The Case For A Young Earth (04/23/2000)

Brother Otis asked me to speak today on the case for a young earth, so that's what we'll speak on this afternoon, the case for a young earth as argued by the brilliant creation research scientists of the 1970s through the 90s, is the title.

And the reason I put that is because it's important to understand that when

Darwin's theory came out, it took the church many years to recover and to catch up.

And what happened in the early years is that they scrambled around and they looked at what was presented and the entire scientific world was accepting it as truth and fact, and being men and women of God, they were not willing to say that the

Bible was wrong in any way, so they created things to try to make it work together. And they had not had time yet to test the theories, and it took years, it took years and years, and it really was not until 1970, somewhere in that ballpark, when several scientists who were

Christian men and women had finally had time to take the data, the same data, same scientific data that anyone has, and to prove that it fits the creation model better than it fits the theory of evolution, but it took that long.

Now since that time, however, if you go back to 1970 and you come forward to the present day, there has not been one case where an evolutionist was able to defeat a creation scientist in a debate, in a public debate.

The creation scientists have won every debate they've ever, every public debate that they've ever done on television or whatever, in fact, the evolutionists will no longer do these on TV because they got their pants whipped too many times, and that's just a fact.

One thing you have to do is kind of go back in time a little bit and ask questions like why did anyone ever come up with the gap theory?

How many of you use a Schofield study Bible? Let me see your hand. You have one.

Well, it's my favorite Bible, but Schofield was a man, so he could make some errors.

One of the errors that he did make was he believed in the gap theory, and so in your footnotes it'll talk about that.

Don't believe it because it ain't true. It was just a theory. I can understand why they came up with it if you go back and you kind of walk in their moccasins a little bit.

If you were living in the day that they lived in and Darwin had come out with his theory and just, it hit the world and they ran with it, and it appeared to make the early portions of the book of Genesis to be in error.

So they scrambled to try to find, they knew the Bible was not in error, so they tried to figure out, well, how did these two fit together?

If it's true that the earth is 54 million years old or whatever, how does that fit with six days of creation?

And so they created the gap theory and other things to try to cover it. So I want to discuss some of that history with you this afternoon, but before we start, why don't we read the scriptures?

So let's look at Genesis chapter one and let's start with verse two. The gap in the gap theory was supposed to have occurred between verse one and two, but there is no gap there.

If you have a Scofield Bible, there's actually a separation between verse one and two and a subtopic, earth made waste and empty by judgment.

That didn't happen. It was a nice effort, but it's not the truth. The truth is you start with verse one and you read right through to verse two and it just reads right through as it happened.

In fact, we'll start with verse one. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and God said, let there be light and there was light and God saw the light that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness and God called the day called the light day and the darkness he called night and the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now, throughout these six days of creation, you're going to see this phrase repeated and the evening and the morning were the first day, the second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, sixth day, et cetera.

And this is a phrase to look for in each passage. Now, verse six, it goes on and says, God said,

I want I'm reading fast because I know I don't have a whole lot of time because even though we didn't have fried chicken, something's going to settle and you're going to get sleepy here in a minute.

So, but as we read, think about what was created on what day, because some of that's going to come into play here in a moment.

God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from those that were above.

And it was so and then you had the evening and the morning where the second day and then verse nine and God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place.

Let the dry land appear. And it was so. And God called the dry land earth and the gathering together of the waters called he the seas.

And God saw that it was good. And God said, let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit of his kind whose seed is in itself.

Now, that's an important phrase whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind.

And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now notice what day that these plants were formed on was the third day.

And then it goes on. And God said in verse 14, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

And it was so. And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule by day, the lesser light to rule by night.

And he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night to divide the light from the darkness.

And God saw that it was good and on the evening and morning were the fourth day

So we see the creation of the Sun on the fourth day and God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and the foul that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven and God created great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind and Every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good

And God blessed them saying be fruitful and multiply Fill the waters of the seas and let the fowl multiply in the earth and the evening and the morning were the fifth day and God said let the earth bring forth living creature after his kind cattle and creeping thing and beast

Of the earth after his kind and so So forth and God made the beast of the earth after his kind and the cattle after their kind and everything that creepeth now

That would be the insects and other thing creeping things of the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good

And God said let us make man in our image after our Likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the seas over the fowl of the air over the cattle over the all the earth

Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth so God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him male and female created he them and God blessed them and God said to them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and Subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the earth

And God said behold I have given you every herb bearing seed Which is upon the face of the earth and every tree and which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed to you

It shall be for meat or for food and to every beast of the earth and to every fowl of the air to everything that creepeth

Upon the earth wherein there is life I have given every green herb for food and it was so and God saw

Everything that he had made and behold. It was very good in the evening and the morning were the sixth day and Then you go on and it'll it'll talk about the

Sabbath the seventh day so in the year 1859

The world of theology was hit by a powerful asteroid of atheism

Sending dust in the atmosphere of which choked the faith of the very elect and plunged the theological world of that day into a deep winter darkness

Very similar to what we might have if we had a nuclear explosion The asteroid was named the origin of species by means of natural selection

By the man who first envisioned its arrival Charles Darwin Theologians were caught totally by surprise and were blinded by the dust and debris of the volumes of scientific data from different disciplines from anthropology to geology

Which seemed to make it impossible that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago as the

Bible had always been interpreted to teach What's interesting to note?

Is that until the time of Darwin not only did? Universally all the theologians agree that the earth was made in six literal 24 -hour days

But so did the scientific world all the scientists believe that as well They believe that The earth was made in six literal days and that the earth was a few thousand years old

Not the 4 .5 billion years of age proposed by evolutionists however with the huge amount of data from the new science of Darwinism the men of God abandoned the eternally fixed truth of the

Word of God and condescended to the ways of science proposing ever -changing theories

In an attempt to make the Bible acceptable by the standards of evolution good men like CI Schofield and the rest fell to the temptation to interpret the scriptures in the light of current scientific knowledge

In addition to the time -honored literal interpretation of the first four chapters of Genesis which includes six literal days of creation and Allowed for the age of the earth to be several thousand years old five new theories had been proposed since the time of Darwin which have come down to today and I want to read to you some excerpts from a book by Dr.

Thomas Rogers called The panorama of the Old Testament which lists these theories.

The first theory is called theistic evolution Now remember, these are all theories that were

Created since the time of Darwin. They're all relatively new theories the church previous to this had no such theories

The first one is called theistic evolution which supposes that God created through evolution

That God created everything, but he did it using Evolution this cannot be accepted and I'm quoting.

Dr. Rogers This cannot be accepted by true Bible believers because it does violence to the entire

Bible and has virtually no proponents among conservative Bible scholars So that's the first one theistic evolution.

That one is held mostly by the liberal theologians The second one is called the day age theory

Which proposes that each of the six days of creation represents eons of time

While his proponents do not believe in evolution. They do allow for the antiquity of the geologic column

Which evolution requires? They are there are critical flaws in this theory

However, the Hebrew word yom y -o -m you're trying to get that down can be used

Metaphorically, but those who argue for the day age theory have not demonstrated that the days of creation are metaphorical days

Even when yom does designate something other than a literal 24 -hour day It nonetheless refers to a period of specific duration and they're talking about the

Hebrew word here And it is doubtful that yom ever signified a period of time extending into millions of years.

These are serious hermeneutical difficulties The third theory is called the revelatory day theory

This indicates that the six days were not creative days But days in which

God revealed to Moses the steps of creation So on the first day God told

Moses that I created this on the second day I created this and so it was days in Moses life not days of creation

If you just if you read if you read the Scriptures you see that's not what it is

But this was just another attempt to allow for the darwinistic huge years of ages so For example on day three

God revealed to Moses that he had created the land plant seas, etc This theory has few followers today.

The fourth theory is called the gap theory this theory Proposed that there was a gap between Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 and verse 2

Which allowed for millions of years that evolutionists believe? Are found in the geologic column

Dr. C. I. Schofield was among those who taught this theory yet. It has many problems

John J. Davis in his book called paradise to prison states this about the gap theory while the motive of gap -theorists the harmonization of the

Bible with current geological theory is commendable the Validity of their argument is extremely doubtful

Modern geology knows nothing of the theories to global catastrophes with two distinct geologic periods

Hebrew grammar will not allow for a chronological gap between verses 1 and 2 So the gap theory not only falls because in the

Hebrew language the grammar does not allow for a gap between verse 1 and 2 but it also falls because all of the

Evolutionists none of them believe in a flood or a worldwide destruction of any kind Which would be required even if you allow the gap you have to have this catastrophe that happened

