Broadcast Sept 20, 2013



Today we provide some, mostly short, answers to anonymous questions about topics that can cause people to doubt their faith, or to disbelieve in God or the Bible.

  • Why do we doubt our faith? Why is it hard for people to believe there is a God?
  • Why are you no longer an atheist? Why do you believe in God?
  • What about the big bang?
  • Can one be a Christian without accepting a Young Earth Creation view? There are a great many sincere committed Christians who believe that macro-evolution is compatible with a Christian worldview, and a great many who believe it is not. How should we respond to such fundamental and important differences without harming the unity of the body of Christ, which is our primary witness to the world?
  • How old is the Earth? Why do you believe the earth is young?
  • Where does the Bible mention dinosaurs? Can we use instances of “dinosaurs” in the Bible to justify that the world isn’t “billions of years” old?
  • What about carbon-dating, shouldn’t that disprove your religion?

 

3 thoughts on “Broadcast Sept 20, 2013”

  1. Mr. Walker,
    I believe you are going to be giving a presentation at my congregation in November. I wanted to check out some of your material ahead of time. This is my first listen, but a few critical thoughts I wonder if you will address:

    1. You state in the broadcast that you believe in an early dating of the Earth of 6000 years. Later you state that the dinosaur soft tissue is carbon-14 dated at 22,000 to 39,000 years. That seems to be a large difference. Can you explain your contradiction on the age of the Earth?

    2. As to the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time, you point to evidence in Job and state that the original translations of the Bible did not have the term “dinosaur”. Why then would current translations since the 19th century have used that term? Also there are very ancient items like sphinx and griffins, et. al. in various cultures across various times, do you think these existed along with Behemoth and Leviathan? Does that not weaken your argument?

    3. How do you explain the fact that carbon-14 is not found in the layers of rock where these animals were fossilized? And why does a scientist like Mary Schweitzer, who you seem to be referencing and who is a self-professed Christian, not come to your conclusions?

    4. Perhaps this is my biggest question: why should we care about this as such an important issue?

    In Genesis 1, God creates light and plants (vs. 3, 11-12) before the sun, moon and stars (vs. 14-18). From where did the literal light come? How did the plants live without the sun? What is the water that is above the sky? (vs.7-8) Are you sure that Genesis is trying to give a step-by-step explanation of creation? Have you studied other ancient explanations for creation and seen the differences/similarities? Is it possible that this creation account should be seen as a polemic against those of its time rather than a prooftext against evolution?

    Thank you for considering my questions. I look forward to hearing from you.
    -Brian Whitt

    Also, your spam question depends on the amount of each: A ton of feathers is heavier than a pound of lead

    1. Hi Brian,

      Thanks for your questions. I appreciate the opportunity to add some clarification. I reordered them as 1 and 3 have some overlap, and I’ll intersperse my responses below

      1. You state in the broadcast that you believe in an early dating of the Earth of 6000 years. Later you state that the dinosaur soft tissue is carbon-14 dated at 22,000 to 39,000 years. That seems to be a large difference. Can you explain your contradiction on the age of the Earth?

      Well, I never said that I accepted the calculated ages of the dino bones as accurate, rather I included the facts that the assumption of an equilibrium ration of c14/c12 in the atmosphere is wrong as well as the fact that the assumption that all living things have this same ratio within their bodies is wrong. Let me ask you a question: Can you explain the contradiction between the claimed age of the dino bones as 65+ million years but the calculated c14 “dates”? This is an enormous contradiction and as explained in my show c14 is detectable in virtually everything tested.

      3. How do you explain the fact that carbon-14 is not found in the layers of rock where these animals were fossilized? And why does a scientist like Mary Schweitzer, who you seem to be referencing and who is a self-professed Christian, not come to your conclusions?

      As I explained, the c14 dating method only applies to something that was previously alive, so does not apply at all to rocks, so I’m a bit confused as to your statement about c14 not being found in the layers of rock. Please explain. Also, it appears that you’re referring to the location of the T-Rex find that Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in. Is that correct? Ironically, Bob Enyart offered Jack Horner a $23000 grant to carbon date the TRex that Schweitzer worked on and Horner refused.

      Mary Schweitzer has clearly stated that she accepts the conventional dating of 68 million years for the T-Rex. She also has clearly stated that the soft tissue left in the dino bone was “impossible” since it is 68 million years old. Why use the word “impossible”? As stated by the narrator in her interview on 60 minutes: these tissues “pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science that organic material can’t possibly survive even a million years, let alone 68 million.” Here are some of Schweitzer’s statements about this “impossible” preservation of tissue:

      In an MSNBC interview, Schweitzer stated “a lot of our science doesn’t allow for this, all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we’ve done don’t allow for this…”

      In an article in Discover (Yeoman, B., 2006. Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery, Discover 27(4):37-41):

      • “If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”
      • “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”

      Also, as I mentioned in the show, these finds have been well replicated and are not “contamination” nor “biofilm” as opponents have said. Mary herself replicated these finding in an “80 myr old duckbill”.

