Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
S. Michael Houdmann
Supporter
The "fossil record" is a term used by paleontologists to refer to the total number of fossils that have been discovered, as well as to the information derived from them. The problem with interpreti...
Login or Sign Up to view the rest of this answer.
ainsley chalmers
Supporter
Two facts must be appreciated. There is experimental science where one does experiments, gets hard data and forms conclusions. This science has resulted in pcs, tv, drugs, mobiles etc. Then there is historical science where one looks at a fossil for example and draws conclusions. A secular scientist sees millions of years, whereas a biblical creationist sees the result of a catastrophic flood at the time of Noah, 4,500 years ago. With historical science, unlike experimental science, one can't do experiments in the lab unless one goes back thousands/millions of age. To cut a long story short, the findings in historical science are backed up beautifully by biblical history (Genesis). The findings of secular science in this area are dubious because: 1. radioisotope dating to millions of years is grossly inaccurate. Conversely radiocarbon C14 dating measures short time scales of less than 50,000 years. The presence of C14 in oil, diamonds and biological specimens indicate these aren't millions, but thousands, of years in formation. 2. Mutational findings don't lead to more advanced life forms, but to degradation of the genetic code. 3. The presence of intact protein and red blood cells in dinosaurs is inconsistent with 65 million years old, extinct animals. 4. There are no intermediate fossil forms consistent with evolution. Most universities are now secular humanistic (ie atheistic)in their philosophy and promote evolution. Your academic career will be short lived should you express a belief in God directed creation or even in a non-biblical diluted version of intelligent design. I am not anti-university as I have 2 university degrees including a PhD. I was once a theistic evolutionist, but am now a bible based young earth creationist
Larry Truelove
Supporter
A number of organizations, including the Christian Research Institute, maintain that the fossil record contradicts, rather than supports the multi-million year fossil record. For example: 1) Fossils containing flesh protein remnants of long dead creatures, including dinosaurs. If they were dead for hundreds or millions of years, they would have decayed. 2) Evidence of gradual development of species does not exist. The "Cambrian Explosion" is an example. It is the sudden appearance of forms and species without ancestral transitional records. 3) Related to my #2, some scientists have suggested "punctuated equilibrium" in order to resolve this problem. But it has its own difficulties, too numerous to explain here. 4) Contrary to popular belief, trans-species evolution has never been directly observed. A species is whatever evolutionary scientists claim it is. But it is not the same as breeding different kinds of canines. The motives of scientists to believe in evolution is complicated, but it is not as straightforward as their claims make it appear.
Bob Jones
Supporter
I have studied this in good depth, and the reality is that prominent modern evolutionary scientists don't really say that the fossil record supports a gradualistic theory of evolution. That's why they have come up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The main concept of this formulation of theory of evolution is that species stay pretty much the same until something drastic happens. Stephen J. Gould, a prominent scientist said this "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." If you search for that phrase you will find all types of stuff. Blessings in your search. Should you continue, you will find that much of what is thought to be true about evolution is actually not.
Jim Riddle
Supporter
There are two highly appreciable and scientifically acceptable, but rejected by most of those who call themselves scientists, explanations that are consistent both with the Bible and with the laws and theories of physics, chemistry, geology. I hold 4 college degrees, two in mining engineering minoring in Geology, and a PhD in environmental engineering. The scientific process and scientific proof are well known and well understood in my mind. View one; it works for me, and it worked for two profoundly fundamental Christians who taught me in several geology courses. Geologic age does not necessarily mean earth age! God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Beginning of the earth is pretty much a valid scientific assumption, but that does not necessarily, in scientific terms, mean beginning of the universe. God could have made the Universe billions of years ago and then used geologic material in the universe to create the earth. So, the makeup of the earth could be old stuff in a new earth. View two, also quite consistent with view one. I rely on, to quote from an online encyclopedia, Gerald Schroeder: "Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality." Find Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang".Use an online encyclopedia or your favorite search engine. I could put in a URL or I will send you some if you specifically ask me."Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity. "Namely, that from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day.controversial in scientific circles." Although many physicists believe they have disproven his theory, their work is, too, theory and neither is any more scientifically absolute than the other. This is a fairly heavy dose of quantum physics (yes, I have that in my background, too) but simple to relate (I think). When the big bang occurred, as God boomed it, stuff started flying away from the center of all beginning. We know that the Universe is expanding, we know the current velocity at which the universe is expanding, and we know that the expansion is slowing down because, after all, flying things slow down after a while. So, here is the universe expanding and the earth is a part and it was all made by God at the same time. Einstein told us in his theories, which are highly supported, that something at rest and something flying away at a great speed have different relative time scales. When you apply all of the applicable "stuff" from physics, the earth is, indeed, 15 billion years old in the time frame of the center of the Universe.
Steve Bookout
Supporter
Young earth creationism handles the evidence for millions of years in the fossil record by rejecting the fallacy of circular reasoning required to establish the evidence for millions of years to begin with. They will accept the many evidences for a young earth in the fossil and geological record. Finally, they examine both in accordance with the known facts and established laws of science.
George Fitt
Supporter
Simply put young earth creationists are in denial. Fossils found on earth, they explain, are the result of the great flood. Prehistoric man, they say, wasn't prehistoric, because the Bible says the first man was Adam who was created 4000 years before Christ. The problem with young earth creationists is that they stubbornly insist their understanding is the only possible correct one. All people living today are descendants of Noah, since the survivors of the flood were Noah, Noah's wife, their children and no one else. From a patriarchal perspective, it could be argued that Noah was the first man; except the Bible provides the genealogy of Adam through Seth to Noah. So, Adam was the first man in the line of those living today. The Bible does not say God created Adam on the sixth day. The Bible says on the sixth day He created them male and female in His image and told them to multiply and fill the earth. The Bible says God rested on the seventh day. After resting, then God created a garden and made Adam from dust. He then made Eve from Adam creating woman from man. The first on the sixth day (male and female) and the second sometime after the seventh day (man and woman). Young creationists then ague that nothing died until sin came into the world. They insist only their understanding can be correct for Romans 5:12 and 6:23. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." ESV Is all death caused by sin? Young creationists would say, "Yes, because God said everything He created was 'good'." They decided that "good" means nothing dies, because they say death is bad, which is the opposite of good. But is all death bad and is all death caused by sin? What about death of a small fish eaten by a larger fish? Bad for the small fish and good for the big fish, but necessary for the big fish to lay eggs and produce more small fish. What about death by miscarriage? What about death by SIDS? Is the death of a baby caused by it's sin? Do you believe God does that? If you do, then you don't know God at all. God said, "...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” ESV Young creationists claim therefore nothing died until Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and further that their understanding is the only one possible. "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8 ESV So, one day is a thousand years to God and Adam lived 930 years. Therefore Adam died in the "day" he ate the forbidden fruit as foretold by God. Death has always been in the world, but death caused by sin has only been around for about 6000 years. Some young creationists are not faithful to His Word. They display arrogance, stubbornness and unrighteousness by insisting those who disagree with them are faithless to His Word. This is especially true regarding the word "day" in Scripture. "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:5 ESV Here there are two definitions for "day”: 1. A period of light, which we would call "daylight", which can be of any length. In Longyearbyen, Norway the sun never sets between 1:52 a.m. on April 20 and 12:49 a.m. on August 22 Hours of sunlight: 3,094 hours, 56 minutes 2. A period of light followed by period of darkness which represents one earth rotation = 24 hours long at the equator. The Day of the Lord is another definition for "day" meaning an epoch period of time of undetermined length. When young creationists insist "day" always means 24 hours they are false teachers teaching false doctrine.
Jeff Mcleod
Supporter
The Old Testament was not translated to English until the 1500's. Therefore the English word “day” or “morning” was not used until then. Hebrew had many fewer words at the time of the Old Testament writing than the English language has today. However, Hebrew was a very complex language with many meanings for the same word. I personally don’t believe in evolution but I do believe in an old earth. There is simply too much evidence to support an old earth. You do not have to believe in a young earth to be a Christian. Look up Reasons.org for more information on how science supports the Bible.
Add your Answer
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.
- Adhere to the eBible Statement of Faith.
- Your answer should be complete and stand-alone.
- Include supporting arguments, and scripture references if possible. Seek to answer the "why".
- Adhere to a proper tone and spirit of love and understanding.
- For more info see The Complete Guide to eBible