Ice Age Research Demolishes Young Earth Creationism: Authors' Second Response

Spectrum Website
1

In the original article in this series (Feb. 10, 2016), we evaluated the Young-earth Creationism (YEC) proposal that a short post-flood ice age (PFIA) accounted for the great ice sheets of the past. YEC theology (i.e. the Earth and Universe and everything created 6,000 years ago at Creation Week) is dependent on such an ice age at about 2,000 years BCE. God’s Book of Nature and modern science showed that this proposed PFIA did not occur, and as a result YEC theology is not credible, even though it is still quoted frequently in Adventist literature. The status of YEC teaching in the Church was also discussed in the original article. This YEC teaching appears to be promoted, but its retention leaves the Church open to criticism and possible ridicule, while the impact of the Adventist Creation message is diminished. All this could be avoided easily if the Church accepted the obvious truth—Creation Week occurred on an “old” Earth.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/03/23/ice-age-research-demolishes-young-earth-creationism-authors-second-response
2

For years now we’ve been fully aware that each party to this debate is determined to remain confident in its own conclusions. How many more years will we continue to volly data and assumptions back and forth and toward what end? Are we doing the same thing over and over again, here, and expecting different results?

4 Likes
3

lol…insanity is an enjoyable spectator sport, no question…

one thing i always keep in the back of my mind whenever i see evolution discussed and touted is that a 24-hr sabbath loses much or even all of its imperative if the world wasn’t created in six consecutive 24-hr periods…given that we know that this question will underpin the final conflict on earth, i don’t find it surprising, at all, that the biblico-egw version of creation is under such constant assault…

the average person sees scientists with the same degrees from the same institutions regularly undercutting their colleagues on opposite sides in this debate…it really has come down to pure, naked choice…everyone seems to be able to find good reasons for why they believe what they believe…the point is, we don’t have video footage of earth’s past…and that’s the bottom line…

1 Like
4

The authors have presented their side of the story, complete with “facts and figure,” but others with equivalent or higher degrees have studied the same data and come to different conclusions. As a Christian I must reject anything that contradicts the plain reading of Scripture, and, no matter when the planet was created, be it 4 billion years, or 6000 years, nothing is plainer than that about 1650 years after man was created, God destroyed the earth with, not a local flood, but a worldwide flood. The evidence is widespread. Since we have no way to study the extreme conditions which existed both during and after the Flood (and which could easily account for an ice age), any conclusions which contradict the Biblical record are nothing more than uninformed conjecture.

As efcee pointed out, this debate is going nowhere, and there will be no consensus here at Spectrum. I seriously doubt that anyone (at least among those who post comments here) has changed their position because of anything that has been said. And that is unlikely to change in the future.

3 Likes
5

This is somewhat off topic. But I would like to know what the author’s think of the research being done on soft tissues found in dinosaur bones and other types of fossils.

For example “Mass spectrometry and Antibody-based Characterization of Blood Vessels in Brachylophosaurus canadensis”, T Cleland, et al, 2015, Journal of Proteome Research.

(Apparently some of the dinosaur soft tissues have been dated with Carbon 14, with resulting ages in the 30,000 to 40,000 year range.)

Soft tissues have even been found in fossils from the Cambrian period. “Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites”, Moczydlowska, et al, 2014, Journal of Paleontology.

Thank you

(Perhaps Spectrum could have a discussion of this topic sometime in the future.)

2 Likes
6

A religious institution that bases its most distinctive doctrine, Sabbath, on a very concise time period that must be accepted, treads on very thin ice. The doctrine, once determined, was made long before science had made many of its remarkable discoveries, unknown at the time.

New discoveries every day in the earth and biological sciences continue to disprove the ancient concepts that for most of this world’s history were accepted as “God’s truth” based on faith that the Bible was either actually written or dictated by God in the form we have it today.

The Bible can no more be accepted as the absolute last word on science than the ancient Greeks who divided the world into four elements. Reading their “certainties” about the earth and the human body are laughable if we were accept them as truth today, rather than giving us a glimpse of how the wisest humans thought and believed in those times.

