An Examination of the Gap Theory

[Introductory note] In the combox under my 2012 book review post, I had a gap theorist leave a string of comments attempting to defend his take on the reading of Genesis 1:1,2.  I, along with a few others, responded to his rebuttals and it made for some good discussion.

A long time ago, when I had a basic level hermeneutics class at seminary, I was required to write up a series of papers interacting with difficult passages.  One of the papers I wrote addressed the gap theory.  I have it posted at my website, Fred’s Bible Talk, but I thought I would reproduce it here as well. I’ve only slightly modified it here for readability.

——-

I. Statement of the Problem

There is a view among theologians suggesting a “gap” of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This gap was caused by some cataclysm and could be as old as a few thousand years or it could be a massive expanse of time. After this time, God recreated the earth in six days as recorded in Genesis one. The question then is raised: Does Genesis teach that an historical gap exists between the two verses?

II. Proposed Solutions

A. The Gap Theory

The theory teaches that the Hebrew text indicates a gap can be inserted between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is also called the Restitution or Recreation Theory (James Boice, Genesis, Vol. 1 pg. 50) and it is also known as the pre-Adamic Cataclysm Theory (Henry Morris, The Genesis Record pg.46).

The theory is stated as follows:

1. Genesis 1:1 tells us God created the original world in which all things were good. It was a perfect world for God could not create anything bad.

2. Satan, or Lucifer before he fell, was ruler of the earth, which was at that time inhabited by a pre-Adamic race of people, (Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible pg. 35).

3. Lucifer desired to be like God and thus rebelled. God’s judgment resulted in a ruined earth, existing in chaos. Genesis 1:2 states the earth was without form and void, indicating destruction (Alexander, pg. 35).

The theory gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because it allows for an insertion of Satan’s origin and fall. Most importantly, however, it helps harmonize Biblical chronology with the accepted system of evolutionary ages. The theory provides a solution to the geological difficulties between modern science and the historical record of the Bible (George Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages, pg. 20). The gap, in other words, “allows the evolutionary geologists to have all the eons they want” (Morris, pg.46); yet allowing for Bible-believing Christians to maintain a belief in the veracity of Holy Scripture.

B. The No-Gap Theory

The Biblical position is to understand there is no gap between verse one and verse two. Both verses are one independent clause describing the creation of the universe, “In the Beginning…” as well as the condition of the earth before God completed His work (J.J. Davis, Paradise to Prison, pg. 46).

III. Preferred View

It is my opinion that the “No-Gap” theory is the preferred view. When we apply the following hermeneutical principles to this problem it will be demonstrated that no gap exists in the white spaces between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

A. Principle of Near Context

Within the immediate context of the Genesis one narrative, there is no indication of a gap. Each verse in the first chapter begins with the conjunction “And.” This is significant because the structure clearly means that each statement is sequentially and chronologically connected to the verses before and after (Morris, pg.48).

The pattern would then have to apply to the first two verses, as well as any other pair of verses in the chapter. Thus, the supposed chronological gap is grammatically nonexistent. The condition in verse two follows immediately upon the creative act of verse one. The pattern, then, is set through the remainder of the chapter: God divided light from darkness, AND the light was day, the darkness night. God gathered the water from the land, AND God called the dry land earth, the waters He called the sea, and the record continues in like fashion until the creation is finished.

B. Principle of Original Language

Those who hold to the gap theory will claim their support from linguistic considerations. The Hebrew word hayetha, that is translated “was,” can also be translated “became,” “to be,” or “to come to pass,” and according to gap theorists, hayetha should be translated as one of those alternatives. When the verb is translated “became” or “to be,” it would suggest a change of state from the original creation to the chaotic condition inferred from verse two (Morris, pp. 44-45).

The verb, however, is the regular verb of being, and to re-translate it as the gap theorists claim, would produce a grammatical inaccuracy. If the author of Genesis had meant to describe a changed state took place between the two verses, he would have used haya, the word normally used to denote a changed state.

Now, it should be pointed out, however, that in the context of some Hebrew passages hayetha can be interpreted to indicate a changed state, like the gap theory suggests. However, the context of the passage determines such usage. In 98 percent of its occurrences, the verb means “was” (Morris, pg. 48). This is why it is translated as “was” in verse two, because there is nothing in the context of Genesis one to indicate it to be translated “became.”

Secondly, in verse two is the phrase, “without form and void,” tohu waw bohu in the Hebrew. Gap theorists teach that these words should be translated “ruined and desolate.” This would then speak of a Divine judgment that was visited upon the earth that left it in chaos (Morris, pg. 49).

Proponents of the gap theory argue that God, who is perfect, would never create the universe in a chaotic state. This state of being, they claim, must have come long after the creation itself, and the fall of Satan is attributed to this judgment.

The two other times tohu and bohu appear together is in Isaiah 24:1 and Jeremiah 4:23. Those two passages do describe judgment, but it must be pointed out that tohu does not always refer to something evil. For example, Job 26:7 reads, he stretches out the north over the empty place, (tohu). The empty place is not evil.  In other passages tohu refers to the wilderness, or desert, where life is absent, (Davis, pg. 45).

Likewise, bohu does not connote desolation, but rather, emptiness (Morris, pg. 50). The idea that these two words must be speaking of destruction or judgment is forced. “Form and void”, simply mean that the earth was not yet complete (without form) and it was empty (void) and it had no inhabitants (Westen Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, pg. 130).

C. Principle of Cross-Reference

As was noted in point B, gap theorists appeal to two particular passages implying judgment that use the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. The first is found in Isaiah 24:1, which states, The LORD maketh the earth empty and maketh it waste. The second is found in Jeremiah 4:23, where scripture says, I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void.

It is argued that those two verses are referring back to the time during the gap when God exercised His vengeance. By observing both passages, however, it can be seen that the judgment described is speaking of a future (at the time of writing) judgment and is not a record of past, historical events (Fields, pg. 121).

In Isaiah 24 the entire passage speaks of the Lord scattering abroad the inhabitants of the land of Tyre, because, as verse 5 reveals, They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. The passage continues to tell how their music will cease (vs. 8), merriment will be stopped (vs. 9), and the houses will be shut-up and their cities left desolate (vs. 10,12). This judgment cannot be speaking of a past event, but a future one that will be against the Kingdom of Tyre, its people, and their society.

As for the Jeremiah passage, with a quick examination of verses 23-27, it could be argued that this speaks of the divine judgment gap theorists claim happened to the pre-Adamic world. Verse 23 opens with almost the same wording as Genesis 1:2, and verses 23-26 all begin with the phrase, “I beheld,” speaking of something that happened in the past.

But, when the passage is put in context of the whole of chapter 4, the nation of Judah is being addressed. Verse 3 reveals the Lord is speaking to them because they are unrepentant and the Lord states He will bring judgment because of their sin. In verse 29, the instrument of judgment is executed by, “horsemen and bowmen,” later to be revealed in chapter 39 as the armies of Babylon. The idea of judgment is present within these scriptures, but it is a judgment on an established people group in the 6th century B.C. due to their sin and is not a cross reference back to Genesis 1:2 to lend support to the gap theory.

D. Principle of the Singleness of the Meaning of Scripture

Gap theory advocates also maintain that the “darkness” spoken about in Genesis 1:2 cannot represent the state of the earth in its original creation, for God could not create an earth characterized by darkness (Fields, pg. 132). Darkness is viewed as a symbol for evil. John 3:19 states, Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Satan’s minions are called, the rulers of the darkness (Eph. 6:12), and those who are still in sin are described as, having their understanding darkened (Eph. 4:18).

