Albert Mohler and RC Sproul start historic debate over geology, evolution and the age of the earth

posted in: Biblical, Evolution | 78
Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
There is a huge battle shaping up within evangelical circles over the authority of the Bible, a debate that will spill into the wider community and impact scientific, geological and academic realms.

The orthodox evangelical view held by the pioneers of science, including geological pioneer Nicholas Steno, is that the Bible records real history: that Adam and Eve were real people, Adam was made from the dust of the earth, Eve was made from the rib of Adam, the Garden of Eden was a real place, Noah’s Flood was a global catastrophe, and the earth is about 6,000 year old.

Over the past decades, evangelical seminaries and colleges have been afraid to defend a straightforward reading of the Bible, in spite of their long-established statements of faith. Instead of accepting the biblical teaching on origins, they have been embracing the secular narrative that the universe and everything within it evolved by naturalistic processes over billions of years, including humans who evolved from apes.

In recent years, a few notable evangelical theologians have taken a stand and spoken out against compromise with evolutionary, long-age thinking. Two figures in particular are Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries, who have come out together in defence of the traditional, straight-forward reading of Genesis. See “Mohler At Center Of Debate Over Evolution & The Bible” for a report.

What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today, Mohler said in the address, is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old earth position. The position, he said, seems to be at an “insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel.”

“The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly,” Mohler said. “It can be very expensive because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility.”

The cost is not just within the church but born by the whole community. The compromise within the church is deep and the battle is shaping up to be fierce. But reformation must begin in the church before it will spill over and transform the world.

It’s good to see that the debate has begun.

78 Responses

  1. Chris Barrett

    Hi Tas,

    Very interesting article. I followed the link to the Baptist site too..also a good read.

    I think Mohler hit the nail on the head with his point about the:

    “insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel.”

    I think it is fear of that very real problem that drives most creationists to dig in.

    Instead of rejoicing that the debate has begun, I really think we should pray for a cease fire, and for the humility to instead find the answer to that insoluble collision with redemptive narrative. We will have to do it within the framework of a very obviously old earth and life process, because if we don’t there will certainly be no credibility left for Christianity. It is fast being squandered I fear.

    I really believe a solution/answer exists. We just need to struggle with God’s Word and seek new ways of seeing and interpreting it, and if we spent less time fighting the reality of an old planet we may find it sooner.



  2. Tas Walker

    Hi Chris,

    It is not “fear” that is causing creationists to dig in. It’s a committment to the truth. Many people, when they become aware of the logical contradictions between evolution and the gospel, can be alerted to the fact that there is a problem with evolution and long ages. That can motivate them to reconsider their uncritical acceptance of evolution.

    I agree that a solution exists, but not as you propose in trying to reinterpret God’s Word to try to make is say what it doesn’t say. What most people do not realise is that the idea of a billion-year-old planet is not a “reality”. Rather, it is an assumption (see The dating game). And that assumption cannot be correct because it contradicts the Bible.

    The solution is to develop scientific models using different assumptions that are consistent with the biblical historical framework. That is what this site does, but lots of creation scientists have been doing lots of exciting work in this regard. Check out some of their research in the Journal of Creation and Creation magazine archives.

  3. Bro Cope

    “And that assumption cannot be correct because it contradicts the Bible.” While this is true, it is irrelevant to the world. What encourages me is that over time, more and more good science is showing that the Bible is true apart from our belief that it is inspired. The assumption canot be correct because it contradicts SCIENCE.

    As a campus preacher, I debate this issue almost every preaching day. But having studied the science of creation, I can bring the students to stunned silence by citing the science. They are not willing to entertain inspiration, but the facts of science are beginning to close any hiding places for their fairy tale beliefs. Keep up the good work Tas. We need all the weapons we can get. Truth is the weapon.

  4. peter allison


    There is no “insoluble conflict with the redemptive narrative” with the Genesis account of creation about 6000 years ago. The only ones who have such a conflict are those who abandon the Biblical account in favor of long ages that result in death before the fall.

    Humility before the Word of Almighty God requires a humble receiving and accepting of what God has said concerning the history of this world. Pretending that what God has said about creation is obscure and unclear and continuing to search for some other answer is the height of arrogance.

    As someone with a graduate degree in a hard science, believing (the Word of God) is seeing (the truth about creation). No scientist operates any other way.

  5. Jessie Floren

    I search everywhere about RC Sproul’s stance on this dating game. I love his teachings and I want to hear him on this because I believe that the truth claims in Genesis has an equal weight in the truth claims in the Gospel.

  6. Rev. Greg Robertson

    I think it is a mistake to make the debate between science and the Bible, or to allow atheists and those who believe them to define it that way. The debate is between real science and a materialistic or atheistic view of the universe that is falsely called “science.” A true and honest science cannot be based in naturalism (atheism) that is enforced with billions of tax dollars and research grants. Those who believe in the myth that the universe and all living things evolved from the big bang really should see a psychiatrist, but even psychiatrists cannot deal with strong delusion if it is a judgment of God on those who reject the obvious truth in unrighteousness. The creationists easily win the debates because their opponents are not prepared to deal with real science and they are deluded to believe that the creationists are just trying to support a religion. The universal flood is the most obvious of all geological facts.

  7. Brian Cox

    Re Rev. Greg Robertson’s comments. I agree in principle with Greg’s stance on Scriptural authority but I feel that it is imperative that we do not allow the debate to descend to the level of name calling and hurling insults. Suggesting that those who disagree with us need to see a psychiatrist is not going to encourage them to consider the sound evidence that Creation Science is making available.

    We need to claim the “high ground” on Scripture, science and loving our enemies.

  8. ann

    There does need to be a debate- but the assumption that the bible must always be infallible is not defensible. If those who take this position join the debate it will make it meaningless because all they will be prepared to do is is reiterate their belief. A reconciliation between belief and fact would be beneficial, a way that people could accept evolution for what it is without compromising their faith. The bible is ( backed up by incontrovertible proof) penned by man, however one believes it was inspired, therefore it has at some point been subject to interpretation. Denying facts which have been long proven and accepted by the majority of the educated world does not further your cause- it merely alienates you.

  9. ann

    As only mods will see this- you realise you do not permit debate- you paint those who disagree with you as unreasonable and rude, and yet refuse them a voice to demonstrate otherwise. I wonder if you understand how frightened this makes you appear? Your blinkered refusal to allow reason and argument into your belief system is why you will remain on the fringe for the uneducated and ignorant. I must assume you find this too profitable a business to risk it foundering.

  10. Tas Walker

    Hello Ann,

    The claim that the Bible is reliable and accurate can be tested. You ask the question: “If this is true, what would you expect to find?” And then you go out and look. Have a look at the material about the biblical geological model and you will see that it works.

    This is no different from the way mainstream geologists investigate the past. They assume that present processes acting ad infinitum can explain what is observed. This assumption works in some cases and in other cases it continually fails to be fulfilled. Look at the article about models.

    The Bible itself explains that it was penned by man but inspired by God. “… men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1: 21.

    And finally, we do not “deny facts”. But everything that is claimed to be fact does not turn out to be so, so we are more skeptical than most and we are continually testing assumptions.

  11. Tas Walker

    Hi Ann,

    Responding to your comment of 3 February 2011 at 1:48 am:

    It’s actually the other way around. It is the atheists and secularists who are afraid of debate.
    See Global atheists reject debate challenge,
    and Creationists not even ‘worth the expenditure of our contempt’

    However, the debate we are talking about in this article is a debate within the church. For too long the evangelical church has compromised and been afraid to challenge the atheistic specualtions passed off as science. This bebate is about the importance of the issue and galvanizing the church to respond.

  12. Hansruedi Stutz

    About 30 years ago I was a Christian, but believed in evolution. Then I had the opportunity to participate at a geological excursion in Switzerland. There we could see the cross-bedding and graded bedding of many geological formations. This is a fact for fast deposition of the respective formations. We could also observe that the boundary’s of the strata showed small erosion and very little bioturbation. This again are facts for little time between strata. And during the last 10 years I learned, that the radiometric methods do by far not give the same age as the non-radiometric methods. This shows, that the radiometric methods simply are false. So I am now convinced that the dating of the Bible is correct and the millions of years never existed.
    Hansruedi Stutz

  13. Chris Barrett

    Hi to all who have commented, perhaps largely in response to my points.

    Perhaps a point or two:

    The attitude I see coming through the above points is: The bible is right – all must and will fit its facts.

    Doesn’t this mean there is absolutely no difference between Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and every organized religion etc etc?

    Every believer in each of those groups has “accepted” a belief that THEIR system, their “book”, their prophet etc, is “right”, “true” “infallible” and so on.

    Discussion with any one of those individuals about another world view, or way of belief would be totally pointless – unless they were open to the possibility of error or new ways of seeing something.

    Let’s face it, there are a lot of views represented in the groups I described above. They cannot all be right – thus there should be a lot of room for humility.

    Back to our topic: what makes Christians so sure they are right on Creation, young earth etc? Oh that’s right. the FACT that THEIR interpretation of the Bible is infallible. And everybody else is wrong. Ouch.

    I have no choice but to believe that if an unbiased alien dropped in to earth and did some research he would conclude this place had been here a looong time!

    Our problem? Bias.


  14. Chris Barrett

    I think it is important to make a specific reply to Rev Greg Robertson’s point.

    He says: “I think it is a mistake to make the debate between science and the Bible,… The debate is between real science and a materialistic or atheistic view of the universe that is falsely called “science.””

    Please, there are many many of us who consider ourselves sincere Christians who do not hold a materialistic or atheistic view of the universe. Large parts of the public debate may be held in the arena you speak of, but its not the whole debate.

    The debate for many sincere Christians is between observable reality as we see it, and a traditional interpretation of Scripture.

    I have preached many a sermon on creation. I have even used what you call real science. All the time I was struggling with the reality of what I saw in my world. Geological data showing a very old earth and life.

    I could go on…suffice to say…I do think you would do well to be a little more humble in your assertions, and a little more open to the possibility you are wrong.



  15. Chris Barrett


    Thank you for your comment.

    I notice several of my posts above are still awaiting moderation, even though all below me have been cleared. I do hope my expectation they could be removed at a “suitable” time is wrong:)

    I think you are right on the “business” side of it. There is a lot at stake for many in this debate.

    And in reality there can be no genuine dialog with anyone who just knows they are right.

    I have come to the place where I see debate with my own peers – fellow Christians – as pointless most of the time. It’s very lonely trying to hold a different view in a fundamentalist church, believe me.


  16. Tas Walker

    Hi Chris,

    You said in your comment of 5 February 2011 at 6:42 am:

    Geological data showing a very old earth and life.

    Actually, geological data shows overwhelming evidence for catastrophe and rapid processes. That means things did not take a lot of time. (Check out Derek Ager’s The New Catastrophism and Geology Q&A.)

    And can I point you to a good quote:

    I do think you would do well to be a little more humble in your assertions, and a little more open to the possibility you are wrong.

    I like the way the Bereans behaved as recorded in Acts 17:11:

    Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

    That is the plum line for testing whether something is true or not, not just “reality as you see it”.

  17. Warwick

    As a regular debater on this and other Biblical topics I never fail to be amazed how much of God’s word Christians will ignore or reinterpret to fit in with man-made long-ages/evolutionary beliefs. I also never fail to be amazed how hard,long and passionately some who claim to be Christian fight against the clear meaning of Scripture.

    For example creation day length, as defined in Genesis 1:3-5 is reinterpreted away from any likeness to what God has said.

    God’s Sabbath command(Exodus 20:8-11, 31:14-17) to the Israelites is clear: work 6 days and rest the 7th because the Lord God created in 6 days and rested the 7th. But the compromisers fight passionately and doggedly against this, claiming we cannot know what this means! Or again, it means anything other than what it says. Fortunately the Israelites were convinced they did know what it meant and avoided execution for working on what the compromisers say is the unknowable Sabbath day.

    Jesus also said man was made at the beginning of the creation (that in which we live)and I take it that He, the Creator, knows this as does no other. But the compromisers reinterpret, ignore or reject this!

    And we are not to plainly and bluntly contradict those who endeavour to pervert God’s Truth?

  18. Peter Newland

    Chris, some points:

    Often the Bible has been declared false re particular historical claims – only to be vindicated later as evidence turned up to confirm the Biblical narrative.

    No evidence has come to light that supports the historical claims of the Book of Mormon despite referring to events which allegedly happened only a thousand or so years ago.

    The Koran is not written as a historical book but it contradicts itself in effectively saying that Jesus and the Old testament is or was correct but the Jews and Christians had corrupted it: yet we know for a fact (from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) that the Old Testament we have now has no significant differences from what was current in Jesus’ time.

    No other religion has writings that anywhere near approaches the historical credibility of the Bible – these differences are hugely significant.

    You are correct Chris: “They cannot all be right …” – but since no other scriptures come anywhere near the credibility of the Bible, Christianity stands head and shoulders above the rest in historical, and geological, credibility.

    Our problem is bias? Chris, you seem unwilling (bias) to even consider that perhaps the actual hard facts ( things that can be measured or observed, rather than facts about opinions) can be logically interpreted as more consistent with a young earth than with an earth billions of years old. Let me lay it on the line – There is no hard evidence compelling us to believe in a very old earth but there are many facts that indicate a young earth.

    Some food for thought: if you don’t believe Moses, will you believe Jesus?

  19. Bob Jensen

    According to Revelation 21:1-5, God will immediately create a new heaven and a new earth (cf. Isa. 65:17). Do we really believe He can do that, or will it take another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and new earth in working order? If we really believe He can destroy this universe in a split second and immediately create a whole new one, what’s the problem with believing the Genesis account of a six-day creation in the first place? If He can do it at the end of the age, why is it so hard to believe the biblical account of what happened in the beginning?

    John MacArthur
    The Battle for the Beginning, 2001, p. 45.

  20. Chris Barrett


    Quite a good turn of phrase re being humble:) I have had to eat humble pie re this issue after spending 40 years believing I was right.


    I don’t doubt God is creator. I just believe He did it differently. About Scripture saying certain things. I was just reading this excellent perspective on creation, how’s this sound:

    * There was a point in creation where no plants had sprung up – they were not made complete.

    * God formed all the animals out of the ground, not by the spoken word.

    * There was no man to work the ground – it was a natural process.

    * God brought the animals that he formed from the ground to the man

    * The animals were obviously a long time after the first plants, because they were not starving, the plants had grown, and Adam did not call the rspca or animal welfare!

    Oops those first 4 points are from Genesis 2 the “other” creation account that contradicts the first one, and which we ignore.


    You say: “There is no hard evidence compelling us to believe in a very old earth but there are many facts that indicate a young earth.”

    Let me quote someone else:

    “…the shape of the earth (about a flat earth) is an issue that can be settled by observation. But molecules-to-man evolution cannot be settled in that way. It’s a speculative story about the unobserved past.”

    Notice this writer jumps from observation about the shape of the earth, to a statement about the origin of man. In part a fair
    point, but his point is a leap in logic. The thrust of the point is about the earth – not man. However, it does illustrate a powerful thing about the shape and nature of the earth. It is OK to base a belief on “observation”. Though I suspect that it is really only OK if the conclusion can be fitted into Scripture. Because all the very observable things about and old earth can’t be fitted in – that’s not OK.

    You speak about hard evidence. That is an incredible statement which is so demonstrably wrong.

    There are many things. Let me share one. You must have missed my link above where I share something that I find pretty hard evidence. I’ll put the link below. Put it this way.

    If there are fossil corals in Egypt and Israel that were there the day Noah landed, and those corals sit on top of 8000 meters of older geologic column. I don’t care what anyone says: That is hard evidence. Nor does it matter how “skeptical” someone chooses to be over whether they are in fact fossil CORALS – IF they are. Noah’s global flood and a young earth are dead. And THAT IS based on an observed past. Documented in the Bible.

    I challenge ANYONE reading this: show me they are NOT fossil corals. And I dare other Christians to admit what it would mean if they were or are!



  21. George

    I find the debate both challenging and a “red herring” at the same time .
    What I choose to believe will not be conditioned by a populist world view to save my self from a perceived embarrassment !
    Nor do I see the need to prove anything to anyone even if I were able to do so.
    Its wonderful to be an adult i.e. someone who makes choices and lives with the consequences
    Some of the so called scientists seem to have more of an interest in keeping their funding alive and being politically relevant then letting the facts be scrutinized . That of course does not negate the need for discussion but will it bear any real fruit – I have some doubt !
    As I see it we all will give an account for our position in one format or another. I am happy to do that.
    If I am wrong I have lost nothing on the other hand …….!

  22. John Heininger

    There are a number of solid reasons why the old earth paradigm doesn’t Scripture, or reality.

    Firstly, scripture makes it blatantly clear that the first human being was Adam,and that he was created as such. We are told that God breathed into Adams “nostrils” the breath of life, and he became a living soul. I personally don’t know of any amoeba that has human nostrils.

    Secondly, the current world population fits neatly with human origins thousands of years ago, not millions. If humans had truly emerged around 2.5 million years ago we would have had over 40,000 generations of active sexual reproduction, with no birth control, producing virtually zero population growth. This would call for a far greater miracle than anything we find in scripture.

  23. Norman Sinclair

    When will you people open your eyes and see what is in front of you. Charles Darwin took us to the top of a hill from which we could look back and see where we came from. all that happens in the world can be explained by science or will be in the years to come. Norman Sinclair Scottish Huminist society, Aberdeen Scotland.

  24. Nathan

    God bless all of you who are doing your best to defend the faith. BE careful to not argue over foolish things. We seem to be allowing the enemy of our soul and the truth of God’s Word to deceive us by talking all around the subject by talking about apples and oranges.

    I have read a few of the comments made hear without reading anything from Albert or Sproul. We do not have to base everything we personally believe because some guy who calls himself a”scholar” tells us we have to believe the way he does. I have listened to them both and find Albert a little more discernible than Sproul on many issues. Albert Mohler has a terrific mind and truly seems to believe a main stream gospel I would hate to have to debate the guy. Sproul seems to believe that whatever he says has to be the final answer regardless of anyone else’s views. Well, I do not need to read their material to realize that I am going to have to come to agreement with the man to be considered a ‘Christian’. My relationship is based on my acceptance of Christ Jesus as both Saviour and Lord, not my belief in a “young Earth” theory or “old Earth” theory I certainly do not believe we came from monkeys, so please do not associate me with your false claims that I must believe in the “primordial soup” trash, if I do not believe as you do about the age of the earth. However, in a way I DO BELIEVE THAT WE WERE MADE OF DIRT SOUP; OR AT LEAST A MUD PIE! Yes, of course, God created us from the dust of the Earth and not from the so believed theory of, Primordial Soup. And God did it in His own time, not from an amoeba to a monkey and so forth, even though we do all act like monkey by the way we tear each other apart. Who made you a judge? Yes stand up for the truth, but without tearing down your brothers. YOu create a discussion climate of hatred that no one but toxic environment lovers can participate. You say you are standing up for Jesus by destroying the faith and strength of a man who calls himself a lover of the LORD JESUS. You really should examine your own motives a bit. I am not saying stop what you are believing and for sure preach it from the housetops. Unless God is the builder of your house it will not stand anyway.

    I want to redirect the discussion a bit. Instead of running off to other articles from this guy and that guy, Is anyone here equipped enough on their own to answer questions about the bible and how it relates to the world? Or do you have to go ask Dr’s Albert or RC? I personally am willing to talk to either of them about my belief’s. And my belief’s about the age of the earth are not important. My belief’s about Jesus are important. I listened to The young earth teacher, Kent Hovind, and he convinced me for a while, that the earth was young based on dinosaur data and the coral record and so forth. But I was thinking about the coral record being 4600 years old. What would that mean? That Noah’s flood might have taken place then? Probably so, so that shows the age of Noah’s flood, not the age of the earth. And yeah, stalagtites are formed in some cases in a short time rather than the evolutionistic time period given in most debates.

    I have looked in Genesis, chapter 2, vs. 4 and have to ask myself what that means. What does it mean? THe generations of the heavens and the earth in the day that the earth made them. Wow. How long is a generation? In the biblical book, God told Abraham, the father of the Christian faith that his family would be keep under hard bondage for 4 generations or 4 hundred years. In the new testament the bible says that the generation that sees all the signs given about the restoration of Israel as a nation will be the “generation” that sees all things fulfilled. So we all have been studying and listening to men like RC Sproul tell us when the coming of Jesus is going to be. We have waited and are still waiting on this to occur. Let’s face it, most of the so called, prophets have been wrong and it is clear to all to see and judge for themselves. I have been waiting for years based on assumptions someone or the other has made about His coming, even though the Bible tells us plainly, not to set dates. Maybe man and even good and honorable men, just can not keep themselves from setting dates. Even men who have built their lives off off having spiritual authority over other mens lives. Teachers and pastors call us unfaithful and not enlightened and rebellious and a host of other names if we do not believe exactly what they tell us. Where did this authority come from to rule over another man?Not from the bible. And any of you name callers want to find me a scripture linking me to the occult just because I question your self absorbed authority, please enlighten me with your wisdom. The bible says if you have real wisdom, then make your case, but if you are just in some type of strife and do not have wisdom to answer, then it says just to sit down and shut up. Forgive the words, but it does tell you to give an answer of wisdom or do not try to persuade others in the truth.

    I for one, am willing to accept the truth in whatever form it may be found. This does not mean to compromise on my belief system as a believer in the One True God and salvation through Jesus Only and no other. For every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father of us all.

    I have recently discovered dinosaur tracks and even a human hand print, 17″ x 17″, as well as human footprints all in the same river area which MArtin Lockley brushes off as impossible since it does not meet his belief system. I tried contacting many of the men you are talking about as wonderful men of God that is preserving the truth for all of us to bare and most of them have either been afraid to consider the possibilities due to increased pressure from the government, a so called young earth doctor who we all know. I have all the emails and contacts I have made stashed away. A large christian, old earth group would not hear the evidence because they had other priorities and it did not fit their agenda. Word was passed around the christian science organizations that I literally begged to substantiate or reprove my ascertations, but I was blackballed because my info might shake something up different than what they have been preaching. It is all about politics, either christian, young and old earth, or evolution. The bible tells us that we must believe to be saved, but it more accurately says that the people who are not going to be saved are going to perish because they did not have a love for the truth. So, forget what everyone is trying to tell you to believe and learn to believe for yourself. NOt what you believe about the age of the earth, but WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH JESUS?

    I talked with these guys you all know and they were either too afraid to help because they could loose tenor with their colleges, or too arrogant and proud to believe that a no body like me could have anything that they haven’t discovered themselves. It is not about religion or science, it is about both, but yet it is really not about either. Denying the truth would be more accurate from both camps. So stop fighting among yourselves and study for your selves. Not these guys writings but the bible. If you do not believe the bible then I am not writing to you, unless you are willing to believe the truth. If not then I am sorry for you. You can just sit out this one and laugh with your friends. Christ is coming to judge us all just as He promised He would. So learn to live in the fear of the Lord. Turn to Jesus and live and it is not based on the age of the earth, but upon the fact that Jesus Christ died on the Cross of Calvary, and that His shed blood will wash away all of your sins; you can be saved, become a member of the Body of Christ and then after years of concentrating your mind and thoughts on God Almighty and His Love and Mercy for you and all His Goodness for you, you can just ask Him about the age of the Earth and He will tell you in your heart and soul. Life is in Him and so are all the answers. Men are liars but God is True. Put your faith in Him, not Albert or RC.

    I was saved at 20 years old, did my best to live a Godly Christian life, lost my wife at 42 and just about lost my mind, but thankfully had three great kids that I had to keep moving along to keep and protect. I have had several years bible college and many years personally struggling with my faith. But most of all God has always been faithful to me and after it all, I love Him so. HE is love and has poured His love out on us all, and He expects us to love on e another, not argue over dinosaurs and who discovered the oldest rock. ANd yes rocks are still being formed from the stuff God made. No one is forming anything out of nothing, Only our Father can do that!!!!!!!!

    In Love because of Christ,

    Nathan Burgess

  25. Chris Barrett


    We probably should remind ourselves of the post that started all this. Mohler made at least five points:

    1. “What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today…is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old earth position…”

    (I think he is wrong on this: Most do understand the cost – hence the refusal to face the facts)

    2. “The position, seems… (to be)… an “insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel.”

    (He is absolutely right, but I believe there are answers)

    3. “The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high.”

    (Spot on)

    4. “The cost of confronting this question is also costly,…because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy…”

    (Just try it in a fundamental church!)

    5. “…, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility.”

    (Absolutely. I have just been reading the thread that came out of Carl Wieland seeking a debate at the atheists convention last year. Young earth views are doing more to discredit Christianity than almost anything else at the moment. It is frankly embarrassing)

    So, George, It is not a “red Herring”. It is very important. This is why most young earth proponents dare not admit what it means if these corals (or the heaps of other evidence) were really there.

    It is not just scientists who need to let the “facts be scrutinized”.

    John, about population. Your maths ignore population losses through the many and varied disasters and diseases, etc this world has lived through.

    You also assume that wonderful thing most young earth proponents don’t like: Uniformity. You are using it to make your case!!

    Just look at the population surge in the last 200 years and uniformity on THAT is out.

    The world and population you and I live in is very different to 1000 years ago, or two, or whatever. Humanity continues to evolve, especially in our new found ability to manipulate our environment and world.


  26. Elijah

    I beleive reality is between false scientists and false christians. For example Adam is 6035 years old haveing been created in 4025bc. This is derived from three facts. That Amizaduga’s Venus tablets end in year 2400 (1626bc) to predict 2400+3600 = 6000 and all chronologies prior to 800 AD recognize this in reverse in which they fix a year 3600 (3600+2400=6000). The years used are 1900bc and 1770bc and 1600bc, to name just four. As for natural elements, the nature of carbon-14 being toxic to DNA by turning back into nitrogen proves that aging is caused by C14 whether ti be angels before the Flood turning nitrogen air into human carbon bodies, or be it the removal of the water canopy so that 10-12 times more C14 cuts life by 10-12 times. The gap resulting is 18,000-20,000 years for everything before the Flood, and everything dead before 2030bc is thus stretched those false 18,000 years. This is why Jericho of 2237bc dates as 7000bc. But Ur’s tombs of 2030bc are rejected and claimed to be Egyptian 2321bc or even 5000bc.
    Potassium-argon already has its radioactive date by itself outside any corpse long before it clogs the pores of bones. To date it is like dating a plaster cast of a broken arm and concluding your arm has been dead for 4000 years. However, correcting the 70,000 max of C14 by the 20k and you have about 50k which implies the Renaissance theory of 49,000 years (7 days of 7000 years is correct). The fact that the stars were presumed to be Julian (1460 years of 365 leap days) while seasons 1508 years of 365 solar leap days, creates a 49,000 year precession before reality proved that the stars of the ecliptic is NOT the sothic Julian illusion of Sirius proving precession ins about 25,800 years not 49,000. But this doesnt mean the days are not a total of 49,000. We are talking about divine guidance via trial and error; our God either does this or he doesn’t. Thus C14 fits 49,000 yet i find no true curve yet for those who say all things were created in 144 hours before Adam. To the contrary, the layers of geology prove that man one-year global Floods occurred before Adam bringing down christening rain from the canopy, and baptizing the continents to build up more layers and raise them higher. The sea-life in rock is from previous Floods, while for centuries between Flood there was no rain so that man could truly say during 1656 years none had seen rain before, or it had not rained. As for sea fossils i have a question, how is it that evolution & creationists both say the records of layers show the creation order or evolving order when here thsy both also say their is sea life high in mountains. Does that not put sea life in higher elevations than mammal life. Is sea life merely pushed up high by forces, or are these sea fossils actually being formed above mammal life due to one of these global Floods? NOne of your writings ever address this. BUT as a Christian, I do address EVERYTHING.

  27. Peter Newland

    Chris, to use Norman’s phrase “when will you people open your eyes and see what is in front of you” – and not jump to conclusions to fit whatever your world view is. And, yes, that cuts both ways.

    We all have the same evidence. But evidence does not tell us age or history. We have to interpret the evidence. All interpretation is based on assumptions that can’t be proved unless you have an eyewitness. Even with eyewitnesses we need to accept or reject their testimony (on faith?). For example: prove your own date of birth scientifically – it can’t be done because you can’t measure or experiment on the past – you have to have faith in testimony that your birth certificate is not forged or in error.

    But what IF there was fossil coral when Noah landed 4 or 5,000 years ago and if it is on top of 8km of older sediment? That does not indicate when the sediment was first laid down or how long the coral took to form and fossilise. What does the evidence actually show?

    Tas’ site, and others, give numerous examples of massive deposits of more or less flat parallel layers, which long-age geologists claim are many millions of years old, but do not show anything like the sort of erosion a reasonable person would expect if the millions of years were true. So the evidence includes evidence that appears to contradict millions of years.

    Similarly, there are numerous cases where radiometric dating gives ages of millions of years for volcanic eruptions known to have occurred in the last 50 to 500 years. And what about the coal and diamonds that are claimed to be millions and billions of years old yet contain radio-carbon which should be undetectable if aged more than a million years.

    So, the millions of years look very shaky and are counter-indicated by the evidence. So it is quite reasonable to seriously consider a younger age of the earth.

    And what about mankind? If we had been here a couple of million years, then we ought already to be extinct. After all, our mutation rate has been measured to be at least 300 mutations per person per generation. Since the deleterious mutations are usually so small that natural selection can’t eliminate them, and since the rate of good mutations, if not zero, is so small that the rust-spots of minor bad mutations accumulate to the extent that we should be extinct by now.

    Hmmm! The Bible says Adam lived for 930 years. But now we are fortunate to make 93 years. That sound like a significant reduction in genetic fitness in only 6,000 years – so it’s unlikely we’d make another 60,000 years without going extinct.

    Chris, do you believe Jesus? If so, why not believe Moses as Jesus indicated we should? Or did Jesus get it wrong?

  28. Bill Collins

    Dear Mr Walker,
    you sent me an email to which I respond. I normally don’t get into these creationist debates, but you have invited me in, so I will give you some time. I am a geoscientist; a student of Earth history, and a protector of scientific principles and integrity.

    You claim your debate is about geology, evolution and the age of the Earth. As part of your debate, you often give internet links to creationist views of geology and geological principles. I will refute these and in doing so, provide some of platforms of why some “compromisers” are “embracing the secular narrative” that the Earth formed billions of years ago, and that we evolved from apes.
    First of all, you claim that modern uniformitarian geologists seem paranoid of the Bible…. Not that all, they just record geological measurements and make observations, and rationalize the evidence into theory. It is not their worry if observation and measurement conform to the Bible or not; that is your worry. Indeed, you are the paranoid one about geology!

    You also claim that geologists will not generally acknowledge Steno’s biblical beliefs (Steno being your self-appointed geological pioneer). Going though your interpretations of Steno’s work, I note that NOT ONCE does he use the word creation; he is focused on the link between Nature and the Scriptures. It is you that place a creationist spin on every sentence he scripts. You twist Steno’s work to suit your own biases.

    Why should geologists acknowledge Steno’s biblical beliefs, anyway? To geologists, Steno’s beliefs are irrelevant; it is his observations and interpretations that are under scrutiny. But this is not unusual, nor discriminatory; all scientific work is constantly evaluated and re-evaluated by a skeptical scientific community. That is the nature of science, and this is where it diverges most strongly from religion. You guys simply HAVE to believe you are right.

    Unfortunately, creationist religion comes from a stance of unqualified assumption (belief) that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. “It’s a commitment to the truth” you say!?!??! Therefore, everything else that challenges this belief is incorrect, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. The point by Mohler, about the “insoluble collision with the historical narrative of the Gospel” also shows your irrational stance. This is not a debate you are having: a debate requires rational thought on both sides followed by discussion; instead this is a re-assertion that you are right, and all others are wrong.

    Funny that creationists say scientists are driven by the need to be funded, or to be politically relevant, rather than letting the facts be scrutinized. What are these facts? No geologists I know, and I know more than most around the world through my work, cannot be bothered by this creationist non-debate. Certainly, none do not, and cannot, use it to gain funding from any respectable funding agency. It is a “peripheral storm in a teacup” for most of us, and only surfaces as an issue when emails like yours are sent to people like me. Really, we have more important work to do.

    And I am happy for anyone to scrutinize my work. Indeed, I have over 50 papers and over 3000 citations of my papers, so my work is well scrutinized. Instead, let the false interpretations of science by creationists, and all their so called facts be scrutinized! So ironic is the reality that science is so open to scrutiny, but creation science is underground, circulating within a crowd of believers, and never in mainstream journals. This is simply because creation science derives its principles from unsustainable assumptions that are based on biblical interpretations.

    But I must also respond to your quote: “Let it be known that the situation concerning the age of the rocks is still the same today—the age of a rock cannot be measured independently. The age quoted is based on philosophical assumptions framed to give the desired answer.”

    This is blatantly and mischievously wrong. The book you quote gives a view of the struggle and mistakes to find the true age of the Earth. But to use that quest to claim that geological age determinations are based on “philosophical assumptions” demonstrates intellectual shallowness, ignorance, or possibly deceit. Which one is it? For someone who claims to be a scientist, you must know that modern age measurements are based on determining the ratio of radioactive parent isotope and daughter products, combined with the rate of decay of parent to daughter. All the relevant isotopes are precisely measured today, to parts per billion or parts per trillion; incredibly accurately and with no assumptions made. Rates of decay are so constant that they are used to build the most precise clocks on the planet, the atomic clocks. And the proof of the pudding is that several decay systems can be measured to yield the same answer for the age of the Earth, including Uranium to Lead, Samarium to Neodymium, Rubidium to Strontium; all systems totally independent of one another. No assumptions there!

    By the way, someone list the “many facts that indicate a young earth”.

    Finally, the reason why many Christians “have been embracing the secular narrative that the universe and everything within it evolved by naturalistic processes over billions of years, including humans who evolved from apes” is because they are being EDUCATED. They are gaining knowledge of Earth history showing it is 4,500 million years old; they are learning about the Human Genome project, they are reading that 96% of human DNA is shared with apes, etc., etc. This embracement of the secular narrative comes not from people who are putting down religion, but from people discovering facts about our wonderful planet. Indeed, those same Christians are being smart rather than steadfastly, irrationally holding on to allegories and legends that were written before Christ was born, by people who had only snippets of ancient knowledge about our wonderful planet.

    And if such education throws your reason for living into disarray, find another reason.

  29. Chris Barrett

    Hi Peter,

    I think you missed the point. Where could the 8000 meters of older material have come from? Please, you tell me.

    And, how long would it have taken for the corals to form? Is it possible even in your wildest dreams for it to form IN the flood, AFTER having the flood dump 8000 meters of debris beneath? Of course not.

    So, these fossil corals PREDATE the flood. Read the link I posted.

    I deal with those fossil reefs etc as discussed by cmi. These are Fossil CORALS. And unless someone can explain where the 8000 meters came from in a near perfect world – in just 2000 years – the “what if” is blindingly clear I thought.


  30. Chris Barrett


    Just reflecting on your point re proving my birth date.

    You are right, I cannot prove it, but that is a red herring. I am around the 50 mark, but if you met me and I told you I was 5, you would have enough observational evidence to know I was pulling your leg. Your observations could place my age within a few years.

    Forensic evidence, eg bones, joint wear, dental wear, skull bone structure etc, could fine tune that even more. So, yes, I can’t prove my birth date, but you could prove that I am around the 50 mark. Your illustration proves the wrong point.

    I can in fact measure and experiment on the past, by careful observation of what is. Ahh..but that’s uniformity. Yes, exactly what you would use to prove I am around 50, not 5. Observational evidence based on uniformity. It works.

    Let’s face it: coral reefs grow incredibly slowly in our world today. And really, only blind Freddy would suggest that this cannot be used to measure and experiment on the past.

    We have to face it. If there are fossil CORALS where Noah landed – they grew before the flood. If there is kilometers of matter underneath them. It WAS there before them, and before the flood. NO if’s, NO buts.

    Nothing but TIME can explain its existence. And a lot more than 2k yrs

    As Norman said…take a look from the hill and there is enough observational evidence to suggest this world is OLD. VERY old.


  31. Denise Porter

    It’s sad to read the supposed ‘educated’ comments for the old earth position —–the lack of substantive argument & obvious ignorance of the position of young earth science linked with & upheld by Scripture/truth ————-not to mention the ignorance on the immense difference between the self-evident truth linked Bible & other ‘holy writ’ that is relativist & unprovable. Biblical faith is not blind faith—there are good & satisfying–substantial– reasons & evidences for the hope that we have.

    The majority of men —or the might or duplicity of the most powerful amongst men—-does not determine truth today & never has.

    It was the ‘educated’ who led the people to reject & hang Jesus on the Cross for the ‘greater good’ —the original pragmatic social justice gang. ‘Better that one man should die than a nation,’ they said…All very ‘high ground’ & pious sounding, I’m sure. Yet they seized him in private & in the dark & gave Him a rushed, unjust trial before truth/laws redefining judges. Sounds almost contemporary doesn’t it?

    Of course, it wasn’t the ‘nation’ that was imperiled by truth: but just the turf of the ‘enlightened’ who were trusting their traditions unchecked by God’s Word, and the managing elites who refused to humble themselves to repentance, making themselves equal in need to those sinners they saw as ‘inferiors’.

    Nicolaitans. How it must have infuriated their self-righteous arrogance to hear that the ignorant tax collectors & prostitutes who humbled themselves to repentance would enter heaven before them!

    All of the pagan ancients inflated their chronologies & exagerated their greatness in a cacophony of confusion & competition. Among them: the Bible stands utterly unique & alone. Authoritative.

    Evolution, reincarnation, castes, sexual depravity, child sacrifice —all go hand-in-hand & in harmony with occultism & pantheistic/panentheistic shamanism, as well as with humanistic paganism. They are also compatible with the arbitrary ancient materialism that Epicurus & Lucretius promoted by sheer will and with absolutely no evidence. They were simply looking for a ‘way’ to avoid the humbling discomfort & reality of conviction…and materialism was what it took: so ‘voila!’. Man- created, flexible, convenient, ‘evolving’ morality.

    Though, of course, we should never forget the reality stated in Ephesians 6 and the powers that are ultimately responsible.

    There is nothing ‘new’ about new age scientism/gnosticism & selective truth selection. Post modernism is just the futility of relativism —not some ‘new’ wisdom. Erasing all the lines —moving boundary stones—-pretending there are no distinctions… Those who are lost are lost because they do not love the truth & so have no compass, or solid ground beneath their feet & their ideological edifices. Society declines as men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, create false religion-philosophy-ideologies, reaping & sharing the folly & suffering of needless decline & judgment.

    The interpretation of Scripture was as plain then as it is today. But then, as now, experts had redefined it to fit their humanist ideas, goals & desires —and so not only missed the clearly evidenced Messiah when He came as the Lamb due to their mangling, subjectivizing & syncretizing of the Word, but they also refused absolutely to see or to hear when He sought to teach & to warn them. Instead, taking offense, they continually tried to trap Him through use of their preconceived ideological addendums to Scripture, rather than bowing to the Way God had clearly revealed to them first in His Word –and then in the person of Christ.

    We’re not so different today —also needing His grace to receive truth & salvation. But if we reject that grace given to men by ministry of the Holy Spirit through the testimony of His Word –what then is left to us?

    Will the Lord find saving faith on the earth when he returns as King of kings & Lord of lords? Or just the presumptuous ‘faith’ of those trusting in human strength, traditions & the basic principles of the world rather than in the sufficient & completed work of the Creator & Savior of mankind?

    The Bible is utterly unique in its message & its chronology. Anyone who studies it & its history seriously will not be fooled by naysayers & reinterpreters —-nor by compromisers & infiltrators seeking to ‘steer’ Christianity into the ancient ecumenical fold of the Baals. Those who seek Him with their whole heart will look where He told us to look –and they will find Him–and not some fake Baal-lord ‘jesus’ which will dance to the tune they play, in harmony with the flesh & all the other ‘lords’ on a foolish pleasure trip to Hell.

    Those who truly enter in at the narrow gate to Life remain —-no matter how many continue on in the broad way to destruction. We have been clearly warned about the great delusion that is so powerful that it might deceive even the very elect: were that possible, and they not providentially protected & sealed. We’ve been warned of those who mock the Flood & say that all things continue as they always have & always will: as though there were no beginning or meaningful history.

    We must all examine ourselves soberly to be certain that we are in the faith.

  32. Tas Walker

    Hi Bill,

    Concerning your comment of 7 February 2011 at 12:28 am:

    I don’t have time at the moment to respond to all the content of your post. Just one comment: You said:

    “they just record geological measurements and make observations, and rationalize the evidence into theory. It is not their worry if observation and measurement conform to the Bible or not; that is your worry. Indeed, you are the paranoid one about geology!”

    I’ve seen geologists in the field arguing over the interpretation of an outcrop. These sorts of arguments have been reported in The Australian Geologist becasue it is regarded as a bit of a joke. The reason creationists look for ways of explaining the evidence in a way that is consistent with the Bible is because the Bible records the truth. It’s a truth issue. Creationists are the true skeptics when it comes to geological interpretation.

    If the Bible is true then you would expect the biblical way of interpreting things to provide insights that the other way does not. Indeed, that turns out to be true in practice: Planation surfaces, rivers that cut through mountains, evidence for catastrophism, rapid formation of granites, mega clasts, flat contacts between formations, lack of scree on steep escarpments, etc. During my time at the university I would often notice insights when others were describing some geological mystery.

    You say it’s not your worry, but it is vital to everyone. If we dismiss the serious message of the Bible because you think geology has proved it wrong, when the Bible is true all along then … (See Morality and Ethics Q & A.) That is part of the motivation for this site, to get people like yourself to pause long enough to reconsider some of the ideas that you have just taken for granted because you learned them at university.

  33. Chris Barrett

    Bill Collins,

    Thank you for taking the time to share that with us.

    I think I will depart this discussion for a while. When it gets to the kind of peripheral detail of Nathan and Denise, I think we have left the arena where any sense can be shared – if it were ever possible anyway.


  34. Warwick


    You say you believe God is creator. Of course as a Christian you surely must! But you say you believe “He did it differently” obviously differently than His account in Genesis 1. If you believe in other than 6 24hr-day creation you do not get it from Scripture.

    Genesis 2 is not a different conflicting version of creation simply because it is not a creation account at all! Why: because it doesn’t mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc. Genesis 1 conversely is a chronological account of the whole of creation.

    Genesis 2 is man-centered, recapping the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in Ch.1.

    Further as recorded in Matthew 19: 4-6, and Mark 10:5-9 Jesus combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to say man was made at the beginning of creation and that Adam and Eve became one flesh. No suggestion there that He, the Creator, thought they were two conflicting versions of creation.

  35. Warwick

    Tas, I agree that God’s word should be our authority, not the changing opinions of men. What Bible-believing Christian would ever be embarrassed to admit that he unreservedly trusts God over any man.

    God’s word tells us that a chosen virgin conceived and Jesus rose from the dead, both supernaturally. But science would tell us that neither are possible. By faith I believe that God, who was there, who makes no mistakes, and cannot lie is always to be believed over any man, all of whom God says are fallible and sinful.

    Most of us here are old enough to bring to mind the passing parade of scientific ‘facts’ now sidelined by new information which showed them false. A parring out parade.

  36. Dallas

    For those that would like to hear Albert Mohler and his address to the Ligonier 2010 conference that caused the rumpus.
    Free video at this link.

    I found it most compelling, this is a black and white issue, if you want to sit on the fence as a grey person then your destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ, and I should know having come from theistic evolution and being a schizophrenic Christian for 25 years. God switched on the light once I connected fossils and Noahs flood as the cause. I couldn’t sleep for days because of that revelation ! I don’t mind being a fool for Christ, he told me to expect it if I follow in his name.

    BTW the Ligonier web site has lots of other teaching and bible studies material well worth investigating.

  37. Dr Edlic

    Concerning a straight forward reading of the Bible, it is equally important to note the dangers of making the bible ‘say’ what it did not say. More than often, we are tempted to read our own theology into the biblical text. Many who are of the ‘young earth’ persuasion, would believe in a literal 24 hours/day six days creation…That seems to be what Genesis 1 is saying if read in isolation. If one would read Genesis 2, this whole idea of 24 hours/day 6 days creation falls flat. So most of the proponents will try to somehow fit Genesis 2 time scheme into Genesis 1 to support their teaching. A careful reading of Genesis 1 and 2 would tell any honest bible student that the 6 days cannot be taken literally as six 24 hours period. By the way, how sure are we that a day = 24 hours? When does the 24 hours = a day concept actually started? If God created the universe in 6 billion years or six seconds is nothing to Him because God is not confined by time and space… 6 billion or 6 days or 6 seconds is the same for Him since He is not limited by time. In short, we should be aware the idea of 6000 years old earth can be likely traced not to geology/science but rather dispensationalist ideology that attempt to fit human/creation history to a 7000 years time frame with the New Heaven and Earth at the end.

  38. Tas Walker

    Hi Dr Edlic,

    Your comment of 8 February 2011 at 11:04am:

    I don’t know where you get the idea that Genesis 2 contradicts creation in 6-days. Is it the claim that Adam could not have named the animals in a day? Is it the claim that Gegnesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1? See: Naming the animals and Genesis contradictions. Also, the construction of the text makes it clear that the days are of 24 hours. See How long were the days of Genesis 1? Exodus 20:8–11 makes it clear that creation took 6 days, and Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that it happened about 6,000 years ago. The idea of a 6,000-year-old earth comes directly from the Bible; it is not read into it.

  39. Peter Newland

    To Chris,

    Sorry, I left a loophole. Let’s close it (and expose some holes in your challenge):

    “If there are fossil corals in Egypt and Israel that were there the day Noah landed, and those corals sit on top of 8000 meters of older geologic column. I don’t care what anyone says: That is hard evidence. Nor does it matter how “skeptical” someone chooses to be over whether they are in fact fossil CORALS – IF they are. Noah’s global flood and a young earth are dead. And THAT IS based on an observed past. Documented in the Bible.”

    Chris, you may have hard evidence, but your faith in your interpretation of the evidence is breathtaking. For example: Can you prove there were fossil corals in Egypt and Israel the day Noah landed? Can you prove coral could not form rapidly after the flood – where ‘rapidly’ could even be hundreds of years in this context? I’d say you can’t prove either claim because your interpretation of the facts is based on assumptions that can’t be proved. Hence your challenge fails.

    Clearly you have missed the point. You seem to trust assumptions rather than Genesis – even though Moses reports that God wrote with his own finger that He created the heavens and the Earth etc in six days and hence the Israelites were to observe the Sabbath day. And you still haven’t commented on Jesus using belief in what Moses wrote about earthly things as indicative of whether people would believe Jesus. Was Jesus wrong?

    Chris, how do you answer this from atheist Richard Dawkins:
    “Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!”

    And atheist Frank Zindler says:
    “Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”

    And since you have produced no hard evidence that logically compels me to believe your assumptions, I’ll stick with my assumptions that the Bible is trustworthy narrative of history from day-1.

  40. Bill Collins


    You say “The reason creationists look for ways of explaining the evidence in a way that is consistent with the Bible is because the Bible records the truth. It’s a truth issue. Creationists are the true skeptics when it comes to geological interpretation.”

    Don’t you see the lack of logic in your comment? If you think you come from a place of “truth”, as all creationists think they do with the Bible, you are not skeptical about geological observation and measurement, you just don’t believe it. In real science, we are always seeking the truth, as opposed to believing the “truth”.

    If this a truth issue, there is no debate here! It’s just people pulling their best phrases from Biblical verse to assert their beliefs….. Read most comments above. It’s just grandstanding. That’s not science.

    And you havn’t said anything to refute my comments on geological age determinations of the Earth, something you need to do for your scientific credibility!

  41. Peter Newland

    Hi all,

    The age of rocks can’t be known with any certainty unless you know, from observation or history, when it was formed. This claim is NOT “blatantly and mischievously wrong” as Bill C asserts.

    While the isotope ratios can be measured precisely, there is no way of checking: what was there to start with; or, how much has migrated in or out of the rock since it was formed. Hence all such dating methods must rely on many assumptions re what the conditions were over the whole life of the sample. E.g. groundwater moves uranium and changes the parent-daughter ratios. Similarly, argon, a daughter gas of some decays, diffuses through rock and hence the potassium argon method is affected by how much the argon has diffused.

    Despite such problems with all radiometric dating methods, Bill C claims: “No assumptions there!” Bill’s ‘proof of the pudding’ needs a reality check by simply checking if such methods give reliable results in cases where we can test them against known dates. One reality check is to take samples from lava flows of known ages and have those samples dated by several radiometric methods. It is not uncommon for the dates to be not only different from each other, but different from the actual age by orders of magnitude.

    So if dating is wrong when it can be checked, why believe it when it can’t be checked?

    Here I note the silence when I pointed out that carbon dating of coal and diamonds gives quite young ages yet most geologists ‘know’ that coal and diamonds are millions or billions of years old because they trust in their other dating methods.

    Bill C asked: “By the way, someone list the ‘many facts that indicate a young earth'”: try And I’d add Fact#102: the fact that there are any life-forms that still exist and have not yet gone extinct. This fits the Biblical model. But if humans had been around for millions of years we ought to have gone extinct, just as all other life should be extinct if the measured current rates of genetic decay has applied for a billion years or so.

    The problem? Evolution just hasn’t got any feasible answers to the origin of life; or, to how simple life allegedly became complex. On the contrary: natural selection eliminates rather than creates; while mutations damages rather creating new types of biological structures. As for 96% similar to apes: I note that the figure keeps coming down – and so what? Perhaps we are 50% similar to bananas because we need to eat food with a similar bio-chemistry.

  42. Tas Walker

    Hi Bill,

    Your comment of 8 February at 1:16pm:

    Your statements come back to you. We both start from what we think is true. You start with the belief that the world is millions of years old and interpret your observations that way. Are you ever skeptical of that belief? Have you ever considered the possibility that there was a global Flood and how the evidence would be explained by that scenario? If not, then the charge of “grandstanding” and “that’s not science” would also apply.

    Concerning radioactive dating, you said the current isotopic ratios can be determined incredibly accurately. I agree. You said that the present rate of decay for various decay chains can be measured accurately. I agree. You then said, “No assumptions there”. Wrong! You have to assume the initial composition of the isotopes in the past. You also have to assume there has been no gain or loss since then. And then you have to assume that the decay rate has always been the same. And, the reason why different measurements from different experiments agree is because of the final step that has to be made in every geochronologic measurement: the result has to be interpreted. Interpretion is the step whereby the geologist adjusts his assumptions about the past so the the calculated answer agrees with everything else it has to agree with. See The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods.

    Bill, in the interest of “debate”, as you mention, I’ll be happy to come to your geology department at James Cook University and make a presentation to you and your coleagues and students. After the presentation, I’ll answer questions and engage in discussion on this issue with whoever wants to talk, but we will need an hour for a presentation and an hour for discussion. Let me know what you think.

  43. Chris Barrett


    Against my better judgment, I’ll respond to this key point:

    “…you may have hard evidence, but your faith in your interpretation of the evidence is breathtaking. For example: Can you prove there were fossil corals in Egypt and Israel the day Noah landed? Can you prove coral could not form rapidly after the flood – where ‘rapidly’ could even be hundreds of years in this context? ”

    The answer to both is YES!

    1. Can I prove there were fossil corals in Egypt and Israel the day Noah landed?

    Here’s what Tas had to say about the landscape of Israel after the flood:

    “I agree with what you say about the landscape in Israel in Abraham’s time being much the same as it was at the end of the Flood. Yes, that landscape was formed by the global Flood especially during the Recessive stage.”

    The corals I am pointing out are many meters above current sea levels. Which leads to point two.

    2. Can I prove the corals could not have grown rapidly? Ahh, ummm since when could coral grow in the air? There was no ocean there!

    Honestly, if I don’t stop typing now the absurdity of this will lead me to say things that might offend you…

    NO, my certainty in my interpretation is not breathtaking…the absence of common sense is… The corals were there HIGH and DRY.

    btw…if you think the corals are bad, go to the end of my page and I have added stuff on the diapers/salt domes. I found it incredible.

    Go to the section at the bottom titled: Two Billion Tons of Salt


  44. Warwick

    Chris, I have waited patiently for you to address my refutation of your 2 accounts of creation claim. And 24hr day creation. But silence. I take it that you have nothing to say.

  45. Warwick

    Norman, I have just noticed your 5th February comment about Darwin taking us up a hill. I believe Darwin has lead mankind (including many Christians) down the garden path to a dark pit he had excavated. Darwinism gives us nothing except pointless existence and situational ethics. It has introduced darkness and confusion into the minds of many Christians who now do not know what to believe. Conclusive proof of that exists on these pages.

    All around us we see a society turning away from God and as a consequence descending into confusion and paganism. As, Chesterton said-When men stop believing in God it is not that they believe in nothing but that they will believe anything.

    Conversely God has given this once God hater, love, joy, health, peace, faithfulness, and even a little patience and kindness. And a fantastic pension-plan for the future. No personal contributions necessary. Norman this free offer is available to you, but the offer does have an expiration date.

  46. Chris Barrett


    Oops…I didn’t really think the point warranted a reply. Just making a statement as you did proves nothing.

    First I should remind you what I DID say:

    “…Genesis 2 the “other” creation account that contradicts the first one, and which we ignore.”

    Note “other” – I am not saying there are 2 accounts. I was pointing out the contradictions in them. They do pick up points from each other, but if we take them both literally there ARE things that don’t fit nicely together.

    You said:

    “1. If you believe in other than 6 24hr-day creation you do not get it from Scripture.”

    The 6 day 24 hours is an interpretation which does not fit the observable evidence – Therefore, I prefer to change my interpretation rather than deny the facts of the world around me. There is so much information about the earth today, that only the ignorant, uninformed, or dishonest cannot see it. Yes, I know you don’t see it, but the more stuff I read fro Answers in Genesis, and even sites like this, the more I boggle at the nonsense some people do believe. Since when did God want us to lie for Him?