The Bible is neither inerrant or infallible in its words. All that is in there was written by very fallible humans, reflecting their intellectual development and knowledge at that time. They could not see into the future, but like us, could only view the past.

Those who cling to the Bible as infallible in all its writings will continue to lose credibility with their educated acquaintances and friends in discussing Adventism that relies on its doctrines for the absolute veracity of the Bible as the foundation for its doctrines relevant to the date and time of the creation of this earth.

4 Likes
7

the Scriptures are firm on the Who of creation and about the how… The Writers are far from dogmatic as to when. The God of the universe is from everlasting to everlasting,. he did not exist on a void for eons.,creation of life forms on plant earth can be considered recent, but but not within the time frame Of Ussher , White, and Wilson. scripture deals with-- where did I come from, why am I here? What possible future awaits me? here theology not science has the better grasp. tz

1 Like
8

I approach this post with some trepidation because I know I’m out of my element with this topic when it comes to presenting scientific data. My focus has been literary, coupled with a modicum of common sense when it comes to anything from the Bible, including creation in Genesis; however, years ago I came across Gerald Schroeder, a biblical scholar, as well as “a distinguished physicist” (aka, the back cover of his book), with a doctorate from MIT. In his book, The Science of God, Schroerder lays out a way to combine the six-day creation with the science that he respects. It’s not YEC we’re all familiar with in these debates. On the contrary, he basis his views on quantum physics, combined with the Hebrew reading of Genesis.

In a nutshell, Schroeder points out that there is no scientific evidence of a gradual macro evolution. Life seems to have exploded during the Cambrian era - day #5 in Genesis. He tells us that science does not see a gradual drift into life forms; but he does acknowledge the millions of years of each of the days of creation. So on the one hand, Schroeder would agree that there is evidence that the conditions for life were inherent in/on the earth from the beginning, but activated at some critical point in time.

Time is the crux of the matter, in fact. Based on quantum physics, time is relative (we’ve all heard of Einstein, right?). If one were to be able to look at the universe as a “third person”, neither on earth or in space, we would notice that time does not flow evenly the further out from earth one wanders. If a 30 year old were to travel in outer space for a couple of days and return to earth, he would have aged a couple of days; however, his cousin, also thirty at the time of departure, would have aged million million-fold. the cosmic clock recording 1 minute = million million minutes on earth. Using this formula, and using the 15 billion YEARS for the age of the universe, (on earth), the cosmic time, would be 6 DAYS.

This is intriguing for me, since I’m never content with an either/or option, presented to me by mortal men, theologians or science guys though they be.

What particularly bothers me about the answer I was given above - “There is evidence that cyanobacteria and some plants were present on earth prior to Creation Week.” says that there were two creations of life. One was present BEFORE the “days” of creation, followed by the ACTUAL CREATION as counted by the “days of creation”. If you want an old earth, followed by literal six-day creation, you’re out of step on both counts - the science and the literal reading. HOWEVER, if Schroeder is correct, then the earth was created with the ability of SELF-ORGANIZATION - which could include your “cyanobacteria and some plants”.

I do have just one more question - where do the dinosaurs fit in?

6 Likes
9

As I’ve pointed out before, this is a totally biased view based on Ex. when Duet. says Sabbath is a sacred reminder of deliverance from bondage. Why do you always focus on one and never the other? A theology of Sabbath based on both looking back at Christ’s atonement for our sins that hold us in bondage and the eventual total deliverance from that bondage in a new earth free of sin is a FAR more compelling reason for Sabbath observance than the literal 6-day creation week. In Duet, the recently freed Israelites are told the Sabbath was a memorial to remind them of God’s deliverance of them from Egyptian bondage, so one might argue the reason Adventists don’t ever embrace that is we weren’t delivered from Egypt. But look at how happily we reapply prophecy to new circumstances. Reapplying the Sabbath as deliverance from bondage of sin is as easy as falling off a log. But for some reason (EGW??) SdA’s are completely oblivious to this angle…

That is a very odd statement. If you accept that the Cambrian was millions of years ago, you accept macroevolution. You wouldn’t recognize much if any of the creatures from the Cambrian, despite them representing most extant phyla. They had to evolve mightily to get from the species of the Cambrian to the species seen today. But more to the point, we know very well that life existed before the Cambrian, and the “explosion” was a mighty slow one, over 10’s of millions of years. Visit the Flinders Ranges in Australia.

Reply to Sirje

“But, you’re right. We can’t get away from evolution of a kind, but
Schroeder talks about punctuated evolution, rather than a slow stream
from the primordial soup.”

All I’m trying to point out is that IF you accept the “Cambrian Explosion” as a biological fact (whether it arose from evolution or special creation is not relevant), then you also accept macroevolution, because the body plans that show up in the Cambrian are those of the phyla, so for example Chordata. If you want to call Chordata a “kind” and claim that all variation within that “kind” is not marcoevolution, then you have to explain why you don’t see macroevolution at work between worms, fish, mammals, humans, etc, because we are all descended from the primitive Chordata seen in the Cambrian. Many YECers love to enthuse over the Cambrian and the “sudden” appearance of “most body plans” as though that means horses, whales, crocodiles, humans, etc are all represented in the Cambrian, or at least something that would be vaguely recognizable as one of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The “body plan” of horses whales, crocodiles, humans, etc is observed as some very odd looking marine organisms, not remotely resembling most Chordates of today. Google Cambrian Chordates and look at images.

2 Likes
11

“Others with … higher degrees” Higher than Professor? Pray tell, what level would that be?
"I must reject anything that contradicts the plain reading of scripture."
By scripture you are of course referring to the original Hebrew text and not those various more recent inferior English text translations that the Hebrew illiterate masses are forced to read.
So yes let’s for the sake of others less informed, do a “plain reading” of one element of truth in the original text.
As you would know the Hebrew understanding of the universe at the time and clearly the understanding expressed in the text is of a flat Earth with a literal dome over it called the ‘firmament’ and upon which the sun moon and stars moved freely across.
So there it is, proof in the scripture that this foolhardy idea of scientists that the Earth is spherical and rotates around the Sun is but false teaching. So yes, let’s you and me reject that false teaching by scientists.

7 Likes
13

I must apologize if someone else has already made this point. I acknowledge quite frankly the problems that our traditional presentation of our views create. At my age, I have had to back down on so many beliefs that I have come to the point that I hold what I believe very lightly. A little humility on everyone’s part would go a long way. Besides, God will not judge us because we were wrong on this point. It is very likely we all hold some absurd beliefs. One fact that influenced me strongly away from a young earth creationism is because of the speed of light. If light truly travels at 186,000 miles per second, then according to the young earth/young universe teaching, no light can be older than 6,000 light years. So far that does not seem possible. I do not believe that Scripture was written as science but as a witness to Israel’s God who, in contrast to surrounding nations and their sun and moon gods, was really the Creator of both sun and moon. The sun and moon are not even named as such in Israel’s creation narrative. That alone would have made the narrative an insult to those who worshipped the sun or moon. Does my belief affect my love for the Sabbath? In no way! My love for the Sabbath does not depend on science one iota, nor does it depend on my likely flawed views of science. My love for the Sabbath lies in my loyalty to God and in His covenant loyalty to His people.

7 Likes
14

I must say NO. Whenmever the world was created or how long through the endless times it developed to “our” world, there is Sinai amidst our world : Remember - to kep it holy - rest - no work - enjoy, relax, have leisure time - with the creator. (See also : “Sabbath is a Happy Day” by Ed Christians)

Do those eager "Sabbath / Creation / SIX DAYS)) believers set aside the Sabbath for a “Festival of the Sabbath” they enjoy or just keep it in obedience to some Babylonian king, standing straight for him all day like some Royal Guards once the year for their (British) Queen ?

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

By the way : It is quite odd that SDAs pay a lot of attention to “explain” dinosaurs and to ONE BIG FLOOD, inmcluding the formation of Gran Canyon and Niagara Falls. We here in Europe are much more aware about the traces of th ice periods, , obviously having shaped valleys, shoved ahead moraines - which look quite different to deltas water washed into lakes and Oceans, grindings along rocky slopes only to be explained by very longtime glacier shoving - - glacier mills ( hyperbolic deep caves with a ballshaped rock amidtst - endless times ahead this rock being caught in a little cavity and then turned around and around by glacial streams, getting a perfeck rock ball and excavating the now deep geometricalcavity).

But our kids in Sabnbath School and the few church schools know a lot about melon - eating dinosaurs.

6 Likes
16

Here is a Reply I made to Ron on the Lounge side. Think it is applicable here.
There are some OT historians that say Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by 2 different persons. That Genesis 2 was written by a high-born woman in the era of Rehoboam in Judah [after the split of Israel]. See — The Book of J, by David Rosenberg [translated], and Harold Bloom. And later these two were further edited by men and the stories joined by an “and” during the time of re-writing and collating the OT into 39 “books” in Babylon and after the return home by the Exiles.
However, we do know that other “books” and writings were also seen as important and passed around, even up to the time of the Disciples and Jude. We have a short quote from the book of Enoch in Jude, even though it was not considered part of the Jewish Canon of 39.
So HOW MUCH of the Books of Moses were actually written BY Moses, and HOW MUCH of the Books of Moses were “edited” and re-written?
However Paul does say that even though [he as a Rabbi knew how they were put together], he could still say they are “God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuke, correction, instruction, and training for a life that is right.” [Compass, The Voice edition].
I think if we stay in THESE ARENAS [teaching, rebuke, correction, instruction, and training for a right life] before God, then we can take the Scriptures LITERAL, and they will be useful for us.
But, to use Scripture as a Science text or a History text, I think Goes Way Beyond what Paul has to say in his many discourses regarding the USE OF SCRIPTURE. And we need to be careful in those Arenas.
On the other hand, they do attempt to tell us about God, that this God wants humans to imitate Him [They], and we do that in Both Rest and Work. With God, everything begins with REST. We have 6 days for ourselves, our family, our friends, our occupations. Every 7 days, God wants us to stop. To "rest’, to take a mental, emotional, physical break and ask, “God, WHAT would YOU like to do today?” Maybe He wants to be part of our group activities. Maybe He wants to do something in the woods, or on the water, or in the water. Maybe He wants to play with plants. Maybe just read a little. Have us read out loud to Him. Sit with us and enjoy a special meal at the table, or on a picnic-style setting. Roast Marshmallows on Friday night, in the dark. Give thanks to Him in other ways, by the way we enjoy other humans in an intimate way.
In this way we are breaking the chains of “putting other gods before Him”. We are breaking the chains of “taking His name [child of God] in vain.” We remember that God has released us from “Bondage”, the slavery from the "things of this world — Egypt and Babylon."
We are released from work-a-holic behavior, anxiety, neuroses, the constant drive to accumulate things for our EGO selves.

4 Likes
17

Again, I appreciate the author’s willingness to engage in answering questions. However, I’m challenged by what appears to be self evident (i.e. “truth”) to them.

Their discussion is both to refute the general Young Earth idea, as well as Darwinian evolution. I find what they present to be for me, lacking on both fronts.

As a non-scientist, I’ll certainly bow to their expertise in their field. If they say ice core samples show dozens or hundreds of thousands of year’s, I have nothing to refute that. However, when it strays outside of that field, their references become more opinion and less fact based.

The author’s assertion that it’s truth that God created everything (that God hadn’t created before) in 6 days and did so approximately 6,000 years ago is fine, but they provide no evidence that supports that. And, indeed they dismiss evidence of an older age of biological life as being unreliable - but provide no evidence that supports God forming life at 6,000 years. (I think they suggest that perhaps some rudimentary plants existed pre-Creation, but that just muddies the water all the more).

Instead, most of this article was taken up by dismissing, sometimes rudely other’s articles and saying their’s is “Truth”.

Here’s my truth: I don’t know.

I don’t know if the earth is billions of years old and 6,000 year’s ago, God decided to turn it from barren to vibrant.
I don’t know if plants, dinosaurs, aquatic life and more existed millennia ago.
I don’t know if a God with a sense of humor created everything including the universe in 6 days and then clues of other origins just to laugh as a scrambled around.
I don’t know if the universe is 14 billion years old and God set out a plan to populate our world in a macro-evolutionary way.

And, I don’t care. This is a faith deal. If there is a God and if he accepts my reprentance as I understand it, then I can ask Him all the questions I want. If there is not; well, then it doesn’t really matter anyway.

I just wish that the authors would present their opinions as hypotheses rather than “Truth”.

3 Likes
19

Thank you medicodon, for mentioning the dinosaurs!

I just spent the better part of Good Friday in the Australian Museum in Sydney,
a wonderful Natural History Museum.

I was “gobsmacked” by their dinosaur exhibit! The towering huge skeletons that had been assembled from found bones, were gigantic. While some were vegetarian herbivores, the giant gnashing teeth and clawed feet of others showed them to be cannabilistic carnivores, lethal “killing machines”.

These pestilential predators often had sharp protruding spikes on their tails, allowing one lash of a tail, to eviscerate any nearby animal/human.

The common wisdom is that dinosaurs and humans could never have co-existed on this planet. Mankind would rapidly have become extinct, a prey to hunter/killers that were pernicious predators. Tyrranosaurus Rex was a formidable foe!

Much to the dismay of GC administrators and YEC, more and more dinosaur skeletons are being discovered every year. While YEC believe, dinosaurs being too large to fit in Noah’s ark, these enormous behemoths were drowned in the flood.
But modern science believes that a meteor striking earth produced such a cloud of dust that an ice age ensued, killing off this species.

The burning theological question is: Why would a supposedly loving God make such dastardly “killing machines”??

Having just spent two weeks in New Zealand, an island nation where NO mammalIan animal existed prior to the arrival of man, I learned that the domestic cat, introduced into New Zealand by humans has become the worst predator, almost killing off many unique species of birdlife, found only in New Zealand. The common cat, is neurologically programmed as a hunter and can kill up to eight birds a day!

So much for that old hymn: “His eye is in the sparrow, so I know He watches me!”

The creator of the cat was no lover of birds!

Our YEC in a convoluted and contorted incredibility try and explain that these predators were not created by a loving God, but that in the two millenia between the Fall of Man and the flood, antediluvian men in a miraculous GMO amalgamation of different species, created these loathsome hunter/killer/predators.

I would recommend each SDA theologian/administrator /pastor/layman, to rent buy the amazing 2015 movie JURASSIC WORLD, where in an incredible computer graphic creation “live” moving breathing dinosaurs are re created on the screen. The BBC has also put out a brilliantly filmed documentary on dinosaurs currently showing at many IMAX screens around the country.

The theology of creation is thus further complicated by the existence of multiple thousands of predators/killers, from the humble garden spider to the largest living reptile, the sea water crocodile, native to Australia and also exhibited at the museum I saw today!

Crocodiles have a uniquely newly discovered sensory organ found in their mouths. With snout partially submerged, this sensory organ can detect even the minutest ripple, unseen by human eye, that maybe caused by a little deer
placing its hoof in the water fifty yards upstream! This alerts the crocodile to its potential prey!

It is hard to credit that “evolution” would have produced such a sensitive sophisticated sensory organ-- someone must have created it! But this device is meant to make the animal a more sophisticated “killing machine”.

Why does a loving God create such pernicious loathsome repulsive beasts??
Satan, himself a created being, has no creative powers!

Maybe Spectrum can elucidate this disturbing riddle?