Darkness, however, does not always refer to evil. Even in Genesis 1, darkness is recognized as a positive for man. The evening of each day certainly included darkness, and it was for man’s good. At times darkness may typify evil and death; at other times it is to be looked upon as a positive blessing (E.J. Young, Studies in Genesis One pg. 35). Psalm 104:20 says, God maketh the darkness, and it is night and night is set apart as a time for men to rest from the labour of the day (Ps 104:23). It is evident that darkness existed in Genesis 1:2 because no light had been created, for it was yet to be separated from the dark, that takes place in verse four.

E. Principle of Wider Context

One of the main purposes of the gap theory has been to try harmonizing biblical chronology with the accepted evolutionary system of geological ages. The fossils now found by paleontologists are the remains of prehistoric animals and men that lived and died during the time of the supposed gap.

The problem that arises is that if this world existed prior to the supposed pre-Adamic cataclysm, then it is suggested that sin and death existed for millions of years before the sin and fall of Adam (Morris, pg 47). However, according to Romans 5:12 that states, For by one man, sin entered the world and death by sin… Adam is the one who brought man’s original sin and death.

First Corinthians 15:21 also confirms this truth. It was not until man deliberately rejected the known will of God did death make its first appearance on this planet. Thus, the gap theory seriously compromises the biblical doctrine of the Edenic curse Holy God inflicted upon the earth because of man’s rebellion (John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, pg. 142).

Also, the theory leaves no clear word from God concerning the original perfect world. Those who advocate this theory assume that this world existed millions of years, yet there is no biblical record of the events or history in the creation of that world. Only Genesis 1:2 gives that possibility. That is only one verse. Is it to be assumed by the Bible-believer that evolutionary geologists are to fill that missing gap? That then contradicts Exodus 20:11, which states that within the six days (not before the first day) God made the heavens, the sea, and all that is in them (Whitcomb, pg. 143).

Conclusion

After an examination of the biblical evidence, I believe the gap theory is an inadequate position to hold.

– First of all, the theory is not true to the literal grammar of the Genesis text in chapter 1. If we are to insert a gap of time between verse 1 and verse 2, we force the Hebrew language to say something that it is not saying at all.

– Moreover, the gap theory produces some serious theological problems with the origin of man’s sin. Romans 5:12 clearly tells us that it was Adam, and he alone, that brought about sin into our world, not Satan and his rebellion. If we remove the source of man’s sin to an unrevealed act of rebellion by Satan, away from a disobedient act by Adam fully revealed in the Genesis narrative, we adversely affect the theology of Adam’s sin imputed to all men; and that in turn affects Christ’s righteousness imputed to all those for whom he died.

– Lastly, and I think most importantly, I believe the gap theory is a compromise position that needlessly accommodates the supposed theories of evolutionary geologists. The original proponents of the gap theory wrongly assume that the geologists were correct with their interpretation of the information. Their “authority” on the age of the earth was believed to be superior to that of the plain words of Scripture and thus a mediating position was needed to allow the evolutionist to retain their geological theories and the Bible-believing Christians to retain their belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of God’s word.

Scientific theories, however, change with time. As scientists discover new things about the earth that had not been considered, previous scientific models are either modified, or abandoned all together.

For instance, it was believed that millions of years and a river formed the Grand Canyon in Arizona. But, when Mount St. Helen’s erupted, a canyon about 100th the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, along with geological “time” columns, when millions of tons of heated water and mud came pouring down the side of the mountain. If one volcanic eruption could produce a sizable canyon in one day, imagine what a world-wide global flood could do in a year! That is what the Bible teaches happened in Genesis 6-8. There is no need to put a mythical gap in between verses 1:1 and 1:2 of Genesis. Unlike scientific theory, the Bible never changes. It is God’s word, and to say we can fully understand it now, in the light of so-called scientific theory, compromises and undermines the only true authority a believer has.

Sources Consulted

Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible
James Boice, Commentary of Genesis, Vol. 1
John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: A Commentary on Genesis
Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (This is the most thorough and complete refutation of the gap theory available)
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record
George Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages
John Whitcomb, The Early Earth
E.J. Young, Studies in Genesis One

Also, listen to the my sermon series on Genesis 1, The Creation Week of Genesis and read my online articles interacting with old earth creationists and their arguments,

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “An Examination of the Gap Theory

  1. Hello again. I think I might be the “gap theorist” you referred to. I’m no theorist, just a bible believer. As I read through your defense of a Young Earth, I found at least two obvious mistakes. I will list them.

    1. You erroneously state that gap theorists use the gap theory to harmonize the evolution theory. I will only speak for myself here so as to not include anyone who does not want to be included.

    Evolution is a hoax, a sham and a lie straight from satan himself. I do not know how to make it any plainer. I believe in an old earth ,, maybe billions of years old,,because the bible does not claim otherwise. I DO believe in a LITERAL, six day creation, 24 hours a day, as Genesis states. But, this is AFTER the INITIAL creation of the earth in the timeless past. The earth is ancient as the bible says.

    Did Adam ride a dinosaur? Of course not. I have had my own bible teacher tell me that dinosaurs never existed, that people put other animal bones together to make them look like dinosaurs. There are people that believe satan planted dinosaur bones to confuse people. These statements were from Young Earth theorists.

    2. You also state that for one to believe in a gap that you have to believe sin came before Adam. Well, it DID. Unless you believe Adam fell BEFORE satan did. Satan was the one that iniquity (SIN) was ORIGINALLY found in, NOT Adam. Sin, in it’s origin, came by satan, NOT Adam. Iniquity was not found in Adam. Adam DID however let sin enter to THIS world, the Adamic flesh world.

    You look at this modern day present world and confuse it with the PERFECT world that God created in it’s original form. What does the bible say about this world?

    Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

    So the creature, this world we are upon, is itself in bondage because of not only ADAMS sin, but SATANS sin. The six day creation, as good as it was, was not the original creation.

    I will not get into an argument of hermeneunitics with you since it can go both ways and we both will argue for our POV but I believe the language of the bible itself points to a old earth.

    Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING….No one knows when this was.

  2. Barry,

    You state, “The earth is ancient as the bible says” and “I believe the language of the bible itself points to a old earth.” Prove it without using any external references to or presuppositions from modern secular science–just use the text of the Bible, please.

  3. Escovado,
    My guess is that Barry will refer to many of the “of old” phrases in Psalms and so forth. Examples: Ps. 102.25, Ps. 25:6, 93:2. Prov. 8:22, etc.,etc. Hugh Ross does the same thing with Ps. 90: 2-6, Ecc. 1:3-11, Micah 6:2 and Habakkuk 3:6. Brother Barry’s put all his eggs in the Custance basket, and as you know, Custance was quite prolific with his books and Doorway Papers. One wonders why brother Barry is not touting Ross’ day-age view, or why he thinks Custance and his gap-theory are better than Ross and his day-age view since both are non-evolutionary.

  4. Steve Drake,

    My point is that I have never seen a single day-age or gap theorist who has not first assumed science has somehow proven the earth/universe is bazillions of years old and then move to shoe-horn the Biblical text into that belief system.

    The so-called geologic column, and it’s associated millions of years, were worked out long before there was any such thing as radiometric dating. It’s a religious dogma that first rejects the concept of a world-wide flood–it isn’t empirical science.

  5. Hi Escovado,
    Yes, I agree. In brother Barry’s case, he thinks Scripture supports his views with the verses I mention, plus a few more I imagine. We’ll see if there are others.

  6. “You state, “The earth is ancient as the bible says” and “I believe the language of the bible itself points to a old earth.” Prove it without using any external references to or presuppositions from modern secular science–just use the text of the Bible, please.”

    That’s just it. What these “old earthers” really need to ask themselves is why they feel so compelled to find millions (billions) of years in the bible when there isn’t even a hint of it in there.Obviously the pressure is coming from somewhere “outside” of the bible itself and that should be a huge red flag that somebody has got their priorities mixed up.

    And btw Barry, I’ll bite, who says that Adam didn’t ride a dinosaur? Were you there? More importantly, does the bible say such a thing? Where exactly is such text? How do you know that when Adam named the animal who, “moves his tail like a cedar” (that’s referring to something the size of a tree Barry) that he didn’t just hop on that baby and take it for a ride? Especially in a pre-fall edenic world? Be careful putting limitations on God’s creation, it ends up putting limitations on God himself.

  7. Barry writes,
    1. You erroneously state that gap theorists use the gap theory to harmonize the evolution theory. I will only speak for myself here so as to not include anyone who does not want to be included.

    You do speak for yourself. It may not be that YOU personally try to harmonize evolutionary theory with the Bible, but others have. But it is not so much the aspect of evolutionary theory as it is the deep time, as you go on to state. Evolution and deep time go hand in hand. To speak of evolution automatically implies old earth and to speak of old earth automatically implies evolutionary constructs. You simply cannot be this naive about the connection.

    continuing,
    These statements were from Young Earth theorists.
    Who? Name the person? An anonymous, backwoods preacher who doesn’t know any better doesn’t really count as “young earth theorist.”

    2. You also state that for one to believe in a gap that you have to believe sin came before Adam. Well, it DID. Unless you believe Adam fell BEFORE satan did. Satan was the one that iniquity (SIN) was ORIGINALLY found in, NOT Adam. Sin, in it’s origin, came by satan, NOT Adam. Iniquity was not found in Adam. Adam DID however let sin enter to THIS world, the Adamic flesh world.

    But the Bible never ties death and sin to Satan. It without fail ties it directly to Adam’s disobedience. This is affirmed in both Romans 5:12ff. as well as 1 Corinthians 15. It’s irrelevant when Satan fell, because his rebellion had no direct consequence to man’s sin and death. It was Adam.

  8. “But the Bible never ties death and sin to Satan. It without fail ties it directly to Adam’s disobedience. This is affirmed in both Romans 5:12ff. as well as 1 Corinthians 15. It’s irrelevant when Satan fell, because his rebellion had no direct consequence to man’s sin and death. It was Adam.”

    http://creation.com/1-corinthians-15

  9. The bible never ties death and sin to satan? You ARE kidding, right? The rebellion of satan SPAWNED sin and death. Ezekiel 28:18 Revelation 9:11. Just WHO is Apollyon? The angel of the bottomless pit? It is the Destroyer, satan. WIth the fall of satan, sin and death IMMEDIATELY had access to the untold number of angels and also eventually to Adam, the flesh man.

    God told Adam and Eve they would surely DIE when they ate of the tree of forbidden fruit. Satan told them they wouldn’t. WHo do you believe and who brought death? God or satan? And lest you forget, sin BRINGS death.

    And, satan fell long before Adam was formed. BEFORE Genesis 1:3.

  10. I have no problem with this article although it conveniently leaves out satans fall and sin. Sin and death DID enter the human race because Adam listened to satan,,the one who ALREADY fallen and sinned thus bringing the promise of death and destruction to the human race. Satan cannot take a life but he can manipulate events to CAUSE death. eg., Jobs children.

    Creationists cannot get around that fact of the Bible. No one can.

  11. Barry, the Bible is very clear. As far as the physical realm of humanity is concerned, sin and death entered in by one man, Adam. Listen to scripture:

    Therefore, just as through one MAN sin entered the world (not by Satan, or by “Adam listening to Satan”) and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

    There is no mention of Satan’s fall, because no where in 1 Corinthians 15 is Satan’s fall identified as the source of sin and death in the world. It is Adam’s sin. Satan has limited ability. Even in Job, he could only act by God’s permission. Hence, he does not possess the authority to exercise any power unless granted by God. If he had already fallen and sinned, and sin had entered the world because of his fall, the world would have been cursed before God cursed it, for the wages of sin is death, and death is the curse.

    Additionally, you have yet to seriously engage the grammatical factors in the text that clearly does not support your view. It would be helpful if you did so.

  12. Then I would ask you this. If satan had never entered into the garden to beguile Eve and through her, Adam, would Adam still have sinned?

    Be careful of your answers.

  13. “I have no problem with this article although it conveniently leaves out satans fall and sin”

    It didn’t leave Satan’s fall out for “convenience” sake but for “relevance” sake. As Fred has already pointed out the connection is between Adam and Jesus, not Satan and Jesus when talking about sin entering the world. The bible simply couldn’t be more clear on this. Your problem Barry, and you really should spend some time asking yourself why you even have it, is, that you are desperate to cram all those years in somewhere… why? As I said before, what compels you “old earthers” to find a place in the bible for all those years that the bible itself doesn’t even hint at?

  14. The bible is full hints about all of those “crammed in” years and one OBVIOUS one you are ignoring is satans fall.

    The sin to the flesh world DID enter through Adam. I never said otherwise but to ignore satan’s sin is just “convenient” for you young earthers. God didn’t even speak until the third vese of Genesis and from there on out is no mention of satans fall so, it HAD to happen before that, in the unknowable times past.

    So, I’ll ask you, why are you young earthers so desperate to say the earth is only six thousand years old or so when the bible doesn’t even hint at it? Are you that paranoid about geology? I laugh at evolutionary geologists but serious scientists without an evolutionary axe to grind find it obvious that the earth is millions, even billions of years old and no, we did NOT spring from some lower life form. (I’m not a geologist BTW) And then, around six thousand years or so, God formed FLESH man Adam and THAT is where the Genesis account takes place.

    When satan fell, he took a third of the angels with him. Did he deceive and lie to the angels into following him in only a day?

    Get serious.

  15. “The bible is full hints about all of those “crammed in” years and one OBVIOUS one you are ignoring is satans fall.”

    Yeah, you’ve mentioned that one Barry and it’s been “biblically” addressed, several times. The biblical connection is Adam and Jesus not Satan and Jesus.

    “serious scientists without an evolutionary axe to grind”

    Now who needs to get serious, lol. The old age stuff is built into the matrix they are using Barry so how exactly would they avoid it, even “assuming” (a pretty naïve assumption, btw) they don’t have an axe to grind.

    “Did he deceive and lie to the angels into following him in only a day?”

    Uh… no, no wait… yes, no wait… how does one play this game Barry? How does one spend more time reading “between” the lines than reading the actual lines of the bible? Please teach us this “special” hermeneutics so we can find millions of years, Adam not riding a dinosaur, how long Satan took to deceive the angels, what would have happened if satan had never entered into the garden…, etc.

    Until then I guess I’m just stuck reading the things the bible “actually” says, adding up things like the genealogies, while you “speculate” about things the bible doesn’t actually say.

  16. No, you have NOT addressed satan’s fall. You just keep rehashing the TRUTH, by the way, that sin entered the Adamic flesh world through Adam. Go to the front of the class.

    But, you constantly ignore the FIRST UNIVERSAL sin, the sin of satan, his pride. You seem to imply, and correct me if I’m wrong, that satans sin ocurred right around the time of Adams sin. Nowhere is that even hinted at in the Word so maybe YOU are reading between the lines and using YOUR “special” hermeneutics to destroy the truth of an old earth? Sounds like it.

  17. I really don’t know what else to say to you Barry. Referring to a post on GotQuestions.org referring to Satan’s fall I believe this paragraph says it well:

    “What we do know is this: the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). Satan’s fall, therefore, must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Whether Satan’s fall occurred a few minutes, hours, or days before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden, Scripture does not specifically say.”