    You say:

    “Genesis 2 is not a different conflicting version of creation simply because it is not a creation account at all! Why: because it doesn’t mention the creation of the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, land, sky, sea creatures, creeping creatures etc.”

    That is weird because my bible in 2:2 introduces the section with “This is the account (generations) of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”

    Sounds like a creation account with heavens and earth to me? And, yes one that compliments the other, but if pushed to literally it contradicts. I actually believe Moses, or the writer of Genesis, gathered his information from sources. When I studied Hebrew as part of my B.A. Th. we translated these passages, and the text structure is so similar to formats used on other ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets etc. So, in reality, I suspect they are two accounts pulled together by Moses. It is no different to the flood story – a little borrowed.

    You say:

    “Genesis 1 conversely is a chronological account of the whole of creation.”

    Yes, it has a chronological flow, but that does not mean it was intended to be taken literally.

    You say:

    “Genesis 2 is man-centered, recapping the creation of the man and woman, providing details not provided in Ch.1.’

    Ok – a recap? That may be so, but it still does not remove the problems, and it does not prove I should read the 24/7 literally.

    Let’s take it as complimentary: we have a land with no rain, no plants yet grown, rivers or springs flowing up over the face of the whole land to water it, no man to look after the land, and no mention of animals until after man?

    I thought that each 24 hour day, when completed, had produced all the things specified for that day? You know…when God wanted animals, at the end of that day – presto – animals!

    But no, I see in chapter one that it was actually the LAND that was commanded to produce or bring forth the plants, and animals etc. (yes, at this point He is saying they had yet to grow) And it seems from chapter 2 that God actually plants a special garden in Eden, but again, verse 9, He made them grow out of the ground. Again slow process? While he is growing His garden, so too is everywhere else still getting started!

    God said to the land bring forth animals and plants – And I look around my world and I see that is exactly what the land did. As God commanded – it brought forth life! Wow! Anyway..I think my point is, this illustration of God’s hand in bringing this world to what it is, cannot be pushed too literally, or one must end up believing what is physically impossible for this world. Young lie, young earth. Blind Freddy can see this world and life is ancient.

    You say:

    “Further as recorded in Matthew 19: 4-6, and Mark 10:5-9 Jesus combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to say man was made at the beginning of creation and that Adam and Eve became one flesh. No suggestion there that He, the Creator, thought they were two conflicting versions of creation.”

    No problem. He was addressing the creation of Adam and Eve, nothing else in the verse was being discussed. To argue this as proof of a sequence or 24/7 is in part an argument from silence. Was he addressing that point? Not that I can see.

    I think this kind of point is one of the reasons I wrote my web page noted above. You and I could argue this point forever, because both sides are hard to prove. How long is a piece of string etc.

    But, I come back to it: If those fossil corrals, and salt domes are in Israel, Egypt and Sinai – then every thing Under them is OLDER. If I am honest enough to admit that, I must challenge my interpretation of the flood and creation stories. Simple really.

    Seriously…of all the young earth posters here is there EVEN ONE who has had the courage to face the force of this bible proven landscape and the rock hard evidence of fossils and salt etc? NO.


  47. Peter Newland


    I’m still amazed that you can claim that there must have been was fossil coral “the day Noah landed” – and to claim support via a quote from Tas that refers to about 400 years after Noah landed. Neither you nor I nor Tas is infallible, and I would not base my case on anything that directly contradicts the plain meaning of the Bible – especially where a reasonable explanation can be given: e.g. there could have been reef formation and significant uplift sometime in those 400 years.

    Chris, the discussions posted above show that you haven’t come to grips with what the Bible actually says. So please have look at the arguments again. For example:

    1. If the Bible is on the same level as other religious writings, then Christianity is not special: so why be a Christian?

    2. If the Bible is wrong in Genesis, how can you refute Dawkins who says that it is ‘barking mad’ to believe Genesis is wrong and to believe in Jesus as saviour?

    3. Similarly my point re Jesus believing Moses and holding him up as someone to be trusted. So why do some Christians refuse to believe Moses?

    4. You have ignored my point that carbon dating of coal and diamonds directly contradicts the long ages usually assigned to them by evolutionists.

    5. Similarly my point re radiometric dating of lava often being grossly out, when it can be checked. So why believe radiometric dating that can’t be checked?

    6. Also the link above to “many facts that indicate a young earth”.

    7. And my points re all life should be extinct if current rates of mutation and net genetic decay has been active for millions and/or billions of years.

    8. Warwick’s point that Genesis-1 does not contradict Genesis-2 as you wrongly claim (ignoring the fact that the Genesis-1 grammar demands a strict sequence while Genesis-2 does not).

    Chris, I was a Christian even though I couldn’t answer the above questions. I’m glad a knowledgeable atheist didn’t get the chance to demolish my faith before I learned the truth. So please keep searching – I’ve been there, done that:

    I became a Christian after uni (Engineering) and marriage. For the first 5-10 years I believed in billions of years of evolution that God had organised. I happily defended long ages. Gradually, as I read about evolution, I realised that evolution just doesn’t compute with reality let alone the Bible.

    Then I read about these crazy creationists who believed there was no death before Adam and that creation was in six days 6,000 years ago. But the more I read, the more I realised that it made logical sense – and it agrees with what the Bible actually says and with the hard evidence.

    But, to double check, I subscribed to atheist Eugene Scott’s anti-creation “Creation/Evolution” magazine – apprehensive that it might rattle my cage and destroy my faith. On the contrary, their arguments had so many holes, poor logic, and misrepresentations of creation arguments, that they confirmed my suspicion that the creationists were right!

  48. Chris Barrett


    Thanks for taking the time write all that info.

    Have you read the information on my link? What you say suggests not.

    If you had you would have seen that Tas was simply agreeing with my point about Abraham.

    There is AT MOST 30 years between the flood end and the first clearly identifiable point in time before Abraham. 30 years. Where can you get 400? I also deal with uplift!

    As I have suggested before, discussion is pointless.

    You hold pretty much the YEC view as you state:

    “…I would not base my case on anything that directly contradicts the plain meaning of the Bible – especially where a reasonable explanation can be given.”

    EVERYTHING must be forced into that presupposed “plain” meaning.

    I respect your other points, but they are all built on the belief that what I have said about corals, salts, etc is false, and that your “plain” reading is right. So, obviously – even if my points are true, because they don’t fit your presuppositions they are denied.

    Just wait, it will only be time and we will see more “reasonable” explanations pop up from AIG or Tas as to how fossil corals and salt domes can be where they are – and it will satisfy the crowd.

    Btw you talk about Dawkins, I also address some of that on my site. Read it, please, before you make such points.


  49. Chris Barrett

    YEC readers…

    We are here courtesy of Tas, and in response to a Blog he posted, plus, by the looks of it, a point I made.

    I was responding to key points made by Mohler. I have watched the video.I have followed every link placed in this thread, and a thousand others. I have preached and taught YEC. I have researched extensively, I have had to face what I see – this earth is old and so is life.

    I do not depend on, nor need to believe ANY of the evolutionary dating methods. So arguing over them is pointless. I don’t need to depend on exactly what came first, or second, in the column. All powerful evidence though, that cannot be denied.

    Please, don’t waste Tas’s space, or keep on at me unless you have read my link because it does away with the point of arguing over so many things. Coral and Salt is there or it’s not. If not, fine keep arguing over how long a piece of string is! It they are there? Be honest.

    It is time we spent more effort finding an answer to the “insoluble collision” that Mohler spoke of, instead of living in denial and searching for “reasonable” answers.

    So, if you want to discuss Mohler – do it without me. If you want to argue with me – or save my soul – read my site first and save me getting tired of peripheral debate.



  50. Warwick

    Chris, you are trying to duck and weave your way out of what you wrote “Oops those first 4 points are from Genesis 2 the “other” creation account that contradicts the first one, and which we ignore.” Now you write “I am not saying there are 2 accounts.” How can say there is “..the other creation account…” and at the same time claim there are not 2 creation accounts. There was a green car in the car park, and one other car- but there are not 2 cars? Nonsense.

    As I said Genesis 2 is not an account of creation as it does not describe the making of the creation.

    Further you say that Genesis 1 “..has a chronological flow, but that does not mean it was intended to be taken literally.” In reality is is a chronological account of the creation from nothing to completion period.

    I do not take Scripture literally but at face value, unless there is some good reason not to do so. And in contradiction to what you write there is nothing to suggest it should not be taken at face-value, as historical narrative. In Fact Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to the first 11 chapters of Genesis 107 times, and always as historical reality. If you disagree provide Scriptures where they treat it as poetry, or allegory or…

    As regards my point about Jesus comments in Matthew and Mark your comments make no sense. Jesus made a statement about a very serious reality (marriage),in one sentence combining a reference to Genesis 1 and 2 with no hint they were two different and contradictory accounts of creation. Would you agree He is in a unique position to know what actually happened at creation? Of course you must. And He had the OT didn’t He and called Himself the truth but allowed what you call 2 contradictory accounts of His creation to remain in His Scripture without telling us the truth? Unbelievable!

    I wrote “If you believe in other than 6 24hr-day creation you do not get it from Scripture.”

    To which you replied “The 6 day 24 hours is an interpretation which does not fit the observable evidence.”

    And here is where you give yourself away. You reject the clear meaning of Genesis 1 regarding day-length (which is confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11, and 31:14-17) because it “does not fit the available evidence.” As it does fit the available Biblical evidence you are saying your authority is not God’s word but the changing opinions of fallible sinful man.

    Romans 14:23 is a principle which speaks to people such as you “….and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” The whole of Hebrews ch. 11 tells us that the man of God is a man of faith in God, and His word. But you are not, as your authority is not God but man. But God says ” This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.” Jeremiah 17:5

    I think it fair to say your attitude to Scripture (especially Genesis 1-3) is summed up by “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

    Chris, I am happy to know an increasing number of people who once thought as you do, but who now take God’s word as written.
    I do not hate or reject you but utterly reject your man-centered approach to Scripture. Taking this path has lead many away from saving faith to scepticism and liberalism. Sadly it is a ‘slippery slope’ from which few return.

  51. Peter Newland

    Chris I’ve skimmed most of your site including the coral and salt stuff – very wordy with lots of ifs – tentative interpretation based on assumptions. If you are so absolutely certain you have the answers to prove Genesis wrong, then why all the iffy assumptions? And why not follow your own advice and “be a little more humble in your assertions, and a little more open to the possibility you are wrong.” So far you have ignored many of the points above that indicate a young earth but fixate on coral and salt.

    OK, I missed the point – it was not Abraham’s dating that is relevant. The relevance is the landscape when Noah landed. But your assertion is WRONG that:

    “If there are fossil CORALS where Noah landed – they grew before the flood. If there is kilometres of matter underneath them. It WAS there before them, and before the flood. NO if’s, NO buts.”

    But there are ifs and buts! Kilometres of sediments is what we EXPECT to be deposited during a global flood: That’s one of YEC’s main claims – with lots of evidence to support it!

    Also, you can’t be certain whether there were, or were not, fossil corals there when Noah landed. Firstly we know that fossils can form very rapidly. Secondly, after the flood the earth’s outer crust would have been much more plastic than it is now (witness the many sharply folded rock structures that are now brittle). Hence only an omniscient person (a know all) can claim to absolutely rule out rapid coral formation, fossilisation and uplift near or within a few decades or centuries after the end of the flood. There is no reason this would necessarily have changed the geography enough to make the region unrecognisable or uninhabitable. Seems like it was also associated with salt dome formation while everything was still relatively soft and pliable.

    Chris, in reading your site etc, I’m intrigued! Who are you? You strongly object to YECs; you are sceptical of Global Warming (I agree!); you sell EyeGym (alternative therapy for poor eyesight), promote natural treatment for cancer and bushmedicine; etc, all in Australia with your name and email address and pointing to the site you list above. Seems you have eclectic interests! Do you apply a similar degree of scepticism to the claims of the products you sell that you apply to the Bible?

    Although you say you have preached many sermons re creation, I haven’t seen anything on your posts or sites that indicate your Christian affiliation or statement of belief, or where you preach, or posts of your sermons. You say you believe in God but not what you believe. We know more about what you don’t believe, than what you do believe. It seems you are not the 58 year-old married Chris Barrett who was ordained last month in the Catholic church in USA. So who are you? Sincere Christians can believe in Evolution (I did once) but I don’t understand how a ‘sincere Christian’ can regard the Bible as being no more reliable than the books of the Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus etc.

  52. Chris Barrett


    I’ve decided to comment. Tas take it out if you want .

    Point form:

    * Why “ify” assumptions? I’ve used the subjunctive a few times, only once was it really intended to be taken as a “doubtful assertion”. In English “if” can be taken as indicative, not subjunctive.

    * Why not follow my own advice – be more humble? Well I guess that’s why I use the “ifs”. I’ve tried to balance between the two.

    * I only ignore points re young earth because most all of them fail when placed under scrutiny.

    * I “fixate” on coral and salt because its in an area that has Bible account history, therefore it undermines the over used, anti “uniformity” argument.

    You say there are “ifs” and “buts” re the coral being there.

    * Yes, I know YEC’s support there being lots of deposition. But NOT under a fossil coral reef. IF that reef was on dry land immediately after the flood, it is a whole different story as to having lots under it!

    * I can be sure there were dry coral reefs there after the flood because your two points are incorrect:

    * Coral does not grow rapidly. 20 or 30 centimeters a year is relatively rapid, but no where near enough to explain the, at least, 20 plus meters there are..

    * True, we cannot absolutely rule out rapid formation, uplift etc, but given the window of at most 30 yrs, it is EXTREMELY, and it does not fit the biblical descriptions/picture of the land. It would change the landscape, so why try to force an explanation that is so unlikely?

    * Yes, if there were (subjunctive) a global flood we could assume some areas were more pliable. However this is a catch 22 with the salt domes, because for salt to be trapped under heavier material requires it to be firm. So to have the pliability AND the salt domes is a bit of an oxymoron.

    * Who am I? It should not matter really. I did about 15 years in Pastoral and similar work, but have now retired from that because of health etc.

    * The eye gym grew out of my need. I am a highly analytical person, and seek solutions to any need. The eye program helps me, so I make it available to others.

    * Maroon bush is the same. my Sister introduced me to it, as it was growing on their farm. It changed my health dramatically, so proof’s in the pudding.

    * Am I eclectic? No, I do have a wide range of interests. I have done gold mining, stock mustering, designed and built my own 25 ft alloy cabin cruiser, designed and built my own 800 m2 greenhouse, repaired written off cars for myself, trade the forex, write my own expert advisers, and I could think of more. You get the point.

    * I apply scrutiny to every facet of life. Most of us think we think, but don’t know we don’t know half what we think we do!

    * My affiliation should not be an issue.
    * I don’t preach right now because my church, like many others, can’t handle an old earth view.
    * I don’t post my sermons on line. Thought of it, but that’s all.
    * Yes, I believe in God, for this context I thought that was enough.
    * You actually know a lot about what I believe:
    I believe in God. I believe in Jesus.
    I believe in an old earth and old life.
    I believe global warming is not primarily man caused,
    I believe evolution does not do away with God.

    Are you sure you have not just seen the negative side of what I’ve been saying?

    * I hope I am a sincere Christian. I understand C.S Lewis, perhaps my favorite author, believed in an old earth, old life, Jesus as Savior, and the Bible as an inspired source or book. So, if to Dawkin’s, or you that makes him crazy, I am happy to be called crazy.

    * When did I say the Bible is no more reliable than the book of Mormons etc? I don’t believe I did?

    I think that is every point?


  53. Tas Walker

    Hi Chris,

    In your post of 5 February 2011 at 2:57 pm you said, “I challenge ANYONE reading this: show me they are NOT fossil corals. And I dare other Christians to admit what it would mean if they were or are!”

    They look like corals to me, but until we have a careful look at the geology of the area where the corals are found we can only do a preliminary interpretation of what they mean. I looked up the article on your site and checked the link about the tour of the Western desert of Egypt ( This is what it says about fossil corals, which you quote on your page:

    The Great sand Sea south of Siwa oasis is scattered with fossils of several different types and shapes. In some depressed sites among the sand dunes few rests of petrified wood and fossil coral reefs can be found as well as fossil shells, whales, sea stars and sea urchins.

    It is interesting that the fossils include “petrified wood”. That suggests that the environment was not a normal sort of coral reef but included both terrestrial and marine remains.

    Then it talks about whale fossils and you retell the story that “the creatures were coming into a bay area for calving over a long period of time”. But whales do not preserve in a bay area under normal conditions. These fossils suggests rapid sedimentation, otherwise the remains would have been scavenged.

    I noticed too that that the fossils are found near the Siwa oasis, which is in the far western area of Egypt (, beyond the left-hand edge of the map on your article.

    I found a geological map of Egypt (here), and in the area around the Siwa oasis there are two geological units that could contain the fossil corals (Tm and Te). Te is the more likely unit. This is described as:

    Thick marine limestone with chert and minor claybeds form high cliffs and plateaux overlooking the Nile between Esna and Cairo. The limestone is partly exposed along the Sin el-kaddab scarp and further west where it forms most of the plateau to Darb el-Arbab’in, also exposed in the Kharga scarps and plateaux and in the Farafra and Bahariya areas. It covers most of the central part of the Western Desert, the high cliffs and plateaux of Hamadat, Duwi, Esh el-Mellaha, El-Galalas and Ataqa in the Eastern Desert and El-tih and ‘Egma in the Sinai. Clastics prediminate in the upper Eocene of the Cairo and Faiyum areas.

    This geological unit forms the scarps that lead up to the plateaux, which is consistent with the images on your site, which shows a picture of the corals breaking out of the limestone units in the escarpment and making their way down the slope.

    It is a very widespread unit, and apparently quite thick, considering that it covers the high cliffs and plateaux. That suggests to me that it is a Flood deposit, not a post-Flood one.

    There is a lot more I would want to look at, such as how much material was eroded from the surface, a geological cross section and descriptions of the different units. I would want to know what other fossils are found in the strata becasue that would give clues as to whether the deposits are typical of a reef. I would look for indicators as to how rapidly the sediments were deposited, how thick the different units are, and the size and orientation of the clasts, which would indicate something of the flow conditons. I notice that the geological description says “clastics prediminate”, suggesting flowing water carrying significant sediment, including large clasts.

    My prelimiary assessment of the limestone unit(s) containing the corals is that it was deposited during the Flood, not in the post-Flood period. I suggest that it was as the floodwaters were rising, which is the case with most widespread sedimentary deposits on the continents. But I would want to look at more geological information, especially the shapes of the landscapes (geomprphology) to help understand more precisely where the unit fits within the Flood sequence.

  54. Chris Barrett

    Hi Tas,

    Thanks for your note. Interesting to see the results of your research to date. I did try to follow the library link, with no luck yet.

    I also wonder that if this were during the rising flood water, as with your preliminary suggestions, how we would explain the significant column beneath that level? ie when and how would it have been placed to the depths it is?

    Also, I think the presence of the salt domes needs to be kept in mind when forming an assessment of the corals.

    As you can imagine, to form that much salt would require the “evaporation” or “condensate” or similar, of close to 50,000 cubic kilometers of sea water. That’s given that it was similar salt content as today. It couldn’t be much more, or nothing would have survived. That’s also assuming that it was flood waters. I believe it was evaporated in that valley over a long period of time. In which case the volume of water required would be the result of inflows/inundations over time. etc.

    If it were the flood that deposited the salt, then it would need to be explained how so much salt can condense into one specific spot – out of waters which presumably continued running off into deeper ocean basins. (snelling), and that in the latter stages of the flood, and generally after the water had receded. ie after the rift is said to have opened up, because the salt can’t get in there until that point – late in the flood.

    re coral and wood. I have actually contacted one of those tour operators, seeking some more photos and information on some places.

    I agree, in that particular location, the fossilized wood is an indicator of terrestrial and marine environments, but this can fit either flood or old age scenarios. I understood the wood to not be incorporated in the corals, but in the same region. and that it represented different time events. In the case of a flood interpretation, the wood would need to have fossilized since the flood I guess. With the old earth view it would represent vegetation/trees prior to the areas desertification, and subsequent to the era when it was ocean.

    I think the areas near Sinai, and the Peninsula have a difference on that point.

    On the whales, I think the information suggested that there were several layers of fossils, with distinct “age” or “type” differences with lower levels. So, if the flood was the singular cause, a rather unique sorting process took place, or if over time, it does allow your point re rapid burial to be included in possibilities, but allows for other reasons for the rapid burial too.

    Anyway, I respect that someone has actually put aside our differences enough to do some fair analysis.


  55. Tas Walker


    You said, “how we would explain the significant column beneath that level? ie when and how would it have been placed to the depths it is?” The geological units beneath those sediments are listed on the geological map. They include Cretaceous, Jurassic and Carboniferous sediments as well as other Paleozoic depoists. Note that there are also lots of volcanic deposits listed for the area. Virtually all of these would have been formed during the first half of the Flood as the waters were rising although some of the very late volcanic rocks may have been emplaced as the waters were falling. The Flood was a huge tectonic catastrophe involving water and lava. Flood deposits are thousands of metres thick.

    For an example of how the geology of an area can be explained within the biblical framework see the article about the Brisbane Area, Australia, where I live. Note especially how the mapped geological deposts are explained within the two different interpretive systems. See also this article by Mike Oard which relates the geological column to the Flood event. Note his comment on how the geological column represents a general Flood sequence, but that it is unevenly distributed on the continents. Most rocks on the continents were deposited as the floodwaters were rising.

    Salt deposits have been described as ‘evaporites’ becasue it is assumed that they deposited from the evaporation of sea water. That is a very old idea and has lots of difficult problems including the extent and purity of the deposits. I think is is more likely that the salt deposits are of a magmatic origin, similar to the other volcanic deposits in the area. This article explains how that works.

    Concerning the ‘sorting processes’ you mentioned, yes, the Flood did generate an order to the fossils that were overwhelmed. However, we really need to have more information about the arrangement of whale fossils, their state of preservation and what other kinds of animals and plants were buried with them. Your mention of whales reminded me of this article, How did over 300 whales, porpoises, turtles, seals, fish, and land animals such as ground sloths and penguins end up being catastrophically buried together? It would be interesting to see if the whales in Egypt had a similar sort of fate.

  56. Chris Barrett

    Hi Tas,

    Re the geologic map, I understand all the layers you speak of, YEC interpretations. Similarly with the Brisbane area, & the Oard link. All offer an interpretation through YEC glasses.

    It is the same old “how long is a piece of string”. We could go on forever, as I look at the very same geology and see old. It is always possible to interpret something differently, especially when viewed in isolation.

    I don’t really want to get into a point for point re the column, particularly elsewhere, because I honestly think most the YEC stuff on it is poor, and their interpretations are a stretch to the imagination. Hence I would rather stick with what’s on top of it in Israel, Egypt Sinai etc. As I’ve said, we know the landscape at a clear point in time through Scripture. Nowhere else in the world is like that.

    You may have noticed on the geologic map the Q. Raised beaches and corals of the Red Sea. Significant areas. I suspect my coral pictures are just the tip of the iceberg. .

    Re the whale valley. The link you provided on 300 wales etc.

    I note the actual team doing the research “… favour a post-Flood shallow marine environment. They suggest the whales and marine vertebrates died when a massive bloom (multiplication) of diatoms, thickened by lateral water currents, poisoned the water.6 There is no evidence that the whales beached. Ash from volcanic eruptions could have provided the nutrients for a diatom population explosion.”

    The presence of shark teeth in the bones of the whales no doubt played a part in this view. Clearly, this type of event could have occurred any time in an old earth time frame. It actually fits better, and shows similarity to whale valley.

    Their other offered explanation, early flood and diatom burial similar to chalk is a long shot. The YEC chalk theory is an extremely dodgy explanation that is not illustrated by any physically possible occurrence in nature.

    I also read the material on salt domes and volcanism/magma. The article is purely hypothetical, because the volcano he uses as an example produces carbonatite, not salt. There are no known volcanic occurrences of salt in the nature he speculates about. Why would we explain away the salt domes on the basis of a volcano that spits out something else, and one that does spit out salt has never been identified elsewhere?

    All his arguments about purity could be explained by partial melting and separation by specific gravity of impurities etc. Not saying it is so, but it’s no more speculative than his unsubstantiated guesswork that has no extant example. I actually think that at the moment there is no better explanation than evaporitic.

    I’m sorry Tas, I actually thought we were entering into genuine dialog on the possibilities, but these seem like a bunch of re-runs!. Though I must say the Q on the geo map is of great interest, as you can imagine. Actually the whale info also leans toward supporting a non-flood event, so provides a nice explanation for whale valley if one chose.

    Back to the basics. Are they corals? If so, is it possible they formed in the flood? Not that I can see. the time between initial inundation (too high turbulence for corals), and regression and tectonic upheaval is very very short. And there are potentially meters and meters of corals!

    Anyway, I’ll leave you to it. Interested to hear what validated material you come up with.


  57. Peter Newland

    Chris, (written before reading your Feb 13 7:16 post), from what I’ve read, on your site and on sites you recommend, plus your advertising of unproven alternative therapies for sale as the main use of your site; this all suggest that your accusations against Tas apply more to you than to Tas, viz:
    “dogmatically directed, scientifically miseducated, simply confused, or intellectually dishonest. … of questionable integrity”.
    If you wish to continue the thread, I suggest, if Tas approves, that you specify your religious beliefs, affiliations, qualifications etc. Frankly, I’m not convinced that you are genuinely what you imply you are.
    If you are Christian, my apologies and please enlighten us. For example do you believe Jesus is the divine creator who became a man, was crucified, and literally rose from the dead? If not, your claim to be a Christian is not valid.
    See for a good non-denominational specification of what I believe.
    After you have established that you really are a Christian, please explain how you counter Dawkin’s ‘barking mad’ claim ( Then you could address the issues raised above re evidence that is inconsistent with the Earth being millions or billions of years old. If we can do this with logic and good humour we might all learn more.

  58. Nathan Burgess

    To all and Tas and Peter also,

    I sent Tas this personal email because he does not respond to my comments online. I will add the response I got from him as well.

    Tas, you are a great geologist, no doubt; but your doctrine needs to be checked. You should be willing to show us doctrinally why you believe as you do according to scripture, not just your geology, which I am learning is extensive. But it does not take a geologist to be a christian.

    And Peter, who are you to be so rough on Chris with your, “Who are you questions”? I did not know this was a forum for you to evaluate Chris’s faith!! Who are you? What is your faith based upon? Are you a christian? What church do you attend? Get real dude!!! You are not the judge of another man’s faith. If you try you just prove more inaccuracies in your own life. Sorry for you!!

    Well Tas, how about the scriptures? Not your geology!!! I do respect your knowledge as a geologist. I do not respect your applying your geology above good theology.


    You sound like a committed guy. Thought you might take a look at these photos and let me know what you think.

    I was saved in 1977 and have always been a 6ooo year creation believer just like I have been listening to the false prophets tell us Jesus was coming. Jesus is coming and will come just as planned as HE said He would. There will also be a rapture of the people of God and many try to convince of us of their beliefs. Many have been injured from these theories, as well. We are not to set dates but they press for dates based on their 100% positive ideas of the case they present. Many of those good men have been ruined as a result of their failures or outright lies about the scriptures. Just food for thought.

    I have been listening for 33 years. I have seen them come and go. Why are you any different. All of them thought they were correct. You believe you are correct. Your stand on creation is noble and will not hurt Christians, even though it might very well keep hard liner humanists from entering the kingdom due to your groups insistence that these people line up behind your belief to be a Christian, however unspoken those words may be, they are felt loud and clear.

    My issue with 6k years does not come from a belief in evolution but from the scriptures. We know how old the days of Adam were from the fall to his death because we are told in the scriptures. We do not, however, know how many days he lived prior to the fall. To believe Adam and Eve ate from the tree the same day they were created is a little to difficult for me to ingest. And God’s character has never been one of anything quick. Even miracles that Jesus did that seemed to be quick and instant, took many years of suffering by those individuals that were healed and raised from the dead. Lazurus died just a few days before he was raised from the dead and so was Jairus’s daughter ( a shorter time). God’s character does not compel me to believe He would do anything instant in the realm of Man. Only salvation is Today, and it has been in the making since before the foundations of the earth were laid. I am not an unbeliever and my reason is not a result of evolution theories of which I know little about, but His Word. If you return to the Word of God, you will do well. Men are liars, and mistaken at best, but the Word of God abides forever.

    The truth is, Adam did indeed die spiritually the day he ate that apple/fruit of the three just as God said he would and he began the process of dying physically which concluded over 950 years later, but we do not know all the days of the life of Adam, just his death cycle. I think it is a great topic to get people interested in speaking about the things of God, but we seem to think our data is more important and imperative than theirs and just chase them off. Use the forum to grab the people not chase them off. Your offer to do a class was a cool offer, but your agenda is to prove your case and it is obvious. We are to stand for the Truth, not a subjective truth of this world. We are not studying truths, but have come to the knowledge of the Truth. I know you know these things.

    Thanks for sending me the link and please keep up the work. It is inspiring. However, if you personally can give me the word of God without sending read only files I would appreciate being informed. But if you can not do so because all you believe and know is from someone else’s writings, please let me know and I will understand you are a novice and simply a student of some man or organization and not a student of the scriptures which will make this easier to understand. I am sorry that my words seem a little heavy but it is very important communication.

    Thank you

    Nathan Burgess

    PS The photos are all from the same river. A large claw print 8″ x 6″. A large trackway, to me appears to be human; 17″ x 17″. A live Pterodactyl track.; track, not trackway is 20″ x 18″. Different tracks but same print. Martin Lockley found a 70 million year old PTERODACTYL track according to his reason, (wicked reason). They can recognize the old one’s but deny the young one’s. This print is fresh. These birds have been spotted by several people in the area. I found the track. But people are skeptical, believers and unbelievers. Everyone seems more set on proving their theories than looking at a live track. Crazy stuff. I was stuck in it too. Just like believing George Bush was a good president. I took up for him for years, just to find out he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Check out HAARP if you want to know from where your bad weather is coming. Maybe, Haiti, Iceland, New Orleans, the birds dying and many other supposed natural tragedies are the result.

    Just a note
    I offered the tracks to the 6k year folks.

  59. Nathan Burgess


    Thank you for sharing your site with me. I added a comment. In love, and I do sense a sincere compassion from you.

    Thanks again,

    Nathan Burgess

  60. Chris Barrett


    I believe in Jesus, and there is no sound evidence inconsistent with an old earth.

    Please, don’t bother baiting me again. There is no point you and I trying to discuss in good humor. I don’t harass you over who you are, and question that you are a “sincere” Christian because I don’t agree with you. You are being downright rude.

    Cheers and farewell to all

  61. Peter Newland

    Nathan, and Chris, I’m sorry Chris feels baited. No offence meant. What we believe is relevant. I’ve specified my beliefs above in sufficient detail so that you can see where I’m coming from: in particular the nature of God and who Jesus is and what he did. Chris has not done so.

    For the record: I’m in active and committed fellowship with a local Christian congregation of a well-known denomination. I regard myself as a Christian rather than as being a Denomination-Xer.

    We are left guessing what Chris believes. What does he mean when he says he is a Christian and that he believes in God and Jesus. He also believes that we need to re-interpret the Bible, and from what he writes he is estranged from a “fundamentalist church” and has declined to identify whether he is currently in fellowship with any church.

    Now if someone is misled, deceived or confused, I have a duty, in love, to try to get them back on the right track. I believe that’s what Nathan and Chris are trying to do. That’s what I’m trying to do, however imperfectly. To fail to do so, is to be indifferent to the fate of those we believe are in error. Sometimes it is necessary to ‘tell it like it is’ – ‘faithful are the wounds of a friend’ in that an enemy won’t care if we are on a road that he thinks is leading us to disaster. This may be uncomfortable, but it is intended to be helpful to you and others who read this thread.

    If God is omniscient, omnipotent, loving and just etc, then a Bible that needs reinterpreting because man was allegedly the result of a very long process of evolution, means that God created by a process of death disease and destruction and then happily or ignorantly allowed the Bible to tell us lies – and blame us for sin and death and then had Jesus tortured to save us from what God himself caused. As Dawkins says: “barking mad”. That directly contradicts the nature of the God I believe in: it contradicts the Jesus who died for whomsoever would trust in Him. So it is very relevant WHAT Chris, or anyone, believes about the Bible, God and Jesus.

    It is also relevant to how we decide what is satisfactory evidence re what we believe is true. Here it is relevant that Chris believes in the products he sells not because of rigorous testing but because of personal anecdotal experience. Now placebos and acupuncture produce good results in some cases, but I for one will not trust in them. So it is reasonable to point out that Chris applies different standards of proof here to what he demands of Tas and YECs.

    Nathan, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Adam’s 930 years didn’t start at day-6: “So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died” (Gen 4:5). It doesn’t say he took 930 years TO DIE – it says he LIVED for 930 years. It is totally irrelevant that Adam may have lived for the first d-days or y-years of his total 930 year life before the dying process started. That idea comes from outside the Bible.

    Back to Chris who claims “I think that is every point?” No Chris, you haven’t answered my numbered points 3 to 7 above. If you care about the truth, you should be willing to explain why you: “only ignore points re young earth because most all of them fail when placed under scrutiny.” OK, then: explain how they fail! Ignoring the issues won’t help educate anyone.

  62. Nathan Burgess


    I liked these comments better than the ones before. You toned down your rhetoric a bit. Good job.

    However, you are basing your truth on your own good works of being in a “good denominational church”. Mormons and Hindus are in a “church” too, regardless of right or wrong but they would be glad to accept your argument that your stance on YEC is correct based on your church attendance, but not good enough for me. I am glad you are doing so but there area lot of people doing the same with a lot of different thoughts on the age of the earth.

    I am happy to accept the fact that you want to help people come to an understanding that God created the earth and in your opinion He did so in 6 days and rested on the seventh, but I do not see it that way. I can not say for certain that He did not do it in a specified 6 days, but it just does not appear so to me.

    I asked you to create a basic understanding from your viewpoint of a time grid for a typical day on the 6th day and how everything that was created and what order of activities occurred during that 6th day. I do not see how even God produced all the things on day 6 in a 12 hour evening and even with the 12 hour day.

    If you can just give me a time outline of the 6th day activities and how you see those activities occurring, I would appreciate it very much. YOu sound pious but not very convinced of your stance about a 6/24 day creation. You never use the word of God in your conversations on this site, nor Tas, just geological data. I am not a geologist, just a bible college student, so all your data and articles does not make any sense to me.

    I don’t believe in Evolution, only creation. I know very little about Evolution and do not agree with much of what I do understand, however, some of the science that has been discovered is very interesting to me as a person who believes as God as creator. Many findings, in my opinion prove Creation, the problem with unbelieving Evolutionists, is that they are trying to disprove the existence of God, as Creator, and therefore use the data in a way opposed to good reason, regardless of faith. For this, I am sorry for these people because they are blind. Yet, I am sorry for you as well, because you are trying to use informational data to prove a 6/24 day creation ro disprove the evolutionists so you are missing much wonderful data to prove creation to try to stick to your theory that can not be proved under any circumstances.

    For example, It does not tell me anything about 6 thousand year old earth based on an accumulation of sand or salt any place on the earth; the earth was covered with water before the dry land appeared and the accumulation can be ex[lained to a older earth creationist simply by understanding that the appearance the the dry Earth could be the answer for the coral fossil or sand dunes or salt accumulation even at the tops of mountains meaning it did not have to occur during the Deluge at Noah’s day.

    I think it is neat to understand that “banded Iron” was probably created during the time the earth did not have an atmosphere and no oxygen. Afterwards as oxygen was created by the planting of grass and the trees with the trees breathing in the CO2 from the earths creation and in this manner oxygen filled the firmament of the earth during the process of providing an atmosphere for God’s main creation event, MAN. MAN was the object of creation and everything had to be prepared properly ffor him to be able to have the proper environment to breathe and live.

    I am just learning after 35 years of being a believer in Christ Jesus. I have been taught how to believe all these years but I am now learning to learn from God. I am sorry if you are still being lied to on a regular basis but I am beginning to learn from God’s Spirit as He said we were to do in the gospel of John and 1st John. Teachers are good, but we are all taught from the same spirit. 1st John says we do not need teachers but are to learn from the spirit. I know teachers are in the church for good, but all have the same spirit so teachers are to stay on certain scriptural issues and not argue over vain things which does not lead to wholesome activity.

    I believe we can discuss YEC or older earth issues if we can do it under a descent and in order forum. When we associate it with being a christian or not, or calling people names from some attitude of superiority, then we have to end the discussions and move on, with or without the dust on our shoes.

    I did not really catch where Chris was saying anything that led me to not believe him when he said he was a christian, I am not his judge. I do see where you ran him off from the discussion with your attitude. Jesus would not have done that to him, why did you? And even after he said farewell, you seem yo have to get in the last word.

    Geology is good, but if you wield it as a weapon like the Evolutionists, how are you different from any of them? Geology has never made anyone a new creature in Christ Jesus, so why to you try to sell it like it does. Chris talked more about God’s word than you Peter and he only attempted to suggest that the fossil corals might tell a little different story than you are attempting to tell. So immediately, you attacked him. Not good Peter!!!! YOu should apologize to him and everyone else for those wrong comments. Then allow people with a different view to speak, especially when they are confessing Christ Jesus as Lord. And even if not.

    Try showing me and everyone else what the word of God says about a 6/24 day creation and then show us your geological proof and allow others to examine your belief from the word of God and your geological data as well. But you have not presented your faith from the word of God as i can tell from reading this blog, only geological evidence why in your opinion should be a sufficient explanation of a 6/24. I for one would feel a lot better if I herd your explanation from the word of God. YOu may think this is too simplistic of an approach and has to be more complicated by adding 6k years of geology to the equation, but I like the word to build my faith and be mentally stimulated by a good geological understanding, but on this site I have learned the only way I can become a christian is to believe the earth, this big dirt ball we live on, is 6k years old if I want to become a christian. That is what you accused Chris of as I see it. Sorry Peter. You can keep your 6k year faith to your self. It does nothing to bring a lost soul to salvation through Christ Jesus, only a stumbling block.



    I will be glad to answer your points Peter. Send them to me!!! Be nice Buddy.

  63. Warwick

    Nathan it is not anyone’s opinion that God created in six days, that is what His word says in Genesis 1, and confirmed elsewhere for example in Exodus, 20:8-11, 31:14-17. You will search in vain for any other time-frame. If you say He did not create in 6 ordinary days you are not getting this from Scripture. You may think this a hard-nosed comment but it is the truth.

    As regards using geology as a weapon that is the way many evolutionists use it, to convince people the Bible is not believable. Countless students have had their faith undermined at school and university by the evolution-centered teaching of geology. And of course biology and other disciplines. And this (as I have experienced)by people who delight in destroying the faith of young Christians who have no answer. They have no answer because their churches have failed to teach Scripture as revealed truth and have not taught their members why evolution is a belief, not scientific reality. They think it doesn’t matter and if they do comment about it in church claim Genesis could mean this, or that, but anything other than what it plainly says.

    I have had decades of experience in these matters and have met many students who had lost their faith. Happily I have seen many of these turn around when the truth was explained to them. And I have also met those who have had their faith strengthened (and many others who became Christians) after they were shown the lie of evolution and the truth of Scripture. But maybe you think some here are too assured of their beliefs, and maybe too passionate in their stance. However this is a battle in which we are engaged, a battle for the eternal life of countless people. I do not and will not apologize if I am also seen by some as being to passionate or committed. I would refer you to the comments of Jesus and the apostles regarding the way in which they described those who opposed the truth of God’s word.

    Contrary to your comments I have not seen anyone here say that belief in 6 day creation is necessary for salvation. I was saved without believing this. However I am deeply thankful that soon after being saved I came across the Creation Science Foundation (now Creation Ministries international) and through them came to understand the truth of Genesis creation and the lie of evolution. This aroused in me a rock-hard faith and a passion for evangelism which has never waned. Since then I have seen many others have their faith explode in the same way, and for the same reason. Using ‘Creation Evangelism’ I was able to penetrate the closed mind of an activist atheist who soon after gave his life to Jesus. He is not in Christian ministry. And praise God for that.

    I must go as dinner awaits, so I apologize for any errors of haste which I may have committed.

  64. Peter Newland


    The Bible says God wrote with his own finger in stone that in 6-days God created the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them and rested the seventh day (Ex.20:11) – and you write ‘but I do not see it that way.” So who is wrong? God, Moses, the Bible or Nathan?

    You doubt that all the events reported to have occurred on Day-6 could have fitted in 24 hours. Nathan, you make it very hard to be gentle! So do you believe that if you can’t envisage it, then God couldn’t have done it? That’s a very limited view of God. Tas gives an outline showing that it is easy to believe that it all fits in one day. See: .

    Nathan, you wrote: “You never use the word of God in your conversations on this site, …”. Yet I explicitly quoted Genesis 4:5 above re Adam’s age at death; and I alluded to Proverbs 27:6 – “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” in my post above.

    It really would help others to understand any future posts you (&/or Chris) choose to make if you clarify your beliefs. To me it seems as if we are using different dictionaries re what is a Christian etc. Let me explain:

    You wrote that you are: “… a believer in Jesus Christ.” Good! But please explain more. Neither you nor Chris have spelt out what you mean by that. For example, most historians believe in Jesus Christ as a real person who once existed – but often those same people do NOT believe that Jesus is God Himself who was crucified and rose from the dead and who said: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me” John 14:6. We can believe in Jesus the man who lived once about 2,000 years ago. Or we can believe and trust (or reject) Jesus as the risen saviour who: was before the world began; is now; and who will come again.

    Similarly, we can believe in God. Good! But is our God omnipotent, omniscient, loving and just? If we doubt the Bible accuracy and the power of God, to do what the Bible says He did gives, then that gives the impression that our ‘God’ is neither omnipotent, omniscient, loving, nor just – i.e. somewhat wimpy. When we believe in a god like that, that is illogical and inconsistent – which justifies Richard Dawkins’ jibe that we are “barking mad” (see my 8Feb 1:13pm post for more detail).

    Please Nathan, I’m not trying to be superior, I just think that (you and Chris) need to look at your beliefs and check if they are consistent and logical. If you or Chris don’t like that, I’m sorry – but I do NOT apologise for drawing the inconsistencies to your attention – that is simply doing my duty.

    Finally, I fully agree with Warwick’s post above. I too “was saved without believing (the 6-day 6,000 year YEC position)” but it took me several years of reading and study before I slowly moved to believing what the Bible actually says about the timetable of creation. That’s why I too am passionate that we must do everything we can to prevent people rejecting Jesus as Saviour and Lord because they wrongly think that Genesis is nothing more than a pious myth.

    So please don’t give up searching. I’m trying to be nice!

  65. Mike Nelson

    By making young-earth creationism requisite to Christian faith, the young-earth church is closing the church door to millions of the lost. Much like the Pharisees of Jesus day, the young-earth creationists have imposed a higher standard for true faith than Christ called for. No where in Paul’s ministry work did he require that saving faith be predicated on a proper understanding of Genesis 1. He stated clearly that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). Saving faith was intended by God to have a simple understanding so that even a child could be saved. As Paul again said, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor 11:3-4). Like the Judaizers in Paul’s time, the young-earth creationists (YEC) are trying to create an additional standard for salvation and proclaim it loudly to the world as orthodoxy. They do this knowing full well that there are many committed born-again Christians who do not agree with them. I am one of a few Christians working in the profession of geology. I understand the way in which science is done in the field of geology and where the weight of evidence is in regard to the age of the earth and development of life in the rock record. God has not planted evidence to mislead us or confuse us. The laws of physics that God implemented provide the tools by which we can understand how he made the universe and life on earth. So as scientists we unravel the mysteries of how God accomplished what he did on this earth. Scientists can explain very well the rain cycle and how rain falls to the earth; I can confidently say to my colleagues that God is the author of this process. But if I were to say that rainfall is entirely a supernatural process without scientific explain because God must each time say before it rains, “Be a mighty downpour” (Job 37:6), then I have created a barrier in their minds to the gospel that is not of God. Forcing a literal interpretation of Job’s affirmation of God’s authority over a natural physical process, I force a lost soul to accept or reject God on the basis of what I deem to figurative or literal in a Scripture unrelated to salvation. The same holds true for those insisting that their literal view of Genesis 1 is requisite to true Christian faith. The YEC’s do this knowing full well that there are many other passages of Scripture that they accept as figurative.
    There is a good fight of faith to be fought, but this is not the one God calls us to.

    Reply by Tas Walker, 18 April 2011:
    Hi Mike,

    You are not correct. In fact, I can use your argument against you: “By making an old earth a prerequisite for doing geology you are doing geology a disservice. You do this knowing full well that I am a qualified geologist who does not agree with you. I understand how geology is done and appreciate that like a pack of cards, it is built on soft foundation of unprovable assumptions about the past.” So, there you go!

    Note I’ve not said that you must believe in YEC to be saved. What I do say is that you cannot hold to an old-earth position and have a logically consistent Christian worldview. You say the earth is billions of years old but that also means that death and suffering has been around for millions of years. In other words death and suffering has nothing to do with the actions of Adam and Eve. So, you have logically undermined the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:21–22). Check this article to understand what our position really is: Can compromisers really be saved?

  66. Mike Nelson

    You have lost sight of our calling to win the lost to Christ. The age of the earth is not to be an issue in regard to the winning our souls. But the YEC folk have made it an issue of orthodoxy and in doing so they strain at gnats while swallowing a camel. The sad fact is that YEC’s have become the modern-day Pharisees. Like them, YEC’s are unable to see that they have become a world unto themselves, separated from the world by doctrinal walls that only cut people off from hearing the gospel. “All that counts is faith expressing itself through love”

    Response by Tas Walker
    See the article God Science and the Age of the Earth to understand why long ages destroys the “faith”. Every major Christian doctrine depends on the reality of biblical history. Absolutely we preach Christ but remember that Jesus Christ is the Creator.

  67. Patricia Dube

    I suppose in today’s community of Christianity, never mind the world, that Jesus Christ would be deemed “unchristian” or “unloving” in His approach or manner.

    Remember He said, I did not come to bring “peace” on the earth but a sword. Today’s Christian ideology is that we are always to be soft spoken and never to make waves but I believe active Christianity does just the opposite. Yes, we are always to have a motivation of love but do you suppose that Jesus’ motive was any less than loving when He brought out the whip and turned over the tables in the house of God? What about when He called the Pharisees “whited sepulchres” or “generation of vipers”? When He warned the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, would He be rebuked today and told not to talk about them behind their backs or not to be judgemental? How about John the Baptist was he unloving when He said, “who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” What kind of an approach was that?

    No, I think there is more to love than the milk toast, compromising Christianity we have allowed into our churches. We let the world beat us done and dictate to us what and how we should talk to them. Not many John the Baptists getting their heads chopped off because they spoke the truth about immorality to the king. Preachers don’t want to tell their congregations they shouldn’t be living together because we want to give them time to grow. How about a thief who gets saved? Do we give them time to grow and let them steal awhile longer? Let him that stole steal NO more.. no compromise there.

    I guess my point has been presented. The Bible is God’s Word and we need to stop compromising it for the world. This doesn’t make us better witnesses. It makes us weak. Our foolish manmade traditions actually stop the power of God from working, not only in our lives but also in the lives of the people of the world. We need to make a stand so the Paul’s of this world will be “pricked” in their hearts and get saved. I am not all about preaching about sin but I am about not compromising with it!! BE NOT CONFORMED TO THIS WORLD BUT BE TRANSFORMED BY THE RENEWING OF YOUR MIND. The world needs the unadulterated Word of God preached. Let’s get back to that.

    I for one want to stand before my Lord and hear the words, “Well done thou good and faithful servant enter into the joy of the Lord” rather than “Depart from me, I never knew you!” I don’t want to be left standing outside with an empty lamp.

  68. Edward MacGuire

    Point on radioactive dating and a comment on evolution:

    The rate of radioactive decay is based on the value of the strong nuclear force which is one of the constants of this universe; if the strength of the strong force were to vary even a small amount, this universe would be a very different place and star formation itself would probably be impossible. This makes the idea that decay rates today differ from those in the past impossible.
    Darwin’s theory of common descent was validated (again) after the completion of the human and chimpanzee genome projects. All the apes (except humans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes; humans have 23. Forty years ago it was theorized that finding one chromosome in humans containing the same genes as 2 chromosomes in apes would be a proof of common descent. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 and 13. Human chromosome 2 also has remnant telemers in it’s centre proving that the fusion did occur. As a side proof, a retro-virus signature in a human gene was identified and mapped to the same gene in the chimpanzee genome indicating that viral infection occurred in a germ cell of the human/chimpanzee ancestor before the evolutionary line split. More retro-viral occurrences similar to this have since been discovered.

    Tas Walker replies: When you say “impossible” remember that there is much we do not know about nuclear decay. There is evidence that rapid decay has occurred in the past, such as this study of rocks in Grand Canyon. There are some proposals as to how decay could occur, such as this one by Chaffin.

    Search for “human chimp chromosomes” and you will find many articles answering your falacious arguments, such as:
    Human/chimp DNA similarity continues to decrease: counting indels
    Human ape fused chromosomes paradigm.

  69. Edward MacGuire

    Based on current theories, there are 20+ constants relating to the masses of fundamental particles and the strength of forces, that cannot be changed or the universe as we know it would not exist; the value of the strong nuclear force is one of these. Change the strength of the strong force and our universe could not exist. Contrary to what the link says, the Kaluza-Klein theory is very well known to anyone working in relativistic or quantum theory. The Kaluza-Klein 5 dimensional model was rejected before 1940 precisely because it’s predictions did not match the experimental values of some of the constants I mention above, in particular the mass of the electron; current string theory works with 11 dimensions (10 of space and 1 of time). My arguments concerning human/chimpanzee relationship are certainly not fallacious and the link given is so simplistic I can’t believe the author isn’t still red with embarrassment. Of course there are many differences between chimp and human dna or gorilla and chimp dna – we/they are different in many obvious ways. It’s the huge number and the type of similarities that intrigue biologists. For example nothing in that article addresses the retro-viral dna signatures that exists on the same genes in both humans and chimpanzees. These are traces of a well known viral infection that has no effect on us; the cell ignores the instructions in the same way that chimps do not get HIV even when infected with the retro-virus. The only logical conclusion is that a germ cell of the human/chimp ancestor was infected with the retro-viruses and the signature spread through the population before the human/chimp evolutionary split. I should say, the only logical conclusion I’ve ever heard.

    Tas Walker responds:
    Hi Edward, Have you heard of Haldane’s dilema? It means there is no plausible explanation for how chimp DNA could transform by mutation and natural selection into human DNA—there has not been enough (imaginary) evolutionary time.

  70. Edward Macguire

    I have heard of Haldane’s dilemma. Fascinating man; as great an eccentric as he was a biologist. You’ve no doubt heard his comment when he returned from WW1 that he had thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to kill people? He did not hesitate to publicize what he saw as problems with a theory that he been working with for his entire career. Keep in mind however that he proposed this problem even before Watson and Crick had fully finished their description of the DNA helix in the mid-1950’s and a lot has happened in biology since then. He himself died in the early 1960’s. There have been at least 2 computer simulations in the last few years that purported to prove him wrong using statistical analysis methods he, of course did not have access to, and there are biologists that feel the issue is resolved. There are also biologists who feel this has not been given the attention it deserves, and I think the reason is that from the 1960’s till now pretty much all biologist’s have been concentrating more on Watson and Crick’s work which is high profile, has practical applications (read $ from drug companies, Monsanto etc.) and is where the action is. I don’t think many biologists including Haldane himself who was an ardent evolutionist would think the ‘dilemma’ is a show-stopper for evolution; they may feel a proper answer has not yet been made. There is a similar problem today in Physics with about 95% of graduate students ( from a speech by Steven Weinberg ) going into string theory and therefore ignoring other theories,approaches and problems.

    Tas Walker replies:
    You said, “I don’t think many biologists including Haldane himself who was an ardent evolutionist would think the ‘dilemma’ is a show-stopper for evolution.” Of course they wouldn’t consider it a show stopper. Evolution is a belief system and that belief is impervious to evidence. No matter what the contrary evidence or the problems with their explanations evolutionists hold onto their beliefs, as you are doing, because that is convenient for them. Their constant claim that evolution is scientific is a smoke screen. They say that to try to hide their hateful attitude toward God, but it shows. If they did not hate God they would get on with their lives, smell the flowers and go on a holiday. But no, they feel the need to justify themselves (and I don’t blame them—this issue has huge implications—eternal implications) and to bring down those who do trust in God.

  71. Edward Macguire

    You said –
    ‘ chimp DNA could transform by mutation and natural selection into human DNA ‘

    No one (including Darwin or J.B.S.) ever believed the above. Humans and apes share a common ancestor; humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. DNA analysis proves this. Physicists would be very happy if their theories had as much evidential proof as evolution.

    Tas Walker replies:
    I am well aware of the sort of a word games that evolutionist play in order to avoid the problems with their claims. Note that whenever they draw a picture of their immaginary common ancestor they make it look something like an ape.

    And you should know that physics is about experimental science, observations of repeatable phenomena in the present. Evolution is a story about the past which cannot be observed.

    Since you know so much about evolution and why it is a fact perhaps you would like to answer these 15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Don’t send your answers to me; send them to

    More important, realise that evolution is a story invented to dispense with God. The story is full of holes and unsolved impossibilities. On the other hand, the evidence for the reality of the Creator is clear and unmistakable, which is the reason the Bible says that people are without excuse (Romans 1:18–32). Read that passage and think about it carefully, about what it means for you personally.

  72. Edward MacGuire

    I was, of course, wrong when I said the strong force is responsible for radioactive decay .. it’s the weak force.