3 Likes
20

I concur. Return from 5 weeks trekking and portage through thick deep ghastly humidity of Borneo Tropical Rainforest with some SdA males…never again…they insulted the primitive tribal Gods of hospitality. They endangered other trekking participants lives from refusing ancient phenomenon from stiff drinks to foods to social nicety because they were so “Adventist” so vegetarians so full of themselves, yes, they almost never made it back to Salem. There still existing till today after ancient Egypt after EGW there are human dinosaurs pagans left still roaming in the deep hot jungles of Kalimantan Utara. I plan to take a handful of Mormons next trip to Borneo.

6 Likes
22

Robin, Next time you visit that Museum in Sydney you might ask for Dr Brian Timms. He is a Christian and works there as a volunteer since retiring from academia. However, he is still very active in field research - not dinosaurs but minute lake animals/insects. When I last saw him last week he said he was planning shortly on a field expedition to Cape York - so he may be there now or very soon. I can imagine you enjoying meeting each other. Col Gibson

1 Like
23

This back and forth has become tedious, because there is repetition but no new arguments; things stand where they stood after the first article. Young earth (or young life) creationists believe in an Ice Age, and these authors believe in Ice Age. We both believe in an Ice age, but differ on the chronology. We differ as to when it happened. We also differ on causation because Oard has a causative theory that actually works, whereas the Milankovitch theory is not adequate to explain the Ice Age–particularly the marked changes in global rainfall patterns, which by now are very well established. See, here: http://www.fulcrum7.com/apologetics/2016/2/17/ice-agethe-floods-aftermath

As is apparent from their comments directed at me, these gentlemen are promoting some sort of gap theory pursuant to which there are fossilized remains of innumerable life forms in a fossil record that they believe was formed prior to the creation week of Genesis One. This doesn’t work, because the fossil record is a record of sin and death, which are products of Adam’s transgression. We ought to let Scripture interpret what is found in nature, rather than use an atheistic interpretation of nature to mangle our understanding of Scripture.

2 Likes
24

Birder, we note your emphasis on concordance with Scripture and consider all we had said (written) was in accord with Scripture. We wonder what you and/or others thought that might not have been in accord with Scripture? We would like to know so as to have the opportunity to explain what we might not have explained adequately in the first place.

We wrote first about Ice Cores Research and then about Ice Age(s) Research, and thought the graph presented by us, and adapted by us, from one giving a more complete picture than we needed to support what we were saying, did in fact, show that there could not have been any ice age since the end of the last generally accepted Ice Age which ended about 11,000 years ago. This conclusion is confirmed by five independent types of evidence, which we had noted. Scientists drew that graph and accept it as convincing evidence. We wonder why you are still saying “… the Flood (and which could easily account for an ice age)”. Apparently that graph is not sufficiently convincing to you. We have to wonder why? And we are talking of the Ice Age and not the Flood.

We note that you (Birder) add: “… nothing is plainer … God destroyed the earth with … [a] flood. The evidence is widespread.” The fact might be noted that we have not at any stage mentioned the Flood. However, we have read Scripture and have accepted the story of Noah’s flood. We might add, in passing, that if we were to address the topic of Noah’s Flood, we would first be seeking primary research results to present in support, such as those of Young and Stearley (also Christians), and whom we have quoted previously, rather than secondary sources, such as Oard has presented.

Our intention was and still is, to elucidate nature from a scientist’s point of view. We never thought to debate it, since science evidence is not a subject for debate. We were more simple in our expectations, and that was simply to present the facts of relevant science for readers to read and contemplate. Whether accepted or not, was up to readers entirely. We had no intention of trying to convince anyone of anything in particular. For example, we simply drew attention to the bankrupt view of Young Earth Creationism, saying we thought it was demolished, not by us, but by the evidence of science. That is our view! Your view is yours. However, we do wonder what Scriptural evidence yo have for YEC, or any other form of Creationism?

We appreciate the chance to discuss these issues with you. We thank you for that privilege and your time.

Stuart and Col

3 Likes
25

eyethink2 states, regarding the aim of the original authors: “Their discussion is both to refute the general Young Earth idea, as well as Darwinian evolution. I find what they present to be for me, lacking on both fronts.”

We, the original authors, never intended to discuss evolution. We didn’t think we needed to, because so much has already been written that refutes that idea as error. For us, it is sufficient to say, that there is no certain evidence that macro-evolution ever occurred. The Bible says: God created – and for us that is truth. We believe the clear statements of Scripture, as we presume you do.

The you say, as a non-scientist, “I’m challenged by what appears to be self evident (i.e. “truth”) to them.” We accept that there is a difficulty in such circumstances, and more so when the scientist has devoted his entire working life as a research scientist working in teams of scientists, and often for very long hours, to resolve some of the complexities that nature brings to the table or bench for study. However, we will do our best to take the time necessary to communicate on the sending side if you are willing to do your best to take the time necessary on the receiving side of this communication. And ask further questions if necessary, so we can explain further what we might not have succeeded explaining adequately the first time round.

At this stage, to us, it appears that:

Eyethink2 expresses doubt concerning several aspects of creation, and seeks evidence:

Firstly, 6 days of creation activity (creation week). Exodus 20:11 states: “For in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth …”. this He wrote with His own finger in stone (Exodus 31:18). The 6-day creation is repeated in Exodus 31:17 and of course in Genesis 1 and 2. The Sabbath was observed by the Israelites after the Exodus from Egypt, implying recognition of the 7-day weekly cycle.

While the 7-day week appears to have been in the Sumerian calendar and Babylonian creation myths (e.g. Enuma Elish) are recorded on tablets, Genesis 1 is the only ancient record detailing the creation account expressed in terms of days. Genesis 1 is vastly different from the ancient myths. Read Enuma Elish and you find human language of that time. Read Genesis 1,2 and you are in a different world of literature, with inspired language and with a week of 7 days – the signature number for God from Genesis to Revelation. We accept the 6 days of creation as “Truth”, and don’t see the need for evidence from science to back that as fact. We experience the 7 day weekly cycle on planet Earth today in our everyday lives.

Secondly, evidence of Creation Week (CW) 6,000 years ago. Based on the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 CW occurred recently, 6 to 10 thousand years ago. This is in accord with God’s Book of Nature amplified by modern science. If CW occurred before 10,000 years ago, it would be during an ice age. We have referred previously (Spectrum, 28 Sept., 2015) to this, and the fact that it would not be compatible with the perfect climate of Eden.

The YEC view is that 6,000 years ago, during CW, everything was formed (the planet earth, the universe, and all life forms). In the original article (Spectrum, 10 Feb., 2016), we emphasised that this view was in error, and then gave our reasons.

We have concluded that Creation Week occurred recently on an “old” Earth, crated as part of the Universe eons earlier. This is in accord with Scripture, and God’s Book of Nature, and is supported by modern science. Surely, such evidence can be termed “Truth”. The creative activity of CW focussed on the three biospheres of Earth: (1) the heavens (i.e. the atmosphere or sky), (2) the land, and (3) the sea. (Exodus 20:11, Ezekiel 38:20).

It appears that eyethink2 considers the above to be of doubtful importance, and appears also to question whether or not there is a God. We (the authors) consider the matters raised above relate to God’s “Truth” for the last days, and God’s last message to the Earth’s inhabitants with a call to worship the Creator. This is THE Adventist Message!

We regret that some authors we had quoted sounded rude to you “eyethink2”. We expect it was due to their disdain for YEC who misquote at times to distort Biblical Truth, or reports of science. We hope that we were not rude in any way, even in quoting what you must have though to be our rude comments.

“This is a faith deal.” for you, as you said, and hence we add:

The words of the Lord are ure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times (Psalm 12:6).

Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Saviour, and my hope is in you all day long. (Psalm 25:5 NIV).

We hope now to have satisfied to some extent at least some of your questions. Have we done any better?

  • Stuart and Col