    Notice the line: “Whether Satan’s fall occurred a few minutes, hours, or days before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden, Scripture does not specifically say.”

    WE DO NOT KNOW!

    And despite us NOT knowing, YOU are confident that MILLIONS (even billions) of years passed by during this time. Sorry, but I just think that is ridiculous, especially with the biblical emphasis being on sin entering the world through Adam.

    I’ll end where I started. You’re desire to find a place for those millions (billions) of years cannot be coming from the bible because it simply isn’t there. So where is that pressure coming from?

    It’s a rhetorical question Barry, one I think you should seriously reflect on.

    You’ve got the last word. God bless.

  18. Ron, you ARE joking, right? YOU can’t inject YOUR biased opinion of a few thousands of years old earth into WHEN satan fell. Why? BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW! as you say. So it could have been and WAS millions or billions of years before Adams fall.

    What are you afraid of? That is you accept a billions of years old eath you may have to accept some form of evolution? If so, your faith is weak.

  19. My thoughts? On speculation over how old a dinosaur is?

    Give me BIBLE evidence of man living with dinosaurs.

  20. Bible evidence is that God created ALL living creatures on days five and six. Dinosaurs included. In the meantime, we have increasing tangible forensic evidence (found by non-creationists, by the way) that these fossils are not as old as typical paleontologists have claimed them to be, which falsifies the millions of years claim and severely hampers your long ages for a so-called pre-adamic world.

  21. That is not evidence. A creature like a T-Rex isn’r mentioned. Noah took at least TWO of all living creatures aboard the Ark. Where is the T-Rex? Even if they were young T-Rex, they were STILL told to multiply and fill the earth after Noah’s ark came to rest. According to you, that was only around 6-10 thousand years ago. Why aren’t they still alive? Did ALL donosaurs go extinct in such a relatively small place of time? Creationist scientists can be just as deceptive as evo scientists to try to back a belief.

    I believe that God Almighty Created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. He created and formed and made all that is now, was and will forever be. I believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh that came and gave Himself as a sacrifice for ALL that would believe and that He was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day and ascended to the Father in heaven.

    And I also believe in an unknowable age of the earth, Ecclesiastes 3:11 And evolution had absolutley NOTHING to do with it.

  22. Barry. Are you going to comment on the soft dinosaur tissue and the identifiable DNA in the blood or not? Also the C-14 evidence presented at that conference last fall. Long agers claim “evidence” proves the earth is old, however, here we have some rather strong tangible evidence that disputes that narrative. Did you even bother to read the articles and the subsequent links?

  23. You mean you believe soft tissue can last fifty thousand years? Were these remains flash frozen? Like the mastodons with the buttercups still in their mouths?

  24. Fred,

    Have you read the paper “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils” in its entirety?

    Have you read the paper “Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules” in its entirety?

    Why does Mary Schweitzer think that her T. rex fossils are 65 million years old?

    How does she respond to conclusions of the Allentoft, et al., paper?

    Given that dinos were created at the same time as modern mammals about 6000 years ago, why are dinosaur fossils never, ever found with modern mammals? We’ve found countless dino fossils in countless locations all over the planet. But we’ve never found a single lion, tiger or bear, etc, mixed in with the dinos. No one, not ever.

    Do you believe that a major Civil War battle was fought in Arlington, Virginia? I know that mainstream historians would disagree with this conclusion, but I have evidence that disproves the mainstream position that there weren’t any major Civil War battles in Arlington. I have tangible evidence that disputes the narrative of historians blinded by the matrix in which they operate.

  25. Have you read the paper “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils” in its entirety?

    No. So, what? Have you?

    Have you read the paper “Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules” in its entirety?

    No, so what? Have you?

    Did you read the report on c-14 found in dinosaur bone in its entirety?

    why are dinosaur fossils never, ever found with modern mammals? We’ve found countless dino fossils in countless locations all over the planet. But we’ve never found a single lion, tiger or bear, etc, mixed in with the dinos. No one, not ever.

    It’s the same reason you never find a lemur fossil mixed in with wombat fossils, or lion fossils mixed in with moose, or a polar bear fossil with penguins.

  26. “Why does Mary Schweitzer think that her T. rex fossils are 65 million years old?”

    Because evolutionary dogma demands it.

    “Given that dinos were created at the same time as modern mammals about 6000 years ago, why are dinosaur fossils never, ever found with modern mammals? We’ve found countless dino fossils in countless locations all over the planet. But we’ve never found a single lion, tiger or bear, etc, mixed in with the dinos. No one, not ever.”

    That’s not quite true…

    “Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it was only for a short period when only small shrew-like mammals were present.

    However, the facts show otherwise. Gradually, more and more evidence is being discovered that is consistent with what we know from the Bible, namely that dinosaurs and other creatures all lived and died at the same time.

    To the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!”

    Source: “The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’: Why there never was a ‘land before time’ millions of years ago!” (http://creation.com/so-called-age-of-dinosaurs)

    As far as lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) are concerned, it’s probably for a similar reason we don’t find penguins and polar bears living together today.

  27. I missed posting the money quote in the above article from an Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum:

    “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

  28. @Fred: LOL I missed your “polar bear fossil with penguins” example. Great minds think alike I suppose. That’s what I get for trying to post in a hurry. :P

  29. Wow Barry, I wasn’t going to respond to you anymore but this comment:

    “Ron, you ARE joking, right? YOU can’t inject YOUR biased opinion of a few thousands of years old earth into WHEN satan fell.

    is so flat out wrong that I can’t believe you made it.

    First of all, if you would READ what I quoted from GotQuestions.org it says, “Whether Satan’s fall occurred a few minutes, hours, or days before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden, Scripture does not specifically say.”

    Where does it say “a few thousands of years”? Heck, it doesn’t even suggest weeks.

    Try to follow along. I’m not injecting anything in anywhere, that’s YOUR need not mine. I add up what is stated, while you, so you can try and serve two masters, the bible and the secular world, are the one ADDING years (#,000,000’s to #,000,000,000’s) to the bible in between sentences that flow naturally together.

    “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form…”

    Notice how well that flows? Sentence one ends with the word earth and the very next two words pick up talking about that earth. But not for you, for you it needs to read:

    “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And then #,000,000,000 years went by (so Barry feels comfortable that Satan had enough time to do whatever he “Barry” thinks Satan needed to do because even though Barry doesn’t believe in evolution his god apparently needs millions/billions of years to do things the way Barry thinks they needed to be done) and then. The earth was without form…”

    Trust me “brother” you’re the last one that should be smarting off about the strength of one’s faith.

  30. Fred,

    “No. So, what? Have you?”

    Yes, I have. Both of them.

    So what? Well, you’re asking Barry to comment on papers that you haven’t even read yourself. Doesn’t seem sporting, does it?

    One should always go to the primary literature before relying on unreliable sources such as Sarfati. Always. So, read both papers. Go to the peer-reviewed primary literature. Understand the methods used in each paper. Understand why Schweitzer thinks that tiny fragments of DNA might survive for millions of years under certain special conditions. Then you can ask others to discuss these “items”.

    “It’s the same reason you never find a lemur fossil mixed in with wombat fossils, or lion fossils mixed in with moose, or a polar bear fossil with penguins.”

    Huh? Are you trying to suggest that dinosaurs were completely and entirely geographically isolated from all modern mammals? This is ad hoc nonsense.

    Escovado,

    “Because evolutionary dogma demands it.”

    A non-answer answer. You don’t suppose it could possibly be because the data overwhelmingly supports her position? It’s all dogma? Does Mary Schweitzer strike you as a woman who sticks to the previously accepted answers in science? Or is she someone who has proven to be quite willing to challenge the scientific status quo?

    Further, if Schweitzer is so driven by dogma, why should you trust anything that she says, right? Why should anyone trust her work with the T. rex fossils? She driven by dogma, so why should we believe anything that she says? You see, your answer tells me that you believe that she lacks credibility, so we can ignore her findings, right?

    And isn’t it accurate to say that you believe that the earth is young because your dogma demands it? So why should I listen to you? Where does an answer like “because evolutionary dogma demands it” really get us?

    “Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted”

    False. Paleontologists have known that extinct mammals species co-existed with dinosaurs for many, many decades now. You will not find a single paleontologist who “thinks that mammals and dinosaurs never coexisted”.

    As for the rest of your answer, it totally ignores the all-important word “modern”. Your answer is based on a vague and muddled taxonomy. For example, I assume that the “beaver-like” creature you refer to is Castorocauda lutrasimilis?” If so, then I can say conclusively that this is not a modern beaver. It’s not even in the same taxonomic family as the modern beaver.

    And I see that you’ve embraced Fred’s geographic isolation nonsense.

    By the way, I’d still like to know…is Anthony Fremont a good little boy or a bad little boy?

  31. BTW – The comments section of that article I linked to has some good stuff, so don’t skip it. Contained in the comments is another interesting link.

    Fresh dinosaur bones found: http://creation.com/fresh-dinosaur-bones-found

    “The story was different however in north-western Alaska. In 1961 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-metre-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bison bones. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbill dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs. Presently William A. Clemens and other scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska are quarrying the bone bed.2

    How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question.”

  32. And YOU need help in reading comprehension. I couldn’t care less about got questions.org You young earth folks seem to have an affinity for creation .com and other fairy tales about Adam riding dinosaurs. SO, I suppose “The Flintstones” were based on true events? lol

    Got Questions arrogantly only assumes a “Few minutes, hours or days,” and COMPLETELY leaves the Old Earth scenario out.

    You folks are dogmatically and stubbornly sticking to a young earth when there absolutely NO biblical proof for it.

    And listen to this “brother,” your faith IS weak if you can’t accept a God Who controls the universe whether it be young OR old.

    Give me BIBLICAL proof of man and dinosaurs on the earth at the same time. And why can’t you answer whether or not Noah had ALL species of dinosaurs on the ark? Too hard for you?

    You are so afraid of the evolution theory that you think there is NO WAY an old eath could exist without it. Weak faith.

  33. “unreliable sources such as Sarfati”

    Did you get that Fred, Sarfati is unreliable. Why?

    “Go to the peer-reviewed primary literature”

    Ah yes, “the peer reviewed literature” is where the correct answers are, how silly of you Fred.

    Is Sarfati peer reviewed?

    Of course not. Why?

    How could he be? He views the evidence through that wacky young earth, and therefore unexceptable, lens.

    IOW, the same old game continues.

    BTW, I noticed that the commenters name is David, is it THAT David?

    lol

  34. Escovado,

    Does the word “fresh” appear in the Kyle L. Davies paper, ‘Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) (the reference cited in the Hedler post)? Go to the source. Read the original paper.

    Any modern mammal fossils mixed in with the Alaskan dino fossils?

    Ron,

    “Ah yes, “the peer reviewed literature” is where the correct answers are, how silly of you Fred.”

    I think you’ve missed the point. Don’t you think that it’s best to get as close to the primary source of information as one possibly can? Is it better to read the Bible in the original Hebrew or Greek or is it better to read an interpretation of a commentary on the Bible? What I’m asking folks to do is to go to the source themselves. Is that a bad thing?

    Why is Sarfati unreliable? Let me ask you, why you find 99.9 % of all geologists unreliable?

    And, yes, it’s THAT David. Is this THAT Ron? The one that gave Barry the “last word” and then jumped back in again? lol.

    To all,

    Here’s your basic problem.

    Fred, et al. are probably right when they say that original tellers of the Genesis story thought in terms of 24 hour days and thousands of years for total time of Earth’s existence. At least, this is the easier way to interpret Genesis; it’s not necessarily right, but it’s easier. On the other hand, Barry and the geologists are almost certainly right when they state that the Earth is actually millions of years old. So, everyone commenting here is both right and wrong, and hence, the endless debate.

    Of course, if Fred is right about Genesis and Barry is right about the age of the Earth, that’s a big problem, isn’t it? That means the Bible is simply wrong. Can’t have that, right?

  35. “What I’m asking folks to do is to go to the source themselves. Is that a bad thing?”

    Yes, when YOUR source is man instead of God.

    “And, yes, it’s THAT David.

    I thought so. Wow, 2013 and still trolling, eh? lol

    “The one that gave Barry the “last word” and then jumped back in again? lol.”

    Yes, that was a mistake. I accepted Barry’s profession of faith and therefore assumed that he wouldn’t purposely add something to what I said but obviously if he’s so willing to add things to what God has said he’s not going to have a problem adding to what others say.

    “Here’s your basic problem”

    I don’t have a problem David, I have REAL faith in the one true God and what He has actually said.

    “Of course, if Fred is right about Genesis and Barry is right about the age of the Earth, that’s a big problem, isn’t it?”

    Only in Trollville could such a statement even make sense. If Fred is right about Genesis, Barry is WRONG about the age of the earth. I’ll put my money on Fred, he has the proper respect for God’s word and that’s why I visit his blog.

    “That means the Bible is simply wrong. Can’t have that, right?”

    You say that like you wish it to be so; I wonder why anyone would WANT the bible to be wrong. Oh yeah, the answer is IN the bible:

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:18-23

    Good luck with that David.

  36. Steve,

    “And do we have here the modus operandi for David’s thought?”

    I apologize, but I don’t understand the comment.

    Ron,

    “Yes, when YOUR source is man instead of God.”

    Again, I think that you failed to understand me. I’m not suggesting that you must believe the source. I’m simply suggesting that the best way to understand with a scientist actually did, what a scientist actually concluded, and how a scientist responded to questions raised by other research is to read the primary literature. That’s all I’m saying. Don’t rely on interpretations. If you want to truly understand the research, then go directly to the source. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think that this is unreasonable. (Oh, and Schweitzer is a woman, not a man. The use of “man” for “humanity” is a bit outdated.)

    “Wow, 2013 and still trolling, eh? Lol”

    It passes the time. It either this or porn.

    “Only in Trollville could such a statement even make sense. If Fred is right about Genesis, Barry is WRONG about the age of the earth.”

    Perhaps a brief clarification is in order. When I said “if Fred is right about Genesis”, I was referencing the following…

    Fred, et al. are probably right when they say that original tellers of the Genesis story thought in terms of 24 hour days and thousands of years for total time of Earth’s existence.

    Correction interpretation of a document and/or correct interpretation of the intent of the originators of the document does not guarantee that the information in the document is accurate. This principle holds outside of Trollville, too. So, Fred could indeed by “right about Genesis (see what I meant by this above)” and Barry could be right about the age of the Earth.

    “You say that like you wish it to be so.”

    Not really. But I see you wish to jump to conclusions so that you can unleash your charming little “wrath of God” ditty. Hope it made you feel better.

  37. Young Earthers just can’t comprehend an ancient earth BEFORE the literal, 6 day creation of Genesis. They don’t even address it. They find commenataries that fit their narrow world view such as satan and all the fallen angels must have fell a few days before Adam when that is utter rubbish and is NOT biblical and run with it.

    Never mind the writings of the earliest church fathers that took an old earth for granted. Look it up yourselves. I’m tired of squabbling with you.

  38. David,

    You wrote:

    “Does the word ‘fresh’ appear in the Kyle L. Davies paper, ‘Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) (the reference cited in the Hedler post)? Go to the source. Read the original paper.” Any modern mammal fossils mixed in with the Alaskan dino fossils?

    Since you’re too lazy to read the paper yourself–as usual–I will quote it for you:

    The quality of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion.” [emphasis added]

    Source: Duck-Bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska
    According to Helder, the person who originally found the bones thought they were of recent bison origin because of their condition. That speaks volumes! So what if the word “fresh” does not appear in the journal paper? Margaret Helder’s description of the find is accurate. Furthermore, the absence or presence of modern mammal fossils is irrelevant to the point of Helder’s article: the bones appeared to be of recent origin to the person who found them, and they appeared remarkably preserved by the paleontologist who wrote the paper. I am quite sure the paleontologist was impressed by the preservation of the bones because he assumed they were tens of millions of years old. To a creationist, this would not be remarkable.

    The notion that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is a belief about the past based on a series of questionable assumptions. It is not based on empirical, operational science. Since creationists disagree with the deep-time belief system popular today, it is completely asinine for you to make the leap that we think “99.9 % of all geologists [are] unreliable.” Creationists only disagree with their interpretation of the evidence, not with their honesty regarding the observational evidence itself.

    Regarding Schweitzer, you really twist yourself into a pretzel:

    “You see, your answer tells me that you believe that [Schweitzer] lacks credibility, so we can ignore her findings, right?”

    Quite the opposite. She is honestly dealing with the empirical evidence and is to be commended because it flatly contradicts her belief system. On the other hand, this appears to be a case of projection on your part. You and others of your ilk are the ones driven by dogma who wish for her to be discredited, not me.

    Moving along…

    Using your usual M.O., David, you attempt to debunk a source without reading it first:

    “False. Paleontologists have known that extinct mammals species co-existed with dinosaurs for many, many decades now. You will not find a single paleontologist who ‘thinks that mammals and dinosaurs never coexisted’.”

    If you bothered to read what I cited (it’s really not difficult; just click on the hyperlink), you would have understood that it was the general population that “thinks that mammals and dinosaurs never coexisted.” It wasn’t referring to paleontologists. Furthermore, the article goes on to describe the creatures found with dinosaurs that are hidden from the general public. I have never seen an “age of dinosaurs” diorama in any museum that had “a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!”

    Of Castorocauda lutrasimilis, you wrote, “I can say conclusively that this is not a modern beaver.” Well, Duh! Nobody said it was a beaver (of course, the online fossil museum people use a stock photo of a beaver *snicker*). But it has attributes that are shared with “modern” mammals which contradict the evolutionary storyline. Answers in Genesis posted an article about it:

    “The fossil is in good enough shape to preserve hair. This means that it not only has the complexity of teeth, which is only found in mammals, but it has hair, one of the two distinguishing characteristics of modern mammals (the other being lactation). In fact, it actually has two layers of hair, the lower layer keeping the skin dry. This type of hair is found only in certain modern mammals specialized for an aquatic habitat. Because we still lack evidence of its ability to lactate, we cannot be absolutely sure that it is a mammal in the modern sense of the word, so it is still properly classified in the Mammaliaformes rather than in the Mammalia.

    Castorocauda is aquatic and weighs in at about one-and-one-half pounds, making it the largest and most specialized mammal or mammaliaform known from the Jurassic. Castorocauda also shows evidence of divine design. An under-layer of water-proofing hair, vertebrae permitting flexure for tail-driven locomotion, a broad tail and webbed hind feet seem to be (“perfectly”) designed so that the animal can swim in water. Consistent with that, the teeth are designed for eating fish and aquatic invertebrates. The forelimbs are also specially designed for digging.

    Castorocauda occupies an ecological niche that mammaliaforms at the time of the dinosaurs were not thought to occupy.

    At the same time, the design features are arranged in a unique chimera-like manner—possibly a widespread feature of God’s design plan. The tail is (“remarkably like”) the tail of a beaver and the teeth battery (“closely resembles”) the teeth battery of a seal…

    One way or another, in the creation model, Castorocauda is another example of God’s fascinating design in a pre-Flood organism; in the evolution model, Castorocauda is a surprise and challenge.

    Source: Swimming with the Dinosaurs

    So, buried with the dinosaurs we have modern ducks, squirrels and platypus along with a beaver-like critter that has the attributes of modern mammals (assuming they are referring to Castorocauda lutrasimilis). It seems to me the only reason it is not considered “modern” is the assumption that it went extinct 65 million years ago with the dinosaurs. One has to wonder what may be hidden in the 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay containing mammal fossils that the Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum is trying to give away. Dinosaur research is sexy and probably gets funding a lot easier than mammal research which isn’t so sexy.

    Finally, you opine:

    “And I see that you’ve embraced Fred’s geographic isolation nonsense.”

    Actually, it is you who embraces nonsense; the old “rabbit in the Precambrian fallacy” comes to mind. Creationists believe the vast majority of fossils were buried during Noah’s flood. Many leading evolutionists even concede that catastrophic, rapid processes are needed to explain many fossils (An interesting related article: Death throes). Rapid burial would necessitate that a specimen would not normally have been transported very far from its original habitat before preservation, since that would greatly increase the chance of it being destroyed by the violent flood waters. It would come as no surprise, then, that a rabbit would not be found in the Precambrian because Precambrian life represents the bottom of the sea while rabbits live on land.

    With that in mind, the fallaciousness of your reasoning becomes obvious. Your logic asserts that because we have not found lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) buried with dinosaurs, then it’s impossible for them to have lived at the same time. Consistently applying your thinking leads to this absurdity: If we had a Noah’s flood today, then any future a paleontologist excavating the resulting strata would not find polar bears and penguins buried together because of their geographic isolation. Therefore, according to you, polar bears and penguins could not have existed at the same time.

    I believe it would be more accurate to say that we haven’t (yet?) found large mammals buried with dinosaurs because they probably did not share the same habitat. It seems that smaller mammals would more likely be able to share a living space with large dinosaurs (as the fossil evidence suggests so far). This is all speculation on my part, of course, but it is a perfectly reasonable explanation—except maybe to a doctrinaire Darwinist.

    Regarding Anthony Fremont…Is he a good boy or a bad boy? Hmmmmm. Why…he’s a good little boy, yessiree! You gotta keep thinking those happy thoughts!

    On the other hand, because of your trolling, little Anthony would think you’re a very bad man. Be careful, David. Fred has been remarkably patient with you. If you’re not careful, he might use his ban stick to wish you into the cornfield. ;)

  39. Again I ask, was The Flintstones based on real life events?

    http://www.oldearth.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

    First, some expectations. If we were to find some soft tissue of dinosaurs, where is the most likely place to find it? The answer is obvious…in the most recent fossils. The T-rex was one of the last of the dinosaurs, living in the last five million years of dinosaur existence, from 70-65 million years ago.

    Second expectation…what body part would we expect to contain the soft tissue? Here again, the answer is obvious. The soft tissue stands the best chance of being preserved in a large bone, such as the femur of the T-rex. The larger the bone, the more “insulation” the soft tissue has from outside elements. The original source report for this article, which came from Science magazine, gives several key phrases, such as the “dense compact bone typical of therapods,” and “dense mineralization of dinosaur bone.” A large bone such as a therapod femur would be the most likely source of soft tissue, as the larger bone provides an opportunity for the outer bone to be sealed by mineralization, entombing the inner contents and protecting them from the elements.

    Third expectation…if the earth was young, then we would expect most, if not all large dinosaur fossils to show evidences of soft tissue…after all, according to young earth theory, large dinosaurs from 200 million years ago died at the same time T-rex did, during the flood of Noah. Thus, you should expect all large dinosaur bones to be possible sources for soft tissue. However, this is not the case. With this fossil, we have one sample of soft tissue, out of millions of dinosaur bones that have been collected. Thus, this young earth “expectation” is completely unfounded.

  40. Barry,
    That article is out of date. 2005 was 7 years ago. If you would have read the links I supplied, and the original articles David keeps yappin about, they refute Neyman’s claims.

  41. Barry,

    “The T-rex was one of the last of the dinosaurs, living in the last five million years of dinosaur existence, from 70-65 million years ago”

    Sorry Barry, but I’ve gotten confused with your hermeneutics again. To be clear, that’s 5,000,000 years of dinosaur existence from 70,000,000-65,000,000 million years ago, correct? And is this mysteriously hidden between the same couple of verses that Satan’s fall is mysteriously hidden, or is it mysteriously hidden between another two verses. You know, Satan’s fall, that you said earlier “WAS” (as in YOUR positive it happened that way) “#,000,000’s or #,000,000,000’s of years before Adams fall”

    Here’s what you said: “So it could have been and WAS millions or billions of years before Adams fall”

    Notice that capital “WAS” Barry, where you state such a thing as a fact?

    Where exactly are these absolute facts of yours in the bible Barry? I know what the bible says is important to you Barry because you also said:

    “Give me BIBLE evidence of man living with dinosaurs.”

    Certainly you hold yourself to the same standard, right Barry? So now where are these “facts” in the bible? You know, the bible Barry, where genealogies add up to thousands of years. Where the oldest man didn’t live a thousand years. Where the word for one thousand years, millennium, is used multiple times. Obviously in such a book “#,000,000’s or #,000,000,000’s of years” must stand right out.

    Please, dear “brother”, enlighten us. I know as a professing Christian (meaning you would have great respect for God’s word) you didn’t get this idea of “#,000,000’s or #,000,000,000’s of years” from outside the bible. Certainly you wouldn’t allow something outside the bible to trump the bible that you hold so dear.

    So please, dear “brother”, enlighten me as to where these “facts” can be found IN God’s word!

  42. Escovado,

    “Since you’re too lazy to read the paper yourself–as usual–I will quote it for you.”

    Too lazy to read the paper? Wrong, wrong, wrong. I read the entire paper shortly after you posted your original comment. Why would you think that I wouldn’t read the primary literature? Do you believe that your inaccurate insults are consistent with Christine doctrine?

    Yes, you’ve quoted the key line and the key word here is permineralization. Permineralization is one way in which ancient life is preserved by fossilization, but it is not the only mechanism of fossilization. For one thing, permineralization requires water, and while it’s often the case that a fossil is the result of rapid burial in wet sediment, it’s not always the case. Also, there are other types of fossilization that do involve water, but they do not “permineralize”.

    If you read the entire article, you’ll see that there is just one line about the lack permineralization. That is, the lack of permineralization was hardly shocking to those who practice paleontology. It’s only remarkable or inexplicable (in an old earth context) to those wish it to be remarkable or inexplicable. So, it’s quite inaccurate to use the word “fresh” in place of not permineralized. Fresh is not the same thing as permineralization. She is using inappropriate terminology. Helder is, shall we say, unreliable.

    “It is completely asinine for you to make the leap that we think “99.9 % of all geologists [are] unreliable.” Creationists only disagree with their interpretation of the evidence, not with their honesty regarding the observational evidence itself.”

    And it is completely asinine of you to misinterpret what I was saying. I did not say that creationist thought that geologists are “dishonest”. Nowhere did I use the words honest or dishonest. Unreliable in interpretation and dishonest are two different things. Instead, I meant that creationists think that 99.9 % of geologist are unreliable when it comes to the conclusion of 99.9 % of geologists that the Earth is millions of years old. This is true, isn’t it? Similarly, I think that Safarti is unreliable when he interprets the data as indicating that the Earth is young. Is this clearer now?

    “She is honestly dealing with the empirical evidence and is to be commended because it flatly contradicts her belief system. “

    Does it flatly contradict her belief system? She doesn’t seem to think so. Again I would ask, why does she think that her T. rex fossils are 65 million years old? And please try to avoid answering “dogma”. As I said, you are also guided by dogma, so just shouting “dogma” doesn’t help very much. Please try a little harder to understand her reasoning.

    “On the other hand, this appears to be a case of projection on your part. You and others of your ilk are the ones driven by dogma who wish for her to be discredited, not me.”

    You have jumped to unjustified conclusions. I know that it comforts you to think ill of those who disagree with you, but it is not always justified.

    “If you bothered to read what I cited (it’s really not difficult; just click on the hyperlink), you would have understood that it was the general population that “thinks that mammals and dinosaurs never coexisted.”

    Ah, now in this case, you are correct. I didn’t click on this particular link.

    However, this article really does nothing to help your case. It’s not the “general population” that is doing the research that shows that the Earth is millions of years old. The mistaken ideas of the general population do not alter what the research shows. It’s true that scientists can always do a better job of communicating their finding to the public, and that museum displays are not perfect. However, a failure to communicate doesn’t alter reality.

    “Furthermore, the article goes on to describe the creatures found with dinosaurs that are hidden from the general public. I have never seen an “age of dinosaurs” diorama in any museum that had “a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!”

    Hidden? What, the general public can’t read the primary literature?

    Again, what does this have to do with whether or not dinosaurs are really tens of millions of years old or whether or not modern mammals coexisted with dinosaurs? Putting a “duck” in a diorama doesn’t change anything or do anything to help address the problem of taxa separated by time. The “duck” in question is not a modern duck, and the absence of the ”duck” in the diorama does nothing to help your case.

    “Well, Duh! Nobody said it was a beaver.”

    Well, then it’s not a modern mammal, and it doesn’t nothing to answer the question of why modern mammals and dinos are never found together, right? In short, introducing a “beaver-like” mammal from a different taxonomic family into the discussion is pointless. It’s irrelevant and of no value in your efforts to answer my question.

    “But it has attributes that are shared with “modern” mammals which contradict the evolutionary storyline. “

    I’m sorry, but this is simply not so. There is nothing here that answers the question that I raised, and there is nothing here that “contradicts the evolutionary storyline”. Answers in Genesis is presenting a very distorted and muddled picture of evolutionary biology. Again, the word unreliable comes to mind.

    Taxonomy matters. There isn’t a single species called “mammal”. Beaver-like does not equal beaver. Dinos “share attributes” with mammals; they all have four legs. So what? They are also different creatures.

    The existence of a previously unknown mammal species that occupies a niche previously thought to be unoccupied by Mesozoic mammals does not equal modern mammals found with dinosaurs. This is all irrelevant to my original question.

    “So, buried with the dinosaurs we have modern ducks, squirrels…”

    The duck in question is not a modern duck, and the “squirrel” that you refer to is most definitely not a modern squirrel!. The “squirrel” in question is not even in the same taxonomic family as modern squirrels!

    How many times to I have to say this? Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source of scientific information. Go to the original primary literature manuscript! You’ve made my cases for me, over and over again, about the unreliability of YEC web sites.

    “It seems to me the only reason it is not considered “modern” is the assumption that it went extinct 65 million years ago with the dinosaurs. “

    Wrong. It’s the anatomy that tells you that the fossil is not of a modern species. Please read the primary literature in order to understand this point.

    “One has to wonder what may be hidden in the 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay containing mammal fossils that the Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum is trying to give away.”

    Well, yes, one can wonder. And I can wonder if the pyramids were built by aliens. Wondering is not the same thing as actually observing.

    “If we had a Noah’s flood today, then any future a paleontologist excavating the resulting strata would not find polar bears and penguins buried together because of their geographic isolation.”

    Dinosaur species which lived in different locations can, nevertheless, be dated to the same time periods through various geological methods (yes, I know you reject these methods). So, a future geologist would, in fact, be able to show that polar bears and penguins were contemporaries. You are wrong to conclude that a future geologist would be unable to put polar bears and penguins in the same geological time period, simply because they wouldn’t be buried next to each other. The polar bear and penguin argument is of little value.

    “I believe it would be more accurate to say that we haven’t (yet?) found large mammals buried with dinosaurs because they probably did not share the same habitat. “

    Yes, I understood quite well for the start that this is what you were saying. Let me try to clarify.

    Dinos were adapted to wide variety of niches and lived all over the Earth.

    Extinct mammals lived at the time of the dinosaurs. These mammals were adapted to a variety of ecological niches and were widely distributed. They lived all over the Earth.

    Extinct mammals have been found buried with dinos, or at least, buried in the same strata as dinos, so we know that extinct mammals can be preserved in the fossil record.

    There are thousands of modern mammal species adapted to a very wide range of niches, and these species are distributed all over the world. These mammals range in size from mice to elephants, and they live all over the Earth.

    Your response to this is “geographic isolation”.

    But think it through. Your “geographical isolation” hypothesis argues that not a single modern mammal species occupied any of the geographic locations occupied by any dinosaurs, despite the fact that these dinos occupied niches currently occupied by modern mammal species. And further, you are arguing that not a single modern mammal species occupied any of the geographic locations occupied by any of the extinct, Mesozoic mammal species, despite the fact that these extinct mammals occupied niches currently occupied by modern mammal species. Modern mammals have never been found in Mesozoic strata, despite the fact that we have Mesozoic deposits all over the Earth.

    Ad hoc nonsense.

    “I believe it would be more accurate to say that we haven’t (yet?) found large mammals buried with dinosaurs because they probably did not share the same habitat. “

    Not one large mammal species could share a habitat with ANY dinosauar? Not one?

    Is the phrase “modern mammal” equal to “modern large mammals”? I may have accidentally created confusion here with my choice of lions and tigers and bears, but by “modern mammal,” I mean any modern mammal, large or small.

    “It seems that smaller mammals would more likely be able to share a living space with large dinosaurs (as the fossil evidence suggests so far). “

    Yes, there are indeed plenty of fossils of small extinct mammals from the time of the dinosaurs and sharing living space with large dinosaurs. And there are also hundreds of small-sized modern mammal species. And yet none of these small modern species have been found with the dinosaurs or with any of the extinct small mammals found with dinos. If all of these creatures were created at the same time, six thousands years ago, why are there no small modern mammals mixed in with the dinos?

    “This is all speculation on my part, of course, but it is a perfectly reasonable explanation—except maybe to a doctrinaire Darwinist.”

    I suspect that many who are not doctrinaire Darwinists would find your explanation unreasonable. But you may comfort yourself as you wish.

    “Regarding Anthony Fremont…Is he a good boy or a bad boy? Hmmmmm. Why…he’s a good little boy, yessiree! You gotta keep thinking those happy thoughts!”

    Well, at least you are honest about your embrace of AF. I find it a little odd and disturbing, and I don’t believe that I’m alone in find AF creepy and repulsive. But, ok. So, how do you reconcile such an embrace with your Christian beliefs? I would have thought that Jesus would have concluded that AF was a bad little boy, but then again, there are thousand way to read the Bible.

    Finally, I would like to honestly and sincerely thank Fred for posting my comments. Some may call what I do trolling, but I fool myself into thinking my comments are both relevant and important to the discussion. In this case, I’m really mostly just trying to urge folks to read the primary literature and to consider the possibility that YEC web sites may not be reliable. Escovado has done a magnificent job of making my case for me.

  43. YOU tell ME,,dear “brother”.. where the earth is a young earth. Biblical PROOF,,NOT speculation that satan fell a few minutes or days before Adam. You CANNOT do it so climb off your hypocritical soap box, ok? I never thought Young Earthers were of Pharisee material until I started reading this pride filled blog of yours or Freds or whoever it belongs to. The YEC is a relatively young doctrine.

    And you still HAVE NOT given me BIBLICAL evidence of flesh man co-existing with dinosaurs. Unless you count Fred and Barney.

  44. As usual you’ve missed the point, either on purpose or because you are so brainwashed. I’m not the one who has to prove anything, you are. You’re the one adding SO MUCH TIME where the bible doesn’t speak of it. It’s like a detective trying to solve a murder case and a person needs to say where they were between when they left for work and were seen having lunch and YOU’RE telling them to prove HOURS because YOU’RE convinced it was DECADES!

    As I said, and anyone with respect for God’s word can plainly see, the bible talks in thousands, NOT millions or billions of years. That’s why R.C. Sproul, (who hasn’t decided what he believes) in a piece I linked to elsewhere makes this statement:

    “If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)”

    The person writing the article correctly reacted by saying this:

    “‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years.”

    IOW, IT’S RIDICULOUS! Who, and more importantly WHY, would someone make such a jump?

    Imagine you’re driving on an unfamiliar highway and you suddenly notice a cop in your rearview mirror (been there, done that), what do you immediately do? Check your speed, right, and then what? Wonder what the speed limit is because as I said you’re on an unfamiliar highway. I’m curious Barry, with Highway speed limits generally around 50-65 MPH would you assume the speed limit is 10,000 MPH? That’s pretty much how much sense it makes that you jump to millions and billions of years in a book that talks in the thousands.

    So, again, the question really is WHY do you do this? And the answer that you avoid like the plague is:

    YOU care too much about what man says and are allowing it to trump what God says. YOUR interpretation of the bible is being influenced (more like RULED) by what fallible man says OUTSIDE of the bible!

    Do I think some time passed between Satan’s fall and Adam’s, sure, how long? However long it was necessary for God to mention He was going to create man (who would ultimately rule over the angles) and cause Satan to become jealous and rebel, which is pretty much what God created him to do all along. I believe it was Martin Luther who said, “The devil is God’s devil”. So long would that take? I don’t know Barry, how long does it take for you or me to become jealous? For me, unfortunately, a few seconds Is more than enough time.

    As far as your problems with this blog Barry, I would recommend you try BioLogos, it more YOUR style. Here the priority is God’s word, whereas there, it’s mans. You’ll fit right in. Bye.

  45. Seeing your lasted tome I scrolled to the last paragraph and noticed these interesting comments:

    “I would like to honestly and sincerely thank Fred for posting my comments.”

    Thank him?!? You should buy the guy a new car!

    “Some may call what I do trolling”

    LOL. No, really, I am actually laughing out loud. Personally I think the woman in the first five seconds of this video describes what you do here:

    “but I fool myself…”

    Finally something we agree on.

    “I’m really mostly just trying to urge folks to read the primary literature and to consider the possibility that YEC web sites may not be reliable.”

    Because they presuppose the God of the bible and that His word is Truth and you presuppose… well… anything but that.

    “Escovado has done a magnificent job of making my case for me.”

    I’ve already addressed the “I fool myself” line.

    Good luck David. I look forward to months down the road where I once again accidentally read what you write and get to LOL again.

  46. I think everyone has had a good say here. We’re getting now to where we are going in circles and the interaction is unprofitable. I’ll have another post on a similar theme up sometime soon, so you’re all welcome to come back for a while. In the meantime you all have a nice evening, drive home safe, and I’ll see you later.

Leave me a Comment

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s