      So the laws of chemistry indicate that these bones are not “millions” of years old. Evolutionists are looking for a new, unknown preservation process that can override the laboratory tested laws of science to hang on to the old ages.

      BTW, several creatures have been found alive when it was believed that they’d been extinct for many millions of years.

      2. As to the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time, you point to evidence in Job and state that the original translations of the Bible did not have the term “dinosaur”. Why then would current translations since the 19th century have used that term? Also there are very ancient items like sphinx and griffins, et. al. in various cultures across various times, do you think these existed along with Behemoth and Leviathan? Does that not weaken your argument?

      Perhaps I was unclear in my show. It is often asked “Why isn’t the word dinosaur in the Bible?” and that is what I was addressing. I’m not sure what you mean by

      Also there are very ancient items like sphinx and griffins, et. al. in various cultures across various times, do you think these existed along with Behemoth and Leviathan? Does that not weaken your argument?

      The Biblical creation account has all kinds of creatures created during the creation week, so they all coexisted. I don’t understand how that might weaken my argument.

      4. Perhaps this is my biggest question: why should we care about this as such an important issue?

      The creation, Adam and Eve, the fall and the flood accounts are all discounted by modern scholarship as non-historical because they believe that science has proven that they did not happen. However, while science has proven no such thing, it is extremely important to note that these events are treated as real history by the New Testament. So if we just let the Bible interpret the Bible, we’d treat them as historical. Also, studies of the grammar shows that these passages are written as historical prose. In addition, many of the scholars who do not believe them historical nevertheless indicate that it’s clear the author *did* think them historical. These are important issues regarding Biblical interpretation and authority.

      Let me ask you a question: Is physical death the penalty for sin? When Jesus died on the cross, was his physical death required in payment for our sins? If theistic evolution is true, the God used death for billions of years before Man even existed and it has nothing to do with sin at all.

      Let’s not forget that consensus science denies the possibility of the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus as well as the creation.

      In Genesis 1, God creates light and plants (vs. 3, 11-12) before the sun, moon and stars (vs. 14-18). From where did the literal light come?

      We aren’t told, however, in Revelation in the description of the new heavens and new earth, it is stated that that “They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.” So having light without the sun is not an un-Biblical concept.

      How did the plants live without the sun?

      It is stated that the day/night periods of light and dark are already in force prior to the creation of plants, so there is no problem at all.

      What is the water that is above the sky? (vs.7-8)

      We aren’t told.

      Are you sure that Genesis is trying to give a step-by-step explanation of creation?

      Based upon grammar, Biblical treatment of these passages, and the lack of any overwhelming need to reinterpreted it as non-historical, I’m convinced that the account is meant to be taken in the plain meaning presented, as historical prose and is relating actual space/time events.

      Have you studied other ancient explanations for creation and seen the differences/similarities?

      Yes.

      Is it possible that this creation account should be seen as a polemic against those of its time rather than a prooftext against evolution?

      This is a very good question since it is a common argument presented as if it shows that the account must be allegorical or mythical, but not historical. I’ve discussed this very idea with Bible professors at Christian Universities. However, let’s think about the logic. A polemic is defined by Webster as: “a strong written or spoken attack against someone else’s opinions, beliefs, practices, etc.” Now what requires that the polemic not be accurate and historical? Nothing. In fact, when considering how to argue against a false belief, the best “polemic” is simply to tell the truth. So, yes, the Genesis creation account serves as a polemic against the pagan beliefs of the Egyptians (for example), as well as against today’s “consensus science” creation myths such as the big bang and evolution.

      Now the usual excuse presented at this point is that those “pre-scientific” people could not possibly understand what really happened, so God told them a story that they could understand.  This is an example of “temporal arrogance” in the assessment of the people of that time.  However, this position is so often given that Dr. Terry Mortenson wrote an article to rebut it.  His article shows clearly that if the big bang and evolution were true, God could easily have communicated it using only terms well understood by “pre-scientific” people.   I’ve added this account to this blog entry.

      The entire article is available here: http://creation.com/genesis-according-to-evolution

      I look forward to your responses and hope to meet you in November.

      Richard

  2. Mr. Walker,

    Yes, I believe Jesus’ death was required as a sacrifice for sin. I do not believe animals or plants are capable of sin, so I am not sure why the years they were in existence prior to man’s sin has anything to do with Christ’s death and triumph over death.

    The garden of Eden is set as a very real place with boundaries (the 4 rivers). Eternal life was in the garden because of the tree of life. So things outside of the garden would have been dying. Frankly, we have no way to know how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden. Perhaps this accounts for the age of the Earth.

    I am not arguing for theistic evolution, but that does not mean that we must interpret the Genesis accounts (Chapters 1 & 2) as literal. Nor do we have to take a “young Earth” view because of the genealogies. Specifically because of scholarly work indicating that they do not present an exact father-to-son construction.

    I know God created the heavens and the earth. How he did it and when makes very little difference in my faith. I see no logical issue in rejecting science’s changing and incomplete theories and literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis. Why should I make science work me into that corner?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti-Spam Quiz: