CREATION VS. EVOLUTION: A NEW TAKE ON THE GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT

[CLIVE CAMPBELL]

I wrote this in 2005:

In my opinion, the Genesis creation account is not another Near East creation myth. I believe it is true and scientifically sound, despite being dismissed as the opposite by some British Catholic bishops recently. Most evolutionists will mock me for saying so, but from my perspective it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of lengthy evolution of life than in the theory of sudden creation of life.

To believe the former, one must believe in spite of the astronomical improbability of elements coming together to form even a complex molecule, let alone a single cell; in spite of the complete lack of fossil evidence of transitional forms between species, the "missing links," and a fossil column which does not always go from lower to higher life forms (thus better supporting a global Flood); in spite of the deleterious value of mutations; in spite of Malthusian population theory which would have resulted in a population explosion of hypothetical hominids over 50-100,000 years (obliteration by the last ice age--an age without a good scientific explanation--is postulated, but with few hypothetical hominid remains); and in spite of such evidence as soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in sandstone (evolutionists are still closed-mindedly claiming it is 68 million years old).

To believe the latter--the theory of sudden creation of life (around 3970 B.C., according to biblical chronology)--one must believe with the supporting evidence of the oldest village settlements in the world being about 6,000 years old and just west of Jerusalem (Eden's site, I believe); the oldest city in the world from about the same time being Jericho, just east of Jerusalem; the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia dating to 3500 B.C.; the destruction of those civilizations about 2300 B.C., exactly the time the Bible puts the global Flood; the extinction of dinosaurs by flooding; and carbon dating of dinosaur bones in the thousands of years.

Which theory requires more faith to believe? Which puts forward the best evidence? Which do you believe? Of course if you do not believe in God, then the theory of evolution is your only choice, in spite of the fact that it is full of holes, which bad science has tried to fill. One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? So the problem with evolutionists is that in spite of the bad science they put forward, they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after their kinds," as Genesis says He did.

But many sudden creationists have their problems too. Firstly, many do not see that the best interpretation of the Genesis creation account is an ancient universe, but young life. They do not see that the first two verses of Genesis cover stage one of creation, lasting fourteen (two times seven, interestingly) billion years, and that the seven "days" of creation are stage two, beginning in verse three. Stages one and two are also reflected, respectively, in the verbs "create" (Hebrew: bara) and "make" (Hebrew: asa) in the last verse of the prologue, 2:3, and in the first verse of the first book of Genesis, 2:4. Further, from Genesis 2:4 ("These are the generations of the heavens and the earth ...."), I believe "day" figuratively means the first millennium, so a "generation" of 1,000 years (as Adam's and Noah's were) figuratively means 365 million years.

Secondly, nearly all sudden creationists interpret stage two as seven literal days, rather than seven figurative "days," which were really years, as the ancient Jewish Book of Jubilees asserts. Strong arguments can be made for this: 1) It puts Enoch's translation to heaven exactly seven years before the end of the first millennium, which is a figure for the translation to heaven of the true Church, seven years before the end of the sixth millennium. 2) Seven years is one of the "seven" precedents in the Bible: e.g., six years to work the land and one to leave it fallow, seventy seven-year periods in Daniel 9, the last one being seven years of judgment and destruction centered around Jerusalem at the end of 6,000 years, paralleled by seven years of creation centered around the site of Jerusalem (Eden). 3) Seven years is more in line with what was accomplished in the "days," especially "day" six, which includes the events of Genesis 2 and, I suspect, 3. It is also more in line with the "no rain" comment of 2:5.

Thirdly, most sudden creationists believe the sun, moon and stars were not created until "day" four, after light and the day/night cycle appeared on the earth in "day" one. This is an unfortunate result of the Hebrew word translated "made" (Hebrew verb: asa). The verb can also mean "to manifest." Also, these lights were manifested in the "firmament of the heavens," up to the clouds (see 1:6-8). The intended meaning is a thinning of the cloud cover over the earth, so that the sun, moon and stars were manifested.

So, what is my take on the Genesis prologue, that merges the creation account with good science? Well, here it is.

Bang! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)." I have no doubt that stage one of God's creation began, as astronomy indicates, about fourteen billion years ago and that, as radiogeology indicates, the earth is about four billion years old. A description of the earth at the end of stage one appears in verse two of Genesis 1: "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." I believe that this is a picture of the earth in a more distant orbit from the sun than at present, explaining the ice ages and precluding evolution. The earth was dark from complete cloud and fog cover (see Job 38:9) and it was completely covered by water and ice.

Verse three begins stage two of God's creation: seven figurative "days," which were in fact years. In year one (3970 B.C., inferred from biblical chronology), God began to move the earth and perhaps all the planets closer to the sun. The sun's increasing gravitational pull began to pull away some of the cloud and fog cover on the earth to make light and the day/night cycle visible. In year two, the exponentially increasing gravitational pull of the sun extended the earth's atmosphere even further, pulling the clouds up into the sky. In year three, the increasing heat from the sun had evaporated enough of the water, covering the earth, to make dry land appear. At that point, God created plant life. In year four, enough of the cloud and fog cover had been diffused to make the sun, moon and stars visible. At the end of that year, the earth was in its present orbit (biblically inferred). In year five, God created air and water creatures and in year six, land creatures, including man. Finally, He ceased His creative work in the seventh year.

I should also add that I believe the earth was initially vertical on its axis, but that God tilted it 23.5 degrees to cause the Flood in about 2300 B.C., by which many species, including dinosaurs, were made extinct. This explains the absence of rain in the tropics until the Flood; tropical fossils in the arctic; almost edible woolly mammoths, frozen in the arctic with tropical plants in their stomachs; and perhaps the long lifespans of the ancient peoples, which were mythologized in Near East king lists in the thousands of years.

Let me conclude with one other piece of evidence for the truth of the Genesis prologue. Not only are the seven "days" figurative for seven years, but they are also figurative for seven millennia. Every thousand years there has been a spiritual "sunrise." In 3970 B.C., it was God and Adam. In 2970 B.C., it was Lamech and Noah. In 1970 B.C., it was Terah and Abraham. In 970 B.C., it was David and Solomon. In 30 A.D., it was Jesus and the early Church. In 1030 A.D., it was the Cluniac reform. In 2030 A.D., it will be Jesus again, the Second Coming.

[Paul James]

On 4/23/2020 at 2:22 AM, CLIVE CAMPBELL said:

I wrote this in 2005:

In my opinion, the Genesis creation account is not another Near East creation myth. I believe it is true and scientifically sound, despite being dismissed as the opposite by some British Catholic bishops recently. Most evolutionists will mock me for saying so, but from my perspective it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of lengthy evolution of life than in the theory of sudden creation of life.

To believe the former, one must believe in spite of the astronomical improbability of elements coming together to form even a complex molecule, let alone a single cell; in spite of the complete lack of fossil evidence of transitional forms between species, the "missing links," and a fossil column which does not always go from lower to higher life forms (thus better supporting a global Flood); in spite of the deleterious value of mutations; in spite of Malthusian population theory which would have resulted in a population explosion of hypothetical hominids over 50-100,000 years (obliteration by the last ice age--an age without a good scientific explanation--is postulated, but with few hypothetical hominid remains); and in spite of such evidence as soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in sandstone (evolutionists are still closed-mindedly claiming it is 68 million years old).

To believe the latter--the theory of sudden creation of life (around 3970 B.C., according to biblical chronology)--one must believe with the supporting evidence of the oldest village settlements in the world being about 6,000 years old and just west of Jerusalem (Eden's site, I believe); the oldest city in the world from about the same time being Jericho, just east of Jerusalem; the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia dating to 3500 B.C.; the destruction of those civilizations about 2300 B.C., exactly the time the Bible puts the global Flood; the extinction of dinosaurs by flooding; and carbon dating of dinosaur bones in the thousands of years.

Which theory requires more faith to believe? Which puts forward the best evidence? Which do you believe? Of course if you do not believe in God, then the theory of evolution is your only choice, in spite of the fact that it is full of holes, which bad science has tried to fill. One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? So the problem with evolutionists is that in spite of the bad science they put forward, they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after their kinds," as Genesis says He did.

But many sudden creationists have their problems too. Firstly, many do not see that the best interpretation of the Genesis creation account is an ancient universe, but young life. They do not see that the first two verses of Genesis cover stage one of creation, lasting fourteen (two times seven, interestingly) billion years, and that the seven "days" of creation are stage two, beginning in verse three. Stages one and two are also reflected, respectively, in the verbs "create" (Hebrew: bara) and "make" (Hebrew: asa) in the last verse of the prologue, 2:3, and in the first verse of the first book of Genesis, 2:4. Further, from Genesis 2:4 ("These are the generations of the heavens and the earth ...."), I believe "day" figuratively means the first millennium, so a "generation" of 1,000 years (as Adam's and Noah's were) figuratively means 365 million years.

Secondly, nearly all sudden creationists interpret stage two as seven literal days, rather than seven figurative "days," which were really years, as the ancient Jewish Book of Jubilees asserts. Strong arguments can be made for this: 1) It puts Enoch's translation to heaven exactly seven years before the end of the first millennium, which is a figure for the translation to heaven of the true Church, seven years before the end of the sixth millennium. 2) Seven years is one of the "seven" precedents in the Bible: e.g., six years to work the land and one to leave it fallow, seventy seven-year periods in Daniel 9, the last one being seven years of judgment and destruction centered around Jerusalem at the end of 6,000 years, paralleled by seven years of creation centered around the site of Jerusalem (Eden). 3) Seven years is more in line with what was accomplished in the "days," especially "day" six, which includes the events of Genesis 2 and, I suspect, 3. It is also more in line with the "no rain" comment of 2:5.

Thirdly, most sudden creationists believe the sun, moon and stars were not created until "day" four, after light and the day/night cycle appeared on the earth in "day" one. This is an unfortunate result of the Hebrew word translated "made" (Hebrew verb: asa). The verb can also mean "to manifest." Also, these lights were manifested in the "firmament of the heavens," up to the clouds (see 1:6-8). The intended meaning is a thinning of the cloud cover over the earth, so that the sun, moon and stars were manifested.

So, what is my take on the Genesis prologue, that merges the creation account with good science? Well, here it is.

Bang! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)." I have no doubt that stage one of God's creation began, as astronomy indicates, about fourteen billion years ago and that, as radiogeology indicates, the earth is about four billion years old. A description of the earth at the end of stage one appears in verse two of Genesis 1: "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." I believe that this is a picture of the earth in a more distant orbit from the sun than at present, explaining the ice ages and precluding evolution. The earth was dark from complete cloud and fog cover (see Job 38:9) and it was completely covered by water and ice.

Verse three begins stage two of God's creation: seven figurative "days," which were in fact years. In year one (3970 B.C., inferred from biblical chronology), God began to move the earth and perhaps all the planets closer to the sun. The sun's increasing gravitational pull began to pull away some of the cloud and fog cover on the earth to make light and the day/night cycle visible. In year two, the exponentially increasing gravitational pull of the sun extended the earth's atmosphere even further, pulling the clouds up into the sky. In year three, the increasing heat from the sun had evaporated enough of the water, covering the earth, to make dry land appear. At that point, God created plant life. In year four, enough of the cloud and fog cover had been diffused to make the sun, moon and stars visible. At the end of that year, the earth was in its present orbit (biblically inferred). In year five, God created air and water creatures and in year six, land creatures, including man. Finally, He ceased His creative work in the seventh year.

I should also add that I believe the earth was initially vertical on its axis, but that God tilted it 23.5 degrees to cause the Flood in about 2300 B.C., by which many species, including dinosaurs, were made extinct. This explains the absence of rain in the tropics until the Flood; tropical fossils in the arctic; almost edible woolly mammoths, frozen in the arctic with tropical plants in their stomachs; and perhaps the long lifespans of the ancient peoples, which were mythologized in Near East king lists in the thousands of years.

Let me conclude with one other piece of evidence for the truth of the Genesis prologue. Not only are the seven "days" figurative for seven years, but they are also figurative for seven millennia. Every thousand years there has been a spiritual "sunrise." In 3970 B.C., it was God and Adam. In 2970 B.C., it was Lamech and Noah. In 1970 B.C., it was Terah and Abraham. In 970 B.C., it was David and Solomon. In 30 A.D., it was Jesus and the early Church. In 1030 A.D., it was the Cluniac reform. In 2030 A.D., it will be Jesus again, the Second Coming.

I liked most of your post, except when you talked about the Gap Theory.  This was a theory that was dreamed up to refute atheistic evolution, by a contemporary of Darwin.  But it contradicts the Bible when it says that the world was formed before the universe, and it was cool, not formed from a molten ball of superheated gas.   Also the verse says that the earth 'was without form and void"  not "became without form, etc.", discounting any idea that there were any cataclysmic events before the formation of the earth.

The rest of the universe was created on the 4th day, after the earth was completed and planted with trees and plants.  And it was created and spread out and the light of the stars shot to the earth in one day.  There was no big bang at all.  God created it all from nothing by just saying, "Let it be".  Just in case you have forgotten, God can do that without even raising a sweat!

Also, to be consistent with the rest of the Old Testament, the word for "day" when accompanied with a number, "morning" or "evening" means a 24 hour day.  Read through the Old testament and see for yourself.  So in creation where it talked about "morning" and "evening" connected with "yom" then it had to be 24 hour days to be consistent with every other Old Testament reference to 24 hour days.  Where "day" meant someone not so specific, the word "yom" was not accompanied with a number, "evening" or "morning".  Such as, "the day of the Lord", or "Abraham rejoiced to see My day", or "the day of judgment".

So, there is no confusion about Creationism being what the Bible literally says about how God created the universe and our world.

[branchesofHim]

There is nothing new. Shalom.

Ecclesiastes 1:[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

[teddyv]

On 4/22/2020 at 7:22 AM, CLIVE CAMPBELL said:

I wrote this in 2005:

Which theory requires more faith to believe? Which puts forward the best evidence? Which do you believe? Of course if you do not believe in God, then the theory of evolution is your only choice, in spite of the fact that it is full of holes, which bad science has tried to fill. One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? So the problem with evolutionists is that in spite of the bad science they put forward, they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after their kinds," as Genesis says He did.
 

I'm not really aware of anyone trying to date dinosaur bones with carbon dating, as it would be inappropriate based on the half-life. C14 would be useful to at most 50,000 years. Most fossils bones would be remineralized anyway and likely not good candidates as a source of sample to date. That's why we would date nearby intrusives and other lithologies using different methods coupled with stratigraphic principles or other fossils to set limits on the age of the rocks that the dinosaur fossils were part of.

[CLIVE CAMPBELL]

21 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I'm not really aware of anyone trying to date dinosaur bones with carbon dating, as it would be inappropriate based on the half-life. C14 would be useful to at most 50,000 years. Most fossils bones would be remineralized anyway and likely not good candidates as a source of sample to date. That's why we would date nearby intrusives and other lithologies using different methods coupled with stratigraphic principles or other fossils to set limits on the age of the rocks that the dinosaur fossils were part of.

teddyv, just Google carbon dating dinosaur fossils and you'll find lots on it. It is certainly not scientific to date the sedimentary rock around the fossil and assign that date to the dinosaur. I don't dispute the ancient age of the sediments, but I do dispute the ancient age of the dinosaurs.

[teddyv]

49 minutes ago, CLIVE CAMPBELL said:

teddyv, just Google carbon dating dinosaur fossils and you'll find lots on it. It is certainly not scientific to date the sedimentary rock around the fossil and assign that date to the dinosaur. I don't dispute the ancient age of the sediments, but I do dispute the ancient age of the dinosaurs.

Just did that...

Quote

The recent discovery of radiocarbon in dinosaur bones at first seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, due to the short half-life of radiocarbon. However, evidence from isotopes other than radiocarbon shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Fossil bone incorporates new radiocarbon by means of recrystallization and, in some cases, bacterial activity and uranium decay. Because of this, bone mineral – fossil or otherwise – is a material that cannot yield an accurate radiocarbon date except under extraordinary circumstances. Mesozoic bone consistently yields a falsely young radiocarbon “date” of a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of years, despite the fact that it is millions of years old. Science educators need to be aware of the details of these phenomena, to be able to advise students whose acceptance of biological evolution has been challenged by young-Earth creationist arguments that are based on radiocarbon in dinosaur fossils.

https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article/82/2/72/109723/Radiocarbon-in-Dinosaur-Fossils-Compatibility-with

 

Quote

The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.

Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm#:~:text=But carbon-14 dating won,are billions of years old.

 

There is some additional interesting commentary here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat/154606

[CLIVE CAMPBELL]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Just did that...

teddyv, looks like your mind is made up by the junk science of the macro-evolutionists, based on the quotes and sites you selected. I'm inclined to believe the Bible which presents a chronology of life on the earth--not the age of the universe--of nearly 6000 years. As well, Biblical theology teaches that there could not have been a fallen creation with death for millions of years, including hominids, evolving to yield finally Adam and Eve, before the Fall even happened. Theistic evolution is not biblical and just buys into the junk science of atheistic macro-evolutionists. I'll leave it at that.

[teddyv]

Well, I just did what you said to Google and I did not find a whole of support for your assertion. Telling someone to Google something is also a bit vague, since perhaps you have a source in mind that is particularly compelling but may not show up in the first pages of the index.

If that means to you that my mind is made up, well then, oh well. I would presume your mind is also fully made up.

 

[branchesofHim]

4 hours ago, teddyv said:

Telling someone to Google something is also a bit vague, since perhaps you have a source in mind that is particularly compelling but may not show up in the first pages of the index.

Indeed. Shalom.