Why 6 days? Theological Consistency.

Creation Ministries International had a recent interesting post explaining the reasons to believe in the 6-day creation account of Genesis. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I think they do a good job of expounding this viewpoint.



6 Responses

  1. I agree with Andre (in the link), i really don’t see the theological necessity for young earth. There is nothing in the rest of Christian theology that is dependant upon a young earth. Why be dogmatic about such a clearly questionable issue?
    Adam was not created as a baby, thus scientists coming along and observing Adam would assume an “older” history of Adam, an “apparent age” of the created thing. I don’t see what is so controversial about this…! I’m no theistic evolutionist either!
    I believe 1) God did it 2) Adam was literal, created in God’s image and responsible for Original Sin, 3) there was a process involved: God made earth, light, oxygen and dirt, then made Adam to inhabit that space and 4) the 6 periods of time are now the basis of our work week and sabbath/Lord’s Day rest.
    YEC’s: why the big deal about age? Do you deny that Adam would have “appeared” older than he really was? Would it be a fault of science to then draw conclusions based upon their observations?

  2. YEC’s: why the big deal about age?

    I typically don’t call myself a YEC because it’s not that big a deal to me. But I’ve always thought that if people are going to make uniformitarian assumptions which comport with the Darwinian creation myth and call it “science” then the door is open to someone else pointing out that given uniformitarianism there is more evidence that the earth is young than old.

    It should be noted that uniformitarianism may often make about as much sense as observing the rate that sand passes through an hour glass in a room full of toddlers and assuming that it has always been constant, therefore the “clock” is a valid measure of time. Ironically uniformitarian assumptions actually support creationism, i.e. extending most rates of change back in time as if they are a “clock” show a young earth.

    As a maverick geologist notes only “clocks” which show an old earth are being chosen:

    a maverick geologist:

    ONE DAY, MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO, I picked up an apparently dull geology textbook and found my attention arrested by a single sentence. The book was called Pre history and Earth Models and was by the professor of metallurgy at Utah University, Dr. Melvin Cook. Cook, a physical chemist now in his eighties, is a world expert on high explosives and his textbook on explosives for mining is still a classic work of reference. Professors of metallurgy do not usually stir up trouble in the academic world, but what I had read in his geology book was more explosive than any text on TNT.

    In his preface Cook wrote: “An attempt to publish a manuscript giving direct evidence for the short-time chronometry of the atmosphere and oceans entitled ‘Anomalous Chronometry in the Atmosphere and Hydrosphere,’ not unexpectedly nor without some cause, met with considerable opposition and was not published.”

    Who on earth had prevented Dr. Cook from publishing his paper? I wondered. And what could a metallurgy professor have to say that was so heretical that someone wanted to prevent its publication? I found that his book contained scientific evidence and reasoned argument which showed that something was terribly wrong with the orthodox scientific view of methods of dating. The most widely used methods, such as uranium-lead and potassium-argon, had been found to be seriously flawed, not merely in practice but in principle. In addition, the methods yielded dates so discordant as to make them unreliable.

    Cook showed for example that if you used the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the crust you got the conventionally ac cepted age of over four thousand million years. But if you used the selfsame method on the atmosphere, you got an age of only a few hundred thousand years. He also showed that the entire amount of “radiogenic” lead in the world’s two largest uranium deposits could be entirely modern. Clearly something was wrong.

    When I dug deeper, I found that Cook was not a lone voice. Other papers by scientists in reputable scientific journals expressed similar doubts and findings. Funkhouser and Naughton at the Ha waiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages of up to 3 thousand million years—when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801. McDougall at the Austra lian National University found ages of up to 465,000 years for lava in New Zealand that is independently known to be less than 1,000 years old.

    I eventually came to the alarming realization that although ra dioactive decay is the most stable source of chronometry we have today, it is badly compromised as a historical timekeeper, because it is not the rate of decay that is being measured but the amount of decay products left. For this reason, all radioactive methods of geochronometry are deeply flawed and cannot be relied on with any real confidence in this application.

    At the end of the last chapter, I asked, How could science have gone so far wrong? The answer turns out to be that it is not science which has gone wrong, merely those scientists seeking to defend a single idea—Darwinian evolution. Science has proposed many methods of geochronometry—measuring the Earth’s age— all of which are subject to some uncertainties, for reasons I shall describe in a moment. But of these many methods, only one technique—that of the radioactive decay of uranium and similar elements—yields an age for the Earth of billions of years. And it is this one method that has been enthusiastically promoted by Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists, while all other methods have been neglected.
    (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton :37-38)

    Assuming uniform rates of decay and so on opens the door for creationists to cite evidence of this sort:

    DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies.
    DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leavesc and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.d Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.
    Proteins. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins,n soft tissue,o and blood compounds preserved in dinosaur bones. As with DNA, these remains should not last 70–150 million years, as is claimed for those bones.
    Excess Fluid Pressure
    Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock.a If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.b
    [….]76. Continental Erosion
    The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years.a However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years.

  3. I think the whole issue boils down to whether we can take God at His word. Since yom + numeral /evening and morning always means an ordinary day in the Old Testament, why should it mean something else in Genesis 1? Jesus (Mark 10:6) and the New Testament writers believed in a literal and rather recent creation. Jude, for instance, wrote that Enoch was “the seventh from Adam” (verse 14), and according to Genesis 5 he was just that. So from a theological viewpoint, anyone believing in a literal six-day creation is in good company.

  4. I agree Joel. At one time, I leaned more toward OEC, because of the gap theory. Even then however, I realized that there only had to exist one possible way, that God could have created the universe to result in what we see today (even if it was only 6000 years ago). Because if you believe in a God that is all-powerful, He could have done things in any possible way. And even though, with my human intellect, I am able to think of possible ways, this wouldn’t invalidate God’s word even if I couldn’t. God’s thoughts are not mine and my thoughts are not God’s. His ways are far above me, you, any naturalistic evolutionist, cosmologist, or scientist of any variety.

  5. Joel said,

    Jesus (Mark 10:6) and the New Testament writers believed in a literal and rather recent creation. Jude, for instance, wrote that Enoch was “the seventh from Adam” (verse 14), and according to Genesis 5 he was just that. So from a theological viewpoint, anyone believing in a literal six-day creation is in good company.

    Without sounding relativistic, Carl;-), this is the issue as far as I’m concerned. As the Shrink knows, I have just come through almost two years of intellectual doubting about certain portions of the Word of God. In particular, I had begun to believe that Genesis was merely a metaphor or allegory for creation. This had thrown me into cognitive and spiritual turmoil. It wasn’t until I came back to my faith that I realized I had been a “double minded” man and this was the source of my problem.

    “A great cloud of witnesses, or, “…is in good company” is the point. We believe because we have proof, and they believe for the same reasons. We know they are in error, and they believe we are in error etc. The important thing, for us, is faith over facts!

  6. Just to clarify, we have facts about God, which is why we have faith in Him, but they don’t recognize our facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: