Ice Age Research Demolishes Young Earth Creationism: Reader Feedback & Authors' Response

On February 10, we published a perspectives piece by Col J. Gibson and D. Stuart Letham titled "Ice Ages Research Demolishes Young Earth Creationism." Many readers responded with questions and comments, to which the authors of the original piece have responded in depth below. -Ed.

The Bible is the only source of beliefs for the Seventh-day Adventist Church—the only standard of faith and practice for Christians. The Church has been known often as the People of the Book, meaning of course, the Bible. This implies that the Bible is taught religiously, studied dutifully and understood thoroughly! However, in spite of such an emphasis on the Bible there are some verses and concepts that have proven over the history of the Church (1863 onwards) that opposing views remain. For example, Genesis 1:1 and the interpretation of “In the beginning …”

God’s Second Book, Nature, having the same author is intended to enlighten Scripture. Ellen White said (first published in 1903):

Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders (emphasis added); but she brings from her research nothing that rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written Word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.” (Education, p. 128).

Thus in relation to Genesis 1:1, God’s book of Nature, appropriately amplified by modern science, provides a clear resolution that divorces the Church from YEC as discussed in our article. It retains the biblical truth of a recent Creation Week of 6 literal days and the Sabbath while all macro-evolution, including theistic evolution, is dismissed. After 160 years of discussion, we may be approaching a resolution at last!

Having already told our story on this, we now hope to provide for our respondents some answers and comments that may also help them to appreciate more of modern science and its explanatory role. Note that we have always used the term ‘modern science’ because science continues to learn, at an ever-increasing rate, concerning its knowledge of Nature. We are talking of science as it has developed as of now (i.e. 2016), and not as it was in 1840 or even 1900 or later even in 1950.

However, before providing comment for specific respondents, it is desirable to consider briefly YEC belief in relation to deep time, very recent cosmology (or astronomy), and the image of God.

From the beginning (Genesis 1:1), eons ago, when God created the Heavens and laid the foundations of the Earth, to Eden restored and the eternal life on a new Earth, all this is time infinite and is beyond our comprehension.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou are God. (Psalm 90:2).

But God has given us visual reminders of His infinite glory and everlasting devotion to His children. These have already been mentioned in our article but in a different context. In the night sky, the further-most object we can see with the naked (unaided) eye is the neighboring galaxy Andromeda with a trillion stars and its light traveling at 300,000 km per second takes 2.5 million years to reach Earth. However, when we employ modern astronomic methods, an infinite world opens to our view with billions of galaxies and light from some may take billions of years to reach Earth. The star light reminds us that God, is the Creator of light and time. The chronology of God is infinity of time, “… from eternity in the past to eternity in the future …” (Education, p. 178).

When we look at a zircon crystal we are reminded of its creation 4 billion years ago. When we view an erratic rock or moraine we see the intervention of God in our world by glaciation in ages past. Thus, the ancient world testifies uniquely to the glory and controlling hand of God over the ages.

God had a purpose in revealing this knowledge to us through science, but the YEC theology (the creation of everything 6,000 years ago), would destroy such significance. The image of God would be diminished

As we have pointed out, YEC doctrine is not supported by critical Hebrew scholarship, nor by God’s book of Nature, supported by modern science, and nor indeed by Scripture itself! In this connection, a relevant question arises for YEC: On which day of Creation Week, according to Scripture, was the planet Earth and the Universe created?

We noted in the article that the travel time for light from many galaxies denotes a Universe and Earth created long before Creation Week of Genesis 1. However, this “star light problem” for YEC is compounded by the evidence that star formation appears to have occurred over a long period of time. Thus the survey of the age of red giant stars over our galaxy1 and the varying age of open star clusters2, indicate star formation probably extended over millions of years. The deeper meaning of the expression “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1) is consistent with exactly that. Hebrew linguists consider the original Hebrew means a period of time that precedes a series of events, and not a point in time (see discussion in reference 34, p. 107). The Bible and science are again in accord.

A situation analogous to the star formation may apply to the development of the planet Earth. In the original article we noted that oxygenation of the Earth’s atmosphere occurred over millions of years. Preparation of the Earth for Creation Week appears to have occurred over a very long period of time. After consideration of the above, the YEC proposal that creation of the Universe and the planet earth occurred in perhaps one day, giving the Earth and entire Universe the same age, seems completely irrational. This is of course further substantiated by the very different established ages for the Earth and Universe (4.6 and 13.7 billion years respectively).

Before Creation Week, we see God’s glory from the abiotic creation of stars and planets apparently over eons of time. This is expressed exquisitely in the 2016 recent release by the Digital Sky Survey already noted and referenced.1 It is this component of God’s glory that YEC would close from view.

The recent creation of life at Creation Week reveals a different type of glory in the beauty of the creation, in the mystery of the creation of human life, and in the Sabbath when we can meet with God in worship.

It is our privilege to celebrate the glory of Creation as part of our message to the world, God’s last message. If the Creation is described just as recorded in Genesis 1, as a two-stage creation involving an ancient Earth, God will truly be glorified.

And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgement has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.” Rev. 14:7 (ESV).

Comments Relevant to Several Respondents

We first wish to address the following two issues raised by several respondents.

Radiometric Dating

  1. Radiometric Dating by 14C. Two respondents showed concern about the use of 14C because its level in the atmosphere is not constant over time. The comment is both irrelevant and misleading. Irrelevant because none of the chronology we mentioned depends on 14C dating and misleading because the point raised was corrected 40 years ago by the construction of precise calibration graphs (see Reimer3). Furthermore, the radiometric determination of 14C by beta particle counting has now been replaced by modern mass spectrometric determination of the number of 14C, 13C and 12C atoms per sample with higher precision, lower backgrounds and sample size reduced by a factor of 1,000.
  2. Uranium to Lead Dating. One respondent questioned this method, used frequently for dating of rock samples, because of uncertainty regarding the assumption that all Pb detected was derived from the U measured. That is: when the “clock” was set was there any Pb present? For U-Pb dating, crystals of the mineral zircon provide an ideal system because when they form Pb does not fit into their crystal structure, only U. Thus, the “clock” is truly set at zero when the crystal forms. The system involves measuring conversion of 235U to 207Pb and 238U to 206Pb plotted as a concordia diagram thus providing a cross check. To do this using tiny zircon crystals about 400 μm (microns) wide (2-3 times the diameter of a human hair) required new concepts in instrumentation. This was devised, based on secondary ion mass spectrometry, and produced at the Australian National University about 1985. There the first age determinations of zircons were made and the equipment was sold to labs around the world for 3 to 4 million dollars each. Geochronology had moved to a new level. The age of zircons were often found to be over 4 billion years (as stated in our article) and confirmation was provided by a recent further refinement of the method (see reference 24 in the main article). These ages approach the age of the solar system. Thus the Earth was created after the Universe was initiated (13.7 billion years ago), not at the same time as proposed by YEC.

Life Before Creation Week At least two respondents raised questions regarding life on earth before the time of Creation Week and the necessity for further creation. This seems a long way from a PFIA and we did not mention the issue, which may have been raised to cast doubt on Creation Week, which we support.

We accept that the evidence for some plant life before 10,000 years ago appears strong and cyanobacteria were probably present also at that time. The earth needed a source of oxygen to provide a continuous supply for life and God designed plants and cyanobacteria with the ingenious enzyme system to convert water into oxygen, a system still imperfectly understood by science. In this way, the atmosphere was enriched in oxygen in preparation for humans on earth, the only planet known to have such an atmosphere.

A respondent now asks: If plants were already present, why would a “second creation” be necessary? The pre-Creation Week (pCW) plants would be those that could survive adverse climate (including ice age conditions) – low light, low temperature, drought and wind. But after 10,000 years ago, following cessation of the ice age, with mild temperatures and, the increase in solar radiation in Creation Week, different plant types would be needed for the altered environment. Plants are very sensitive to environmental change. Indeed, a multitude of species would be required to provide vegetation and food in diverse climates. As a reflection of this, it is noteworthy that today there are 400,000 plant species and often numerous varieties within a species. Furthermore, the purpose of plants before and after Creation Week appears to be very different: pCW, oxygenation of atmosphere: after, food for man and animals (Genesis 1:29,31). Ideally this would involve very different plant species. In summation, based on plants, the Creation Week 6 to 10,000 years ago would indeed be necessary.

There is evidence that animal life (as mentioned by one respondent) and hominids (human-like creatures) existed long ago on the Earth. The Neanderthals and the Mega fauna lived and died out, apparently long before 10,000 years ago: this is beyond dispute. All this is difficult to rationalize: perhaps there was an earlier creation because the creatures concerned certainly did not evolve. However, the above does not negate the Creation Week revealed to us in Genesis 1 and 2. It is relevant to recall that, according to Genesis 1:2 and Psalm 104:6, the Earth was covered in water prior to Creation Week and any animal life that existed then would have been extinguished.

Thus, Creation Week may represent a new beginning when God created the human race in His image to reveal His glory.

Miscellaneous Reader Comments

1. One respondent (Birder) asks:

Question: Why is it that creation science is called “bogus science” in a quotation we used?

Comment: Because it is based often on speculation, and much misuse of science literature including misquotation, quoting out of context, factual distortion. As a classic example we have the attempt to solve the “star light problem” for YEC by them claiming the speed of light has declined by a factor of millions since creation week. (Warning: it is very dangerous to play with the speed of light!). To support their YEC views, the initiators of this bogus discredited science (B. Setterfield and T. Norman) selected 14 values from a compilation of 63 and plotted them giving a nice declining graph for the speed of light. When you plot all the 63 values, there is no decline.

Furthermore, these creation scientists apparently over-looked the fact that in Einstein’s famous equation (E = mc2), which governs release of energy by the sun, the speed of light (c) is squared. If c increased as proposed, the solar radiation would probably convert the planet into a barren rock or worse!

In 1994, the University of Melbourne, Australia, professor of geology, Ian Plimer, wrote a book with the title: Telling Lies for God (Random House Australia Ltd, Sydney.) It discusses and exposes creation scientists and unfortunately for the Church, Adventist creation scientists are severely criticised. If the respondent needs more information regarding bogus creation science, he could start here. Unfortunately, the practice of misquotation by creationists continues today as noted in an earlier article in Spectrum (Letham and Gibson, September 11, 2015).

2. Oard’s Misquote:

As a further example, in relation to formation of ice sheets, Oard4 quoted Richard Alley who had stated that: “We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying (in ice cores) the deposit of a large storm or snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year."5 However, based on quoted evidence, he then concluded on the same age, that such climate-related problems are insignificant and of no consequence in Greenland ice cores and that multiparameter counts should allow dating of the annual layers with errors about 1% to 50 thousand years BP. However, Oard quoted Alley’s statement and then ignored the rest of the page and earlier pages in Alley’s article. Oard was trying to tell us that Alley, a pioneer of ice core research, believed climate disturbance caused great errors in ice core counting. Alley did not hold this view and was simply saying climate factors should be considered and this he did very carefully. The above represents a quotation taken out of context in the extreme. Oard’s conclusion: oscillations at scales smaller than the annual cycle, “these are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core." Thus according to Oard, climate and weather have a great impact on layer number in ice cores. Evidence in the literature shows this view is erroneous.

3. David Read states:

“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."

Comment: We do not agree! The evidence against Oard’s theory is two fold – first, it does not conform to God’s chronology; second, it never occurred.

God’s chronology runs from everlasting to everlasting. YEC and Oard’s chronology began in 4,000 BC. Because of the way it dishonours God, it may end soon.

As far as our story goes, discussion of active gap v. passive gap is irrelevant. We have to wonder why people raise irrelevant side issues? The gap is revealed by Scripture without comment. It is not something to become obsessed with.

Conclusion We quote again from Ellen White:

“He who studies most deeply into the mysteries of nature will realize most fully his own ignorance and weakness. He will realize that there are depths and heights which he cannot reach, secrets which he cannot penetrate, vast fields of truth lying before him unentered.” (Education, p. 133)

Afterword Taking our (the authors) immediate families (wives, brothers and sisters, and all the kids and grandkids, etc. involved) totals 37. Allowing for those deceased (5) of the remaining 32; three only are at Church on Sabbath to celebrate God’s Creation. Why? One of the younger members probably speaking for most, if not all, said: “Get real, and be honest about it."

In the story we have told, we have tried to do just that. Now we look forward to the day when the Seventh-day Adventist Church gets real and also honest about God’s Second Book, Nature, as explained by modern science.


  1. Largest Age Map of the Milky Way Reveals How Our Galaxy Grew Up, January 8, 2016, by Jordan Raddick (
  2. Star Clusters: Australian Telescope National Facility. Hubble Heritage Team (A. Cool et al)
  3. P. J. Reimer and 29 co-workers (2013). Radiocarbon, v. 55, 1869-1887.
  4. M. J. Oard (2013) Answers in Genesis, December 1, 2001. Do Greenland Ice Cores Show over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers?
  5. R. B. Alley and 11 co-workers (1997). J. Geophysical Research, v. 102, 26,367-26,381.


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.

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

ICR - Institute for Creation Research had a very pertinent article on this topic in their Facebook feed today:

It’s also interesting that the authors rely on Ian Plimer and his book Telling Lies for God to support their position, when that book has been thoroughly discredited. It’s actually Ian Plimer telling lies for evolution and uniformitarianism. See:


1 Like

Sounds like the same methodology used by so many evolutionists, who claim to have “proven” their hypothesis. As far as the speed of light is concerned, I don’t know any SDA’s who are making those claims. The Bible does not address the age of the universe; only when life began on this planet, with implications that the earth and solar system were created at the same time, and not that long ago. I do not subscribe to the AIG belief that the entire universe was created in 6 days. The Bible does not state that. I believe the universe is at least as old as it looks, probably older since God has always existed.

1 Like

It’s a delight to see science literate sdas taking science seriously. A tiny step with seismic implications?


I must begin by acknowledging the honesty of the authors in attempting to answer the questions raised, and I thank them for for doing so. However some of the answers do seem to raise a number of other questions. The authors state:


What are we to make of this? God created an unknown number of plants and animals, which lived and died in the past. These either died out, or were wiped out when the entire surface of the earth was covered with water. (An earlier version of the world-wide flood?) The surface of the earth was somehow reshaped, forming the continents and oceans as we now know them, and at least one major ice age occurred, ending approx 12,000 years ago. The glaciation associated with this ice age formed the canyons we now see. Then at some time more recent than 10,000 BC, God staged the creation week as recorded in Genesis 1. (Apologies if I’ve got this wrong, but based on the original article as well as the answers to the questions, this is the sequence of events I see emerging.)

It seems to me the above would only be postulated by someone still beholden to Biblical literalism, however I contend that not even the above explanation overcomes the problems posed by a literal reading of the text. In particular:

  1. Genesis 1:9 says “And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.”. Thus we see that the water which covered the earth in Genesis 1:2 continued to do so until the 3rd day of creation week;
  2. Exodus 20:11 says “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…”

In reply to my comment on the original article, one of the authors cited Richard Davidson in arguing that because Genesis 1:1 says only “the heavens and the earth” and subsequent references say “the heavens, the earth and the seas”, the reference in Genesis 1 does not fall within what is being said about the heavens, earth and seas in those later references. I do not find this argument to be persuasive - it looks like a rather tortured exegesis designed to get around a particular problem.

I contend once more, that it is simply not possible to reconcile the physical evidence with a literal reading of the Bible. In attempting to hold to Biblical literalism in answering the questions on the original article, the authors have now suggested something that is even more “out there”. I still applaud their honesty, but maintain the real meaning of the Genesis creation stories is something other than the “when and how” of the physical creation.


The theory proposed seems like a type of ruination-reconstruction theory.

That is, there was something here before creation week with life, and then it was remodeled at the beginning of creation week into what we see today.

I sense, though not mentioned here, that there was death before sin, as the creation of the fossils within the rocks seems to have occurred before the remodeling at creation week.

A couple of comments.

  1. I don’t think there is a conflict between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There was something here, a watery planet or a rocky planet with water on it. The verse is not specific. Many SDA’s hold to the view what the earth was created at sometime before God turned his attention to it on Day 1 of creation. What happened before is not mentioned, and could have been any number of things, except one. The earth was lifeless before Creation day 1, and there was no death before that day, as Paul says that death entered through sin. I see this as the biggest problem for this proposed theory. (the other is the Old Earth Creationist view)
  2. The Old Earth Creationist view does not seem to do violence to the scripture as this view here seems to do, as it takes for truth the ancient age of life.
  3. I think the proposed view here does make room for evolution to have occurred. I have a problem with that, as before stated: it is a ghoulish way to create life. So much death and destruction. Embracing such a view plays into the hands of evolutionists who then accuse the religious of believing in a terribly evil God. I just can’t picture Jesus doing it that way.
  4. The using of EGW to support a long age view is disingenuous. She clearly states in several places that she sees any view that means long ages with life in them contradicting scripture.
  5. Creationists have a real problem with the old rocks, dated by radioactive methods. I have not seen a good explanation of it, nor for the ice cores etc. We don’t have a good answer. I am not afraid to say such a thing. And there may be other problems as well.
  6. The real problem is radiometric dating. If a solution to that problem could be found, evolution would not have such a hold on people who hold the Bible is high esteem. Evolution has all kinds of problems. But without the radiometric dating and other old age dating methods, it would not be so convincing.
  7. Those that hold to an old earth with evolution cannot make such a view compatible with scripture without doing violence to the word. Death before sin, and the horror of long ages of death do not show God as kind and loving.

The authors try to do this, but I think they fall short.

So one has to decide whether to ignore scripture, or the interpretations of nature by the scientists. It is a simple but difficult choice. I don’t see how one can have it both ways.


The earth is as old as the solar system, which is as old as the Milky Way, Which is old as its sister galaxies. C14 is a tool of limited range, certainly less than 20,000 years. Our story comes from Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome. and the Hebrews. Eastern history seems to predate western records. The Bible tells us we were wonderfully made, but were marred by ambition. It tells us Grace and assurance thourgh Christ our Creator/Redeener God. YEC should be spelled yuk

Let us hold fast that we came from the voice of God and are redeemed by His Blood. TZ


You are being rough on Tom. I have followed with interest his comments over many years. Not once have I suspected him of what you accuse! Were you just joking? Jim

1 Like

This is an atempt to take astronomy and parts of geology seriously. I recognize that it is better than YEC which rides roughshod over all sciences with historical implications, but I would still love to see an official Adventist point of view which at least tried to include palaeontology and biology to the “accepted” sciences.


It seems to me that we must choose between a God that used evolution, with all its death and violence, to bring about mankind with free will (the end justifies the means type of thing) or to believe in a God that lies by making a young earth appear very old. Given that there are plenty of examples in the old testimont of God being willing to use death and violence to achieve his end I find evolution more convincing and more comforting than a God that deliberately lies, although not much more comforting.


Because of the predatory nature of evolution, many of us can’t associate a God, who created through evolution, with the God of the NT - a God of love and grace - makes perfect sense on a superficial level.

We attribute to God, our own concepts of propriety, which includes laying down laws by which even God must operate to meet our expectations and definitions of love and grace. We decry the “lion eating a lamb”, but have no problem celebrating Jesus’ miracle of stuffing Peter’s nets full of fish. The two are part of the same cycle “predation” - also known as “finding food”.

Either, there were two separate creations - the one where the lion laid down with the lamb - the other, where the lion ate the lamb; or we don’t understand the legitimate mechanisms of life that God set into operation at creation.

The reality of biological bodies is that they all need food. If the lions, leopards and cougars all ate leaves, berries and hay, they must have gone through an instantaneous transformation, growing fangs and claws. In fact, all biological systems are based on predation (for the lack of a more gentile term) - even humans. Animals of all types were given modes of defence - defence from predators - built into their biological systems at creation (how ever long that took). There are the spots on the leopard, and the rattle on the rattle snake, not mention the odorous skunk. But why stop there - we humans depend on the defence system God gave us to keep us from dying from every bug we ingest or inhale. He created us with a whole system of defences in the lymphatic system to ward off invaders. The antibodies that lay in wait in our tonsils, spleen and bone marrow, were all designed to do battle with invaders. There are wars going on in every biological system that produces casualties. Is that system of defence, designed to sustain the body part of the same system that gives us sustaining (food) - which sustains life? Is there a difference between the cat eating a mouse and our phagocytes attacking an invader in our bodies? Is there a difference between "the survival of the fittest and Jesus feeding the multitudes on the hill with five loaves and two FISHES?


I agree.

I think it is hard for people to remember that we can’t get out of bed in the morning without killing something. You can’t walk across your lawn or dig a hole in the ground without killing something, however small it may be. Want a snack? It was alive once. Want clothes? Everything clothes are made of was alive once, unless your clothes are made of rocks, and some of them were alive once as well.

The creation story itself indicates death before the fall, when Adam and Eve are instructed to tend the garden and to eat of the plenty they would then have. You cannot eat something without killing it.


@JaredWright: On a related topic, I see from the Mar 2016 Gleaner that just came, the NPUC is setting up their own creation study center, headed up by a Pastor Stan Hudson. The “center” seems to be mainly a religious library of creation study material. It might be interesting for Spectrum to write up a short report of what they think they are trying to accomplish. I wonder if this is in reaction to GRI’s apparent slow demise, at least based on output. Perhaps the NPUC thinks GRI has failed?


A typical SdA response: Place a pastor in charge of “creation study center.” Will see next have a “medical center” led by naturopaths or
a seminary graduate with no scientific education or training?

Way to go–backward and lose even more credibility.


Unfortunately, we have a long history of individuals declaring themselves to be authorities on things beyond their training, with delusionals, quacks, and frauds emerging in both science and medicine. Of course, this is widespread throughout society, and may be no more common in our Church compared to elsewhere. But when they are a part of us, they do, indeed, mislead our rank-and-file members and harm our reputation.

To me personally, I think the most dangerous right now is ***the individual who claims to be an authority on both creation [versus evolution] and conspiracy theories [versus reality]***. I have long wished that the Church’s leadership would firmly denounce this individual–but they are afraid to agitate his loyal followers, which are now legion and continue to grow. I have family, personal friends, and even a SDA university colleague who are completely devoted to his rubbish.


You can’t have both only because of how you formulated your question. Your question should have included the important “the interpretations of” between the words “ignore scripture” and should read as follows: “So one has to decide whether to ignore the interpretations of scripture, or the interpretations of nature by the scientists.” With this newly minted formulation, the question can now be easily resolved without guilt.


I would like to know what the author’s think of the rather voluminous 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 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.

1 Like

You do not agree that conventional chronology doesn’t fit with creation chronology? Well, creationist believe that God created the world and its life forms about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Conventional chronology has the earth being formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and life evolving over roughly about the past billion years. As it concerns the Ice Age, creationists believe it happened shortly after the Flood, so from circa 2,500 BC to no later than 1,500 BC. Conventional chronology has the Ice starting about 2 million years ago and ending 10,000 years ago. I don’t see how anyone can doubt that there is a conflict between creationist chronology and mainstream chronology, but to each his own.

God has existed from everlasting to everlasting, but the earth had a beginning. Its beginning was roughly 6,000 years ago, based upon the chrono-genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. Its original form had an end, at the Flood, and its current form will have an end, after the Millennium, when the earth will be purified with fire and made new. Oard’s theory of the Ice Age certainly does conform to “God’s chronology” because it happened sometime in the midst of “everlasting to everlasting” and, more importantly, it happened with the time frame for Earth’s history that God has set out in His inspired word to His people, the Bible.

The Ice Age never occurred? Well, both creationists and Darwinists say it did occur, and we’re just arguing about when it happened and for how long but, as per above, to each his own.


Thank you for taking the effort to write another article addressing my questions. I primarily had focused on the age-dating methodologies, and you have again addressed them. However, you have not satisfactorily proven by the facts you have brought out that life on this planet must have existed before a creation week about 6,000 years ago. I will address the two major dating-method assumptions, and why they are incorrect, one at a time.

1. Carbon-14 Dating

You may claim this method was not used in your study, however, you have misrepresented its accuracy here. Perhaps you were not specifically referring to the point I had made about C-14 levels having fluctuated over time, but that is a scientifically known phenomenon. To assume, therefore, that C-14 levels have remained constant over time, and can be accurately used to determine the age of an organic sample, is presumptuous. Two known human activities have changed C-14 levels: 1) burning fossil fuels, which reduced C-14 levels; and 2) the detonation of nuclear bombs, which increases C-14 levels. Graphs of C-14 levels over time can be found online. It is not a flat line.

Now, the burning of fossil fuels, which decreases their levels, is highly significant. Where did those fuels come from? They were buried during the Flood. If by this massive loss of organic carbon to the environment, carbon sequestration if you will, the C-14 levels were elevated, it shows a basic mathematical principle. C-14 is created in the upper atmospheres at a fixed rate, and if there is a lot of carbon in the atmosphere to dilute this amount, it will appear in less concentration than if there is less. As we add the carbon back into circulation by burning fossil fuels, we decrease the overall levels of C-14.

C-14 is most commonly used to date the organic fossils. However, any dating that would go back to times before the Flood can be expected to be highly inaccurate, with a mathematical distortion based on the considerably lower pre-Flood levels of C-14 making such fossils appear far more ancient than they truly are. So, dating the fossils, which has been done by many scientists to estimate the age of the rocks in which they are found, is flawed science.

2. Uranium Isotope Age Dating - via Zircon Crystals

Again, this has not proven what the authors appear to have intended. Zircon crystals could easily have formed well before the rocks in which they are found. Consider that even molten rock does not approach the melting point for zircon crystals. While zircon has a melting point of around 2,500 degrees Celsius, the highest temperature of molten lava hovers closer to 1,250 degrees Celsius. Because of zircon’s virtually fire-proof resilience, it is used as a liner in blast furnaces for the manufacture of steel.

The Genesis account reveals that the elements of earth pre-existed the creation of life on earth during creation week. Dry land is said to appear out of the water, instead of being spoken into existence. The water which covered it also exists before day 1 in the Biblical record, and is never spoken into existence at that time. Therefore, the elements have been around awhile. This does not “demolish” a “Young Earth Creationism” which believes life began on this planet about 6,000 years ago. In fact, the data all points to agreement with the Bible.


Thank you for an articulate, lucid, informative account and analysis!

My comment:
Why did our Heavenly Father, not give an equally articulate, lucid, clearcut, unambiguous, detailed account of His creation??

Why are there TWO conflicting accounts in consecutive chapters of Genesis??

Did He wish to deliberately muddy the waters? As an allegedly/supposedly omniscient God, could he not foretell the confusion His contorted comments would create??

And why does the Book of Nature, seemingly give MUTIPLE EXAMPLES, ice core samples/fossils/carbon dating etc etc which seem to demonstrate a God deliberately distorting, and disturbing the physical evidence so as to maximally produce conflict and controversy??

What comes across is a God doing his best to create physical evidence showing the earth and the universe to have an “everlasting age”, while His Genesis genealogy is a short range six thousand years.

I personally prefer a six thousand year earth age, as even that is TOO LONG a time frame for a supposedly loving God to have allowed MISERY to dominate mankind. I therefore find the physical evidence DISMAYING.

The longer time frames you propose, change the perspective entirely revealing a sadistic uncaring God more concerned with His own vindication before the “universe” and His own cosmic reputation than the well being of his created creatures!

Allowing mankind to be mired in a morass of MISERY for multiple millenia manifests a MONSTER, not a merciful Creator!