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

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.

In reaching this truth, we have considered both interpretations of Scripture and interpretations of nature by modern scientists. We have had to stress modern science in our articles since some of creation science’s tenets rely on quotes taken from outdated science journals. Of paramount importance is the readers’ understanding of what the Bible says, and we have already referred to Richard M. Davidson approvingly, but we have not relied on Davidson’s interpretations, since we have also referred to critical Hebrew scholarship (e.g. C. J. Collins). We also noted that in 1860 Uriah Smith had quoted the same view when editing the Review & Herald, an official church publication. So such thoughts are not new, indeed, they could be said to be traditional, if tradition counts for anything.

Our first reply to respondents provoked many more replies from readers with more questions, comments, and suggestions. Hence this second response which, we hope, might satisfy some at least of those readers.

However, we thank those who did respond; they encouraged us to think of more suitable responses than we had previously offered. This contribution is meant largely to clarify and at times to expand on what had been said, or to add something that had not been said previously. Now to our second response:

Gobsmacked! Readers consulting Webster’s may not find this word, but if the Aussie Macquarie Dictionary is consulted, you will find it defined as: “astonished, flabbergasted,” and for us, tinged with some disappointment too. This describes accurately our first impressions of some readers’ replies. Astonished because of responses such as: old earth proposals open the door for evolution. Disappointed because only a few (6%, to be precise) of the last responses referred to the matters we raised in our opening paragraph of the second response. Instead respondents have tended to focus on peripheral issues. When an issue affects perhaps 50% of church members’ belief and can turn young science-literate people away from the church, one would think it merits discussion. This is not merely a matter of doctrinal nit-picking. The Adventist Church’s articulation of Creation becomes a key component of the denomination’s witness to the truth, and of the Church’s relevance or lack thereof.

To promote a false idea regarding the Creation Week discredits the Advent Church and it’s vital Three Angels Message.

If one says: “according to the Bible we are to worship on the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation Week,” and then in the next breath say, “that’s when the Bible states that the planet Earth and the Universe were formed 6,000 years ago,” who in the modern world would believe that theology? Just tell the Truth—Creation Week occurred on a planet created eons ago. Modern science supports this understanding of Creation.

Some perhaps will trivialize this YEC v. old earth discussion. However, to say the planet Earth is 6,000 years old is ridiculous, and today in this world of knowledge, that statement not only could discredit the Church’s teaching—it does, especially when the statement comes from Church leaders. The Creation-based message Adventists have presented to the world for 150 years is undermined by ignoring mountains (literal and metaphorical) of data.

Comments Addressed to Specific Readers that also Impact Other Readers:

Robert Sonter Robert raises an important question: the meaning of heavens, earth and sea in Exodus 20:11. This verse in the Ten Commandments has been used by YEC to mean the universe and planet earth were created in Creation Week. Others including the authors contend that it refers to the three habitats of life associated with the earth (the atmosphere, the biosphere of earth or land, and the sea). This is the “official” position of the Adventist Church (see comment related to revised FB #6 in Adventist World Sept 2015, by C. Wahlen).

Creation Week is limited to creation on and around our planet.

In support of this view Wahlen quotes Rev. 10.6, but v. 5 is also relevant, especially v. 5, in ESV.

“The angel’s stance – one foot on sea, one on land, and right hand raised to heaven – unites three spheres of created order (see Rev. 5:13) as their divine creator is involved to witness the angel’s oath.”

The three orders of Creation originated in Genesis 1:8-10, viz. heaven, earth and sea, referring to creation on the planet. Reference to these habitats occurs throughout Scripture including Exodus 20:11.

The Church quotes Rev. 10:6, quite appropriately, but a much more meaningful reference could be Ezekiel 38:20

“So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at My presence (KJV, note the emphasis added).

He we find heaven, sea and earth again, but the heaven has birds.

In 24 out of 47 other English translations of Ezekiel 38:20, the word given as heaven in KJV is translated as sky or air.

If this biblical assessment is unconvincing to any reader, may we suggest consulting God’s Book of Nature as amplified by modern science. As discussed before, this reveals an ancient Earth created eons before Creation Week and Exodus 20:11 is clearly referring to the three habitats of life on Earth.

Allen Shepherd/Tim Page/Sirje These Readers imply our old earth/recent creation view “makes room for evolution.” However, we do not see evidence that macro-evolution ever occurred. Hence, this is not a problem in our reckoning.

There is evidence that cyanobacteria and some plants were present on earth prior to Creation Week. Cyanobacteria are among the earliest microfossils. It would follow that they were created and put there for a purpose, to oxygenate the atmosphere in preparation for subsequent acts of creation. Even the bacteria are biochemically very complex with a unique enzyme system for converting water into oxygen. The active centre has four spaced manganese atoms but its exact mechanism of action remains partially obscure to modern science. This system is coupled to related biochemistry comprising photosynthesis system II with over 20 proteins. On top of all this, the cyanobacteria also convert nitrogen in the atmosphere into forms (e.g. nitrate) that plants can use. All by evolution with natural selection? Our view: Impossible!

David Read Another reader, David Read, said, “… creationists believe it [presumably the post-Flood Ice Age] happened shortly after the Flood, …”. Well, perhaps not all creationists! We (the present authors) believe in Creation but have tried to illustrate from modern science (refer to Fig. 2 in original article) that the graph illustrates that there was no evidence of a post-Flood Ice Age. If one occurred then it would have been shown where the asterisks (*) are shown in that graph. That evidence (i.e. the graph) is convincing to scientists. What more convincing evidence is required?

Here we see again how YEC writers are addicted to misquotation. David had stated:

“The evidence that the authors of this piece urge against Oard’s theory is that it does not comport with conventional chronology. Really? Of course conventional chronology does not fit with creation chronology.”

We replied: “We do not agree” [meaning we do not urge this against Oard]. What we urged against Oard was then stated. “The evidence against Oard’s theory is two fold—first, it does not conform to God’s chronology: second, it [the Post-Flood Ice Age] never occurred. God’s chronology runs from everlasting to everlasting. YEC and Oard’s chronology began in 4,000 BC.” It includes a post-flood ice age that never occurred.

God’s chronology includes: creation of the universe and planet Earth eons ago, a long ice age terminating about 11,000 years ago, Creation Week about 6 to 10,000 years ago, the Flood 4,300 years ago but no Post-Flood Ice Age which would serve no purpose. We can’t imagine what purpose creationists might imagine it serving.

At least we agree that Creation Week occurred recently. Perhaps we can work together to determine its exact date from God’s book of Nature and modern science.


C-14 dating.The calibration graphs to correct C-14 ages are designed to correct for change in C-14 level in the atmosphere. The calibrations extend back to nearly 50,000 years but reliable measurements are limited, by the half-life of C-14, to about 35,000 years.

Uranium dating. Dates for zircon crystals are used for the crystals only. They may not reflect the age of the rock around them and scientists do not make this extrapolation. Dates of rocks determined by other methods can be inaccurate. Rock may be a mixture of different components.

We agree Creation Week occurred about 6 to 10,000 years ago when man was created in God’s image. The problem is YEC believe the planet, solar system and usually the universe were also created at this time and say it is Scriptural. It is not Scriptural, nor is it in accord with the Book of Nature (God’s Second Book) as revealed by modern science. Since the post-Flood Ice Age never occurred, the YEC theology (i.e. everything created 6,000 years ago) cannot accommodate the great Ice Age of the past (see original article). YEC theology is erroneous regarding the age of the Earth.

Robin Vandermolen (ezbord) It distresses us to read of your concerns, and we share your feelings. We hope the following brief comments are helpful.

  1. Not everyone sees a conflict between Genesis 1 and 2. C. J. Collins an authority on Ancient Hebrew states in his book (Genesis 1-4, 2006, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ) that Genesis 2:4 acts as a hinge indicating chapters 1 and 2 should be read in a complementary way. Chapter 2 elaborates on chapter 1 especially regarding chapter 1:27 (creation of woman). This style of writing with subsequent elaboration is probably common in ancient Hebrew. God did not “muddy the waters”; ancient Hebrew writers did, because of the structure of their written language.
  2. The Book of Nature generally gives consistent chronology; i.e. ice cores, lake and marine sediments, modern carbon dating, dating of rocks by modern methods, all tell the same story—a very old earth. Dating of fossils is difficult and results are less certain.
  3. Creation Week occurred recently on an “old” earth is the concept to remember—6,000-10,000 years since Creation Week.
  4. “6,000 years of misery” is a long period indeed. But God has also given much blessing to His children. The question remains:

If the earth was given to man as his domain – Do we blame God if: We choose to denude our earth? We choose to pollute our delicate atmosphere? We choose to pollute our earth? We choose to pollute our seas? We choose to overpopulate our earth? We choose to abuse and murder the innocent? We choose to mindlessly eliminate those whose philosophy disagrees with ours?

In this response we acknowledge the assistance of a neighbor, Tom Thompson, retired but still active in ministry.

Pagophilus Pagophilus begins in typical YEC fashion with an erroneous statement: “… authors rely on Ian Plimer and his book, Telling Lies for God”. We did not quote it at all in our argument! Our story holds even if that reference was omitted. We simply referred to it in passing, as a suggestion to Birder who had asked a question about “bogus science.” We thought it an excellent example illustrating bogus science. And don’t misunderstand us. It was Plimer who was using it to illustrate bogus science, as misquoted etc by YEC creationists, including those ‘in’ as well as those ‘out’ side the Adventist Church. YEC creationists are not restricted to Adventism, although Adventism now appears to have taken it on fully. Note Jared Wright saying that, “…the NPUC is setting up their own creation study center, headed up by a Pastor Stan Hudson.” Note also Elaine Nelson’s astute comment thereon! And Jeffrey Kent’s solution to rubbish collection!!

Telling Lies for God. Now down to facts as ‘medicon’ wants and is entitled to, and the Plimer book that ‘pagophilus’ assures us “… has been thoroughly discredited.”

The detailed criticism (Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book, (1999?, 60 pages prepared by CSF now CMI) is obviously a smoke screen concerning minor matters (distorted to appear as major issues) to obscure the significant features of Telling Lies for God (published 1994).

There is significant content in this book at the science level and he notes the way creationists have distorted truth in quotation from the literature. Clyde Webster from the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda University, California, USA, noted this and during a visit to Australia made the following comments published in the Adventist Record (March 11, 1995).

“He [Plimer] claims they [CSF] use poor scientific methods and accuses them of lying in an effort to prove their point… I [Webster] find that Ian Plimer’s arguments are well founded. However, he is over-reacting. Dr. Plimer’s addressing good issues, issues that are unfortunately true—for the most part… There are those who come in and misrepresent, misconstrue and, in some cases—I don’t know how else to put it than to say it—give bald-faced lies to support the position they feel that creation-believing Christians want. I get upset with it too…” (p. 6).

Plimer discusses the ancient age of the earth and the erroneous belief of YEC. He details the distortion of science data in relation to the proposed fall in the speed of light and the deception by YEC in the whole debacle. All this is verified by other writers: (e.g. Professor Colin Keay, “Creationism: An Improper Defense of an Untenable Creationist Theory” in The Skeptic, v. 11, No. 2, pp. 8-11).

In this article, Keay reveals how the Creationist theory (Setterfield hypothesis) concerning the speed of light has been demolished by numerous scientists including Creation scientists. Yet over 2 years later it was still used by the CSF, and by one scientist in particular, to support YEC belief.

“This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Dr. Snelling has knowingly and purposely sought to misrepresent and distort fundamental aspects of physics and cosmology in order to bolster an untenable Creationist mythology. It is highly immoral for a University educated scientist to behave in this fashion, as such actions are completely contrary to the ethical standards demanded by the scientific process…

It is frightening to think that any system of religious belief can exert such a malevolent influence over an intelligent person” (p. 11).

He (Plimer) details how, even in 1994, radiometric dating of rocks was possible (p. 24) and how YEC have misquoted (see p. 213) in this regard, by deleting critical lines.

“The vital last few lines of [a] paragraph were selectively removed mid-sentence, the meaning was exactly the opposite of that on the original work, scientific support for radioactive dating was expunged and criticism of creationists was censored” (p. 214).

He (Plimer) details how the YEC famous Quote Book has misquoted to suit YEC belief (pp. 209-213). This is amplified in an article by Ken Smith, … (Ken Smith, “Creationism: Deception Exposed”, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, at pp. 10-14), who read the original sources for about 80 “quotations. “ This revealed that most of them misrepresented the original to a lesser or greater degree.

Plimer also draws attention to some important problems for creationists – e.g. the distribution of endemic flora and fauna after the flood. However, in relation to the Flood, his comments that appear right to him, we would, based on belief in Scripture, regard as error. Plimer’s problem is converting an attack based on facts into a personal one and such are likely to contain error. However, when the distortion of facts is so gross, it is perhaps difficult not to become personal.

Since Telling Lies for God is not “YEC-certified,” and Birder may need more comment regarding bogus science, we have included for his and Pagophilus’ benefit a short additional section in this regard.

Christians and distinguished scientists comment on YEC literary ethics. Although, not mentioning Plimer’s book, several Christian commentators agree that YEC have been poor representatives of Christ by misquoting science to support their belief. Thus, e.g. Young and Stearley (referenced in original article) are Christian geologists and say in their Final Thoughts:

“Sadly, too many Christians have distorted the content of the natural sciences in order to gain an accommodation with what they perceive to be the natural interpretation of Scripture. This is, in fact, what has happened with the modern young-Earth creationist movement. Having locked themselves into a fixed interpretation of the creation and flood accounts they find themselves in profound and widening disagreement with the results of modern geology and other sciences. Unwilling to allow conflict to exist, they have sought harmonisation with science, not by reevaluating their biblical exegesis but by wholesale distortion of science and the data of nature. They have tried to force nature to say things it does not say.”

“In this book we have documented that young-Earth creationists have ignored data when convenient. They have misinterpreted other data. They have often misrepresented the views of mainstream geology. They have typically failed to attend to larger geological contexts in focusing on isolated details that seem to support their theories. They have attempted to develop an alternative science that lacks a solid empirical foundation and that cannot duplicate the successes of mainstream geology. They have all too often supported their alternative science with quotations from mainstream geologic literature taken out of context. Their alternative science does agree with their biblical interpretations, but their approach provides no legitimate solutions for biblical studies, theology or geology, because it leads to an illusory harmony between theology and science” (p. 494).

Seven distinguished scientists have been angered by the frequent misquotation of their work by YEC adherents. Note below two examples from, National Centre for Science Education, (1981) publication. The editor, Dr. John R. Cole of the University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, says (in part) in a brief introduction:

“Creationists have developed a skill unique to their trade: that of misquotation and quotation our of context from the works of leading evolutionists. This tactic not only frustrates scientists but it misleads school board members, legislators, and the public. Whether such actions by creationists of selectively seeking out quotations or references in order to prove a preconceived case are willful distortion or the product of wishful thinking is irrelevant. Such acts misuse science and scientists in bogus appeals to authority. Creationists seem to be saying, ‘Don’t just take our word for it, look at what Professor X has written to prove our case’” (p. 34).

“Dr. Richard Lewontin, of Harvard University. Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called ‘scientific’ creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution… These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists” (p. 35).

“Dr Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of geology, Harvard University, … and probably the single most misquoted and misused scientist … “It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms…” (p. 38).

Criticism of marine sediment core dating (ICR release). Pagophilus quotes the very recent ICR web paper by J. Hebert but it also presents distortion of a science article to support YEC. The original science paper concerns a marine core drilled east of New Zealand. Hebert disputes the age found for the core layers that extended back 340,000 years. However, the age of the upper region was confirmed by dated volcanic ash and the overall age was in agreement with four other adjacent cores, all studied by independent groups using modified methods. Here we have relevant information overlooked by Hebert.

There is no reason to doubt the age assigned to the upper layers of the core. Thus at about 500 cm the age was nearly 30,000 years BP, confirmed by dated tephra. However, there were 3,600 cm of core below this level and it extends obviously back many tens of thousand years. How can Hebert say that this does not negate the YEC age of the earth, 6,000 years BP?

Conclusion As this response to pagophilus comes to a conclusion, it also brings this response to a conclusion. And the unavoidable conclusion is that CMI and other YEC literature is seen to maintain a low to very low standard of literary ethics. However, YEC proponents often write good articles regarding creation vs evolution, but anything they say regarding chronology must be taken with skepticism.


D. Stuart. Letham was awarded a PhD (Birmingham, UK) in organic chemistry in 1955. His subsequent research work included the purification, determination of structure and synthesis of the first naturally occurring cytokinin, compounds that induce cell division in plants. They occur in plants at the level of 1 part per billion (see Letham, Annual Review of Plant Physiology 1967, 1983). He is the author of over 190 refereed papers in biochemistry and plant physiology journals. He retired from the Australian National University 1992 as Professor Emeritus.

Col J. Gibson worked in accounting in industry for a decade before taking an academic position as a senior lecturer in accounting at universities in Australia, New Zealand, and the University of South Pacific (Suva, Fiji). As a natural naturalist from an early age he has been active, as a hobby interest, in helping many professional scientists in fieldwork, and now in retirement still acts as a citizen scientist, which includes field observations and bird photography.

Both authors have discussed the Science/Creation subject for the past few years and thought it was time to put some of their thoughts on this interface into the public arena for others to consider and comment.

See also: "Perspective: Clarifying 'Understanding Ice Core Science,'" "Ice Core Editorial Authors Reply to Respondents," "Perspective: Ice Ages Research Demolishes Young Earth Creationism," and "Ice Age Research Demolishes Young Earth Creationism: Reader Feedback & Authors' Response."

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

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?


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

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.


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.)


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.


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

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?


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.


“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.


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.


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.


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.


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”.


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?


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.


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

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:

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.


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


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