Man

Wood

Ten
(The number ten is symbolic in Asian culture as completion/​fulfillment/​finality.) The foreshadowing of this character to the events recorded in Matthew 11:28/​John 14:6, John 19:18, and John 19:30 is amazing. A prophet from China (a non-Jew) is perfectly within a Biblical worldview. Remember the prophet Balaam in Numbers 22:4-5 (full story is Numbers 22-24), God's lament to Amos (Amos 9:7), and how easily He went to the gentiles (John 10:16). But prophesy is outside a evolutionary worldview. These two characters are just my favorites, and there are many more. (See the AIG & CMI links below.)
» Wikipedia: Egyptian Pyramids
» Wikipedia: Ussher chronology
» Amazon: The Annals of the World (But search the Internet for a free copy before you buy your own, the copyright of the original text expired long ago since it was originally published in the 1600s.)
» Wikipedia: Chinese language
» Wikipedia: Chinese culture
» Google Translate
» AiG: Chinese Characters and Genesis
» CMI: Linguistics Q&A: Are ancient Chinese characters related to Genesis?
» CMI misrepresents ancient Chinese language?
» CMI still misrepresents ancient Chinese language?






Last Modified: Wednesday, December 31, 1969