Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

Key point is that God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created; the timing issue apparently was not important enough to be clearly presented in Scripture.

It is VERY clearly presented and just as clearly ignored. When you combine the seven days of the first week with the geneaologies of Genesis 5 and 11, we have a VERY clear timeline. The only thing that is not clear about it is the confusion caused by the folk who did the Masoretic translation when they dropped the cipher for 100 in a number of cases, thus chopping a couple of thousand years off the age of the earth. The most ancient texts present the age as about 8000 years as of our time, while the Masoretic, about 6000 years.

But compared with either 4.5 BILLION (the earth) or 14 + billion (the universe), that 2000 years fades into insignificance. So whether you prefer the Masoretic or the ancient Alexandrian LXX dates, they clearly both show a recent creation and the impossibility of evolution, as a result. They both clearly show that God knows EXACTLY what He is talking about and also knows how to communicate His knowledge clearly when He desires us to know something.

 

Young earthers typically believe that God did not make every species currently in existence at the moment of creation, instead making ancestor creatures of each "type." The decendents of these then speciated to give all of the species we currently have. Usually young earthers acknowledge that animals that are morphologically similar are closely related, however, with the discovery of DNA and genetic studies some animals have been moved out of their original category. For instance, probably most of us would initially place the hyena in with the canines because of their similar morphology. However, genetic studies show that the hyena is not closely related to the canines--according to evolutionary theory the canines and the hyena share a common ancestor back further along the line. Young earth creationists don't want to push the classification of "type" back too far, though (since canines, felines, bears, and hyenas all share the same common ancestor if you go back far enough, and that's too much evolving for a young earther to allow!), so hyenas are placed in their own type. So, since young earthers have accepted genetic evidence in some cases, it is inconsistent and even dishonest to ignore it in others.

All of this leads up to Chlamydomonas, specifically Chlamydomonas reinharditii. These are phytoflagellates, tiny unicellular biflagellated photosynthesizing protists. They reproduce asexually (sexual reproduction is present as well, but it is chiefly a method to produce dormant spores to survive difficult times) by multiple fission, in which the cell increases its size 2^n times and then divides n times into 2^n number of daughter cells, n being 2, 8, 4, 16. The daughter cells formed are enclosed inside the mother cell's cell wall, which then bursts to release the daughter cells, which swim off on their own. However, it has been reported on several occasions that the Chlamydomonas daughter cells do not swim off separately because their cell walls are linked together at points and their cytoplasm is continuous. This produces a little "colony" of Chlamydomonas cells similar to Gonium.

Gonium is a colonial biflagellated phytoflagellate occuring in groups of usually 8 or 16 cells. The cells are joined at points and the cytoplasm is continuous among the cells. However, sometimes when cells of the species Gonium dispersum undergo multiple fission and release the daughter cells, they are unjoined and swim away remarkably like Chlamydomonas. Indeed, genetic studies of Chlamydomonas and Gonium show similarities in both coding and noncoding regions (see papers below and this link), with Chlamydomonas reinharditii being most closely related to Gonium, most likely a direct descendant of the original ancestor.

Gonium is a simple colonial organism, and there is no division of labor among the cells. However, there are a variety of more complicated organisms in the same order, Volvocida, that have been shown by genetic testing to be related. The most complicated of these is Volvox, a colonial organism in which some thousands of somatic cells in a globe surround germ cells on the inside of the colony. Asexual reproduction in Volvox involves multiple fission of one of the germ cells to produce a tiny daughter colony. The somatic cells undergo programmed cell death at only four days old, releasing the daughter colonies.

While Gonium is a flattened disc, all of the other Volvocida members are globular. This is important because the initial colony embryos have the flagella pointing in towards the center of the globe, making them useless for locomotion. In order to function, they must invert. This inversion is carried out by the action of InvA, a novel kinesin, which acts on the microtubules at the cytoplasmic bridges to bend the sheet of cells. This protein is required in Gonium as well, where it switches the concavity of the colony so that the flagella are on the convex side. InvA is coded for by the gene invA. Chlamydomonas, Gonium, Pandorina, Eudorina, and Pleodorina all have a gene that is a orthologue of invA, and the gene in Chlamydomonas, IAR1, has been inserted into an inversion-incapable invA Volvox mutant, causing inversion. This is yet another instance of novel use of a pre-existing protein (also demonstrated in another case by the ability of the Chlamydomonas ortholog of gls to return asymmetric cell division to a Volvox gls mutant).

The next major hurdle after cytoplasmic continuity and embryonic inversion is germ-stroma division of labor in Volvox. This is caused by two gene expression regulators, regA, which represses chloroplast protein synthesis in somatic cells (required for germ cells to pass on chloroplasts, stalling the usual transition from biflagellated stage to nonflagellated reproductive stage), and lag, which keeps germ cells from developing somatic features like flagella and eyespots. It currently is unclear whether these genes are new inventions in Volvox or if they are present in ancestors but not used for this purpose.

The close genetic and morphological similarity among the Volvocida members show that they have a common ancestry and are closely related. The genetic and morphological similarity between Chlamydomonas reinharditii and Gonium show that these two have a relatively recent common ancestor. The upshot of all of this is that unicellular to multicellular evolution is not "naive," it's a fact.



Coleman A. W.; Mai, J. C. "Ribosomal DNA ITS-1 andITS-2 sequence comparisons as a tool for predicting genetic relatedness." J Mol Evol 1997, 45:168–177.

Kirk, David L. "Volvox as a Model System for Studying the Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Multicellularity and Cellular Division." J. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 19:265-274.

Kirk, David L. "Seeking the Ultimate and Proximal Causes of Volvox Multicellularity and Cellular Division." Integ. Comp. Biol. 2003, 43:247-253.

Cole, Douglas; Reedy, Mark. "Algal Morphogenesis: How [i[Volvox[/i] Turns Itself Inside-Out." Current Biol. 2003, 13:R770-R772.

Kirk, David L. "A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a divsiton of labor." BioEssays 2005, 27:299-310.

Liss, Michael; Kirk, David; Beyser, K.; Fabry, S. "Intron sequences provide a tool for high-resolution phylogenetic analysis of Volvocine algae." Curr. Genet. 1997, 31:214-227.

Nozaki, H.; Itoh, R.; Sano, H.; Uchida, M.; Watanabe, M.; Kuroiwa, T. "Phylogentic relationships within the colonial Volvocales (Chlorophyta) inferred from rbcL gene sequence data." J. Phycol. 1995, 31:970-979.

 

You are consistently PRESUMING common ancestors. That is a wrong presumption.

 

Well, it's your opinion that it's a wrong presumption. Unfortunately you have no proof. Amusingly, it is only "wrong" in some contexts to make this presumption. . . I figured it would be all right to assume common ancestry because of genetic similarity due to the fact that young earthers also assume common ancestry due to genetic similarity--silly me! After all, in another thread you yourself said that the felines, which are genetically and morphologically similar, have a common ancestor. I guess one is only allowed to assume common ancestry without being completely wrong if one supports a young earth creation. . .

I suppose you'll be sticking hyenas back in with those canines then, since secular science is completely useless?

 

Hellen,

I wonder when we will experentially view evolution. I know that I have been waiting for decades to see what I was TAUGHT AS FACT.

Two decades ago, I considerred the smoke and mirror proofs of evolution to be the quaint struggling of intellectuals trying to finally get their act together.

However, over the years I have come to the realization that the smoke and mirrors is just their pride before the Almighty God showing through.

 

This is one of the reasons I moved away from young earth creationism. I grew up young earth and went to a Christian college that taught young earth. Even as a child I was bothered by the diversity of species that we had. Why would some of the species found only on certain islands just settle there, or why would all of the marsupials hike off to Australia after the Flood? I eventually was exposed to the idea that evolution does take place to a certain extent, allowing speciation within a kind. This was a bit of a relief, but then there came the question, why does evolution have to stop there? If all maple trees came from an ancestor maple, why couldn't there be an ancestor tree that both maples and ashes came from, for instance? How can we say that there was an ancestor feline and an ancestor canine and all felines and canines came from these? Why can't we take another step back? And once we have taken that step, why not another? There is no young earth creationist who has drawn up an objective set of criteria for the absolute maximum possible change.

Basically once young earth creationists allow in the idea of any speciation, it's hard to sensibly draw a line forbidding further change. The limits of evolution become defined by the limits of the young earth creationist's imagination and preconceived bias. Data is interpreted according to how well it fits the bias. In one instance, genetic and morphological similarity are used to say that a group of creatures belongs to the same kind and have a common ancestor. In another case, if we take the same type of data and draw the same conclusions from it, we're told that reasoning is completely wrong. This leads to such nonsense as saying that all felines came from a common ancestor because of their morphologic and genetic similarity, but the Volvicida and Chlamydomonas reinharditii could not possibly have a common ancestor in spite of the same degree of similarity; or that the apes evolved from a common ancestor, but humans and apes could not possibly have evolved from a common ancestor in spite of the fact we share a viral insert in exactly the same position in our genomes. Basically, feline common ancestry is not verboten according to young earth creationism, and possibly Volvicida common ancestry is not, but going from a unicellular organism to multicellular colonial one? Whoa Nelly! That's too risky! And the very same evidence that we use to say that apes are related is rejected in the case of humans because we are too special to have evolved from mere animals! Because it is our bodies that make us special creations, not our souls.

As I see it, for young earth creationists there are two possibilities: 1) for consistency's sake throw out the possibility of evolution of any type and ignore all of the evidence to the contrary, or 2) for consistency's sake re-examine the evidence and see what it tells us without the roadblock of preconceived notions getting in the way.

 

Petrel said:

"After all, in another thread you yourself said that the felines, which are genetically and morphologically similar, have a common ancestor."

Here is a link to that thread. It is over three pages long but it is very interesting. I encourage you to read it through to the end. When you have time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/92.html

The very last post gives a good example of why univesal common ancestry is a good assumption. It specifically deals with the genetic evidence that all carnivores have a common ancestor.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/92/4.html#000056

Flynn JJ, Finarelli JA, Zehr S, Hsu J, Nedbal MA., Molecular phylogeny of the carnivora (mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships, Syst Biol. 2005 Apr;54(2):317-37.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16012099&query_hl=6

"Maximum parsimony and Bayesian methods were remarkably congruent in topologies observed and in nodal support measures. We recovered all of the higher level carnivoran clades that had been robustly supported in previous analyses."

 

It is obvious that Creation is important. It is the very first thing God tells us in his Word.

Try as you might, you cannot reconcile Creationism with Evolution.

1) The Earth was created before the Sun, Moon, and Stars. Gen. 1:1

2)Light, Night and Day were created on the 1st day. The Sun, Moon, and Stars were not created until the 4th day. Gen. 1:3-5

3) The first living creature mentioned is not one-celled, but the greatest of all creatures, the whale. And even the Lord emphasized this by saying "great whales". Gen 1:20-22

4) Birds were created before other land creatures on the 5th day. Gen. 1:20-22

So here are just four examples from creation that could never be reconciled with evolution. This also does not agree with modern Astronomy.

No modern astronomer would tell you that the Earth was created before the Sun and stars. But God says it was. The Bible also says there was light, morning, and evening on the 1st day before the Sun and Moon were created. No astronomer would agree with this.

The first animal mentioned in the Bible is "great whales". I think it is significant that the Lord did not mention any other creature by specific name. This is in direct contradiction to evolution which teaches all animal life evolved from one-celled creatures.

The Bible mentions birds or "fowls" on the 5th day. Other types of land animals were not created until the 6th day. This is also in direct contradiction to evolution that teaches birds evolved from lesser forms.

Just my opinion, but I believe God was showing evolution was false from the beginning. He knew this false science would rise to prominence and deceive the world in the last times.

As for the young Earth, we know that Adam and Eve were the first persons. They were undeniably highly intelligent people seeing as Adam named all the animals. This is not nearly so simple as some might think. So they were not primitive "cavemen" as evolution teaches. In fact, all creatures mentioned in the creation account are modern creatures as we know them today and not some lesser form. Evolution teaches that the whale at one time lived on land and then returned to the sea. But God shows clearly that the whale lived in the sea from the beginning. The whale has never lived on land from this time forward. Evolution is wrong.

We also have the line of Adam down to Noah, and then Noah to modern times in the Bible. We know this was only thousands of years and not millions or billions as evolution teaches.

No, the Bible and evolution cannot both be true. And evolution cannot be made to reconcile with Scripture.

People who believe in evolution deny the power of God in my opinion. I am sure many here do not do that intentionally. But evolutionary theory calls God a liar and denies His power. I believe God could have created all creation in a single moment. I believe he took 6 days for creation by design and purpose. It is not a matter that He needed time to do it.

 

I think it should be amply evident by now that I do not think the creation account is a literal, scientific report.

I think God could have made the universe in a femptosecond if he desired, or he could have taken some billions of years. Either way or anywhere in between does not detract from his power.

I would be perfectly happy to accept the biblical account as literal if it were not for the fact that the evidence contradicts it. I must either conclude that God is a liar, the Bible is wrong, or that it was not meant to be taken literally. Since I know God does not lie and I believe the Bible is inerrant, that leaves me with the conclusion that it is nonliteral.

 

"That is speculative at this time"--sums up the whole "theory" of evolution as of: 9-25-05.

It also sums up the life of Charles Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists.

The Word of God does not deal in speculation.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"So here are just four examples from creation that could never be reconciled with evolution."

Only if you insist on a literal reading. If you do not think that these verses were meant to be literal, then there is no longer a conflict.

BTW, were animals created and then man. Or was man created and then the animals in a search for a suitable helper for man?

"Evolution teaches that the whale at one time lived on land and then returned to the sea. But God shows clearly that the whale lived in the sea from the beginning. The whale has never lived on land from this time forward. Evolution is wrong."

Then why is there a fossil record of animals intermediate between modern whales and even toed hooved animals on land?

If this fossil record is wrong, then why do whales have such similar DNA to modern even toed hooved animals specifically?

Why do whale embryos go through a stage with rear legs that are absorbed before birth?

Why do whales possess a vestigal pelvis?

Why are whales occasionally born with complete rear legs?

Why do whales have dozens of pseudogenes for making the same kind of a sense of smell that land dwelling animals have? Why are they deactivated? Why do they have none of the genes that other marine animals find useful for detecting water born odors?

 

Thanks for the link. As I read it, I'm struck by an interesting thought. In the past few pages, there have been several people who have said that they know that evolution is not true because it is not happening now, that is, we have not recorded any dramatic evolutionary advances in recent history. However, young earth creationists also say that God created some undefined number of ancestor types which then evolved to give the species that are present today. With only 6000 years available (assuming all new species were taken onto the Ark instead of representative ones--that would make the situation even worse!) this would give a speciation rate far in excess of what evolutionists predict--why then do we not see the slow appearance of new species as evidence that young earth creationism is false? A failure in consistency, once again.

 

You cannot even give it 6 thousand years. Maybe a hundred years at most. Many of the species that we have today are known to ancient writers and therefore must have formed very quickly after the flood.

There is no answer given for how a housecat, a cheetah and a tiger could have all evolved from the same ancestor in a hundred years or so.

There is no answer given for where the diversity for such a change would have come from given that you were starting with two individuals.

 

I think part of the problem is the modern system of animal classification. I had a friend who said the Bible could not be correct because it classified the bat as a fowl.

Lev 11:13 And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind;

Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

Lev 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

My friend pointed out that the bat is a mammal. I countered by saying the bat was only classified as a mammal in modern times. I also pointed out that the whale and porpoise were often called fish in ancient times.

The modern system of animal classification is not really any different from the classification God used in the Bible. They are based on similar physical features. The bat has wings and flys, so it was considered a fowl. The whale and porpoise have fins, live in the sea, and swim, so they were called fish.

The only thing that has changed is the criteria used to classify animals into groups. Today, animals with hair or fur and produce milk are called mammals.

And this misleads people I believe. Just because some animals share similar features does not mean they are related or have a common ancestor. In my opinion, a whale or porpoise share many more similar features to fish than they do a bat. But the whale, porpoise, and bat are lumped together. People unreasonably assume that these animals are related or come from a common ancestor. No, they are all distinct forms unto themselves.

It is all a matter of perspective. People are fooled by the modern system of classification. I could classify all animals that lay eggs as birds. If my system were accepted by the scientific community, then alligators would become birds and the old system would be deemed false.

Concerning fossils of extinct forms, this is all they are, extinct animals. We know that many animals are going extinct today and have been in the past. This is something that can even be measured and often is. So this is a process that can be proven scientifically. So when an extinct animal fossil is found, this in no way proves a transitional form. This was simply a kind of it's own that has gone extinct for whatever reason.

I personally believe that the Bible is straightforward. I believe God wants us to understand it. Of course there are symbols and figures used in the Bible. When Jesus said he was the bread of life he did not literally mean he was a loaf of bread.

But the creation account is very straightforward. It uses no such symbols or figures like this.

Regardless, the creation account and evolution cannot be reconciled. The order of creation is clearly described (Earth on day 1, Sun, Moon, and stars on day 4, whales before other sea creatures, birds before land creatures) and will not fit the theory of modern evolution or cosmology whatsoever.

Do you believe God created the Earth on day one?

Do you believe God created the Sun on day four?

Do you believe God created the fowls before the land animals?

It is clearly written in simple language. To disagree is to call God a liar or mistaken.

 

To steal a phrase from the Translation forum, "Different is not the same". Six thousand is not the same as 8000 or 10,000.

If the timing of creation were so important would there be any reason to question when it happened? The point of the whole thread was to argue for a 6000 year old creation.

So far no YEC with the exception of Helen, has offered any reasons why Usshers chronology shouldn't be accepted despite the fact that there are plenty of proofs both internal and external to the Bible to the contrary.

Paul wrote, "Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
(2 Corinthians 13:1).

Jesus even applied it to Himself, “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true." (John 5:31).

Since the age of the earth is not a repeatable event we need to look at the preponderance of the evidence and not close our eyes to it.

We see biblical evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see historical evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see archeological evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see geologic evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see radiological evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see astronomical evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.
We see biological evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Rob

[ September 25, 2005, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Questions:

So would you classify hyenas in the same group as canines based on the fact that they look similar even though DNA says they are quite dissimilar?

Do you think that any speciation occurred following the initial creation? If so, what basis do we use to determine if an animal belongs in a certain kind? Do we just look at its general morphology, or do we consider genetic evidence as well?

 

I do not see the big difference between 6,000, 8,000 or even 10,000 years. All would be considered a very young Earth.

Those who believe the Earth is old believe the Earth is millions or billions of years old.

Now that is a BIG difference.

I am new here. Maybe I was misled by the title of this thread. I apologize if I have taken it off the initial subject.

 

JWI

No worries ... the thread has morphed a few times ...

 

This is what the dates are based on our Julian calander and the Bible accounts:

Creation of Adam 11,013 B.C.

Birth of Seth. Adam was 130 when Seth was born (Genesis 5:6) 10,883

Birth of Enosh. Seth was 105 when Enosh was born (Genesis 5:6) 10,778

End of Enosh’s period 905 years after his birth (Genesis 5:11), which is the year Kenan was born and which began his period 9873

End of Kenan’s period 910 years after his birth (Genesis 5:14). This is the year Mahalel was born and the beginning of his period 8963

End of Mahalel’s period 895 years after his birth (Genesis 5:17). This is the year Jared was born and the beginning of his period 8068

End of Jared’s period 962 years after his birth (Genesis 5:20). This is the year Enosh was born and the beginning of his period 7106

End of Enoch’s period 365 years after his birth (Genesis 5:23). This is the year Methuselah was born and the beginning of his period 6741

End of Methuselah’s period 969 years after his birth (Genesis 5:27). This is the year Lamech was born and the beginning of his period 5772

Birth of Noah. Lamech was 182 when Noah was born (Genesis 5:28-29) 5590

The flood. Noah was 600 when the flood came (Genesis 7:6) 4990

Death of Shem 502 years after the flood (Genesis 11:10-11). This is the year Arpachshad was born and the beginning of his period 4488

End of Arparchshad’s period 438 years after his birth (Genesis 11:12-13). This is the year Shelah was born and the beginning of his period 4050

End of Shelah’s period 433 years after his birth (Genesis 11:14-15). This is the year Eber was born and the beginning of his period 3617

End of Eber’s period 464 years after his birth (Genesis 11:16-17). This is the year Peleg was born and the beginning of his period 3153

The Tower of Babel must have been built between these dates (Genesis 10:25)

End of Peleg’s period 239 years after his birth (Genesis 11:18-19). This is the year Reu was born and the beginning of his period 2914

End of Reu’s period 239 years after his birth (Genesis 11:20-21). This is the year Serug was born and the beginning of his period 2675

End of Serug’s period 230 years after his birth (Genesis 11:22-23). This is the year Nahor was born and the beginning of his period 2445

End of Nahor’s period 148 years after his birth (Genesis 11:24-25). This is the year Terah was born and the beginning of his period 2297

Birth of Abram to Terah. Terah was 130 years old at birth of Abram 2167

Circumcision of Abraham when he was 99 years of age 2068

Birth of Isaac. Abraham was 100 years old at the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:5) 2067

Birth of Jacob. Isaac was 60 years old at birth of Jacob (Genesis 25:26) 2007

Jacob’s family arrived in Egypt when Jacob was 130 (Genesis 47:9) 1877

Exodus from Egypt 430 years later (Exodus 12:40) 1447

Entrance into Canaan 40 years later 1407

Solomon’s temple construction was begun 480 years after Exodus (I Kings 6:1) 967

Division of kingdom at death of Solomon 36 years later 931

 

In answer to Petrel

I really do not allow myself to be influenced by the animal classifications. This is simply a system based on shared similarities. The only thing that determines a class is the specific characteristics chosen.

I could classify all animals having four legs as "Quadpods" (made that up). This would lump a horse, alligator, salamander, and dog in the same group.

That's just an example. But really, all creatures share some similarities. We breath air just like a lizard. Doesn't mean we are related or have a common ancestor.

No, I believe that God created each animal after it's own kind. I do not believe any animals are really related to another. This does not mean there is variation built into a form. There are many breeds of dogs that look quite different, but they are all dogs regardless. And there is great variation in people as well.

I am not bothered at all when archelogists dig up some human skull that is different from ours. There is wide variation in the world today. The Pygmies are probably the shortest people (on average) on Earth. They live close by the Watusies who are the tallest people (on average) on Earth. They have a history of warfare amongst each other.

Environment certainly cannot explain this.

When archelogists find fossils of a minature horse that does not bother me either. It is just another animal that has gone extinct for one reason or another.

When the Portuguese landed on the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean in 1598 they found the Dodo bird. They hunted the Dodo. Other animals introduced by the Portuguese such as pigs, dogs, and rats also killed the Dodo or ate it's eggs. Within 80 years the bird was extinct.

Unlike evolution, extinction is a process that is clearly seen and even measured. I believe this accounts for fossils found.