Well, the evolutionists don't see a catastrophe like that. So so nobody agrees with these poor individuals

Revered scholars such as FF Bruce and it named several Several different men have pointed out that quote the purpose of the disjunctive

Wah, which is WAW now we're getting in the Hebrew here and they're simply pointing out that these two verses don't have a gap between them

Bruce by the way is one of the greatest scholars on Old Testament FF Bruce He and several others point out that the purpose of the disjunctive

WAW Which verse 2 begins with is to describe something in a preceding clause not something which happened later

So there's your grammar if you need it. I mean It doesn't make any sense to me But I kind of know what they're saying there in the

Hebrew language There is a word found at the beginning of verse 2 that ties it to verse 1

So you can't have a gap between the two verses the gap theory falls here and has few proponents today

The fifth theory is called the literal day with gaps theory

This theory contends that the days of creation need not be taken Consecutively, but may be understood to be separated by long ages

Each day would then indicate a normal 24 -hour period By the time of the arrival of which the major Phenomenon of which

God had been creating since the previously mentioned aid had a length of Great length, so they believed that the creative day was a literal 24 -hour period

But then there were billions of years maybe before the second day and so forth J Barton Payne I'm going to quote him.

He says quote theistic evolution and the Hebrew Hebrew of Genesis 1 through 2 on each creative day quote came

When the events previously described were completed Davis says this viewpoint has very few adherence because it severely strains the

Hebrew text if Moses had intended to describe Non -consecutive days, it would seem he could have done so with more clarity

Also, this theory regards the days as times only of completion of divine creation while the writer of Genesis appears to be describing the beginning of creative activity as well as the

Completion of it on the same day all these new theories for reinterpretation of the

Genesis record have self -destructive laws Not only do they not fit with the very science which they attempt to placate

But they do damage to the proper methods of Bible interpretation. So I want to discuss those two problems first of all doing damage to proper

Bible interpretative methods in other words If you use the same method that you would have to use to create more time in here and you apply that to the rest

Of the Bible then you could make the Bible say anything You you are you are

Making an exception on your rules interpretation if you change what this passage says, that's the first problem

The second problem is doesn't fit the science So I want to discuss those two problems with the time we have left

First of all, let's talk about damage to the proper methods of Bible interpretation Not only are these new theories flawed because they fail to answer the science

But also because they do not meet the same standards of sound Bible interpretation that would be used elsewhere in the

Bible where other doctrinal Issues are involved Davis says this Quote it is unfortunate that the lines in this battle are so tightly drawn

Opponents of the literal day theory usually present it in the worst light They constantly label a theory which is based on the prima facie

Impression given in Genesis 1 as naive This objection is quite dangerous because it can be raised just as well against other crucial doctrines of the scripture for example the

Gospels give the prime of Asia impression that Jesus physically rose from the dead an

Impression that at least seems naive to some people According to modern scientific opinion and research as that given in Genesis 1 then the resurrection would be naive

So should we then reject the literal physical resurrection of Jesus, of course not and so why do we have to Reject the literal 24 -hour days of creation

In other words, it is not a very strong argument to say that it seems naive that God made it all in six days

Because what we're saying is God couldn't have done it in six days Henry M Morris Says in his book the remarkable birth of the planet

Earth and I quote is there any way By which the six days can legitimately be transformed into five eons of billions year of a billion years each

Any such conversion will require unique techniques of interpretation designed expressly for this one chapter

Liberals are quick to ridicule those who accept what is called the literal interpretation of Genesis forgetting that there is really no such thing if something is interpreted it is not taken literally at all an

Interpretation is actually a translation in which words are not taken at face value but converted into other words

Thus quote day may be transformed into quote age and quote all may be transformed into quote

Some if God actually employed such a coding technique in writing Genesis 1 it is strange that he would withhold the key to the code from all of his holy prophets and apostles until it was forced from him as it were by the unbelieving scientists of the

Darwin age When men use figures of speech in their writing they normally do it for emphasis and clarification not for cryptic

Concealment the creation account is clear Definite sequential and matter -of -fact giving every appearance of straightforward historical narrative

If the author did actually intend to tell the sequential creation of all things in six days

It is impossible to see how he could have done so more plainly than in the words and phrases actually used

Would God be party to such a blatant deception? Perhaps it is not so quote naive after all to take

Genesis literally Christ did Pretty strong argument

That was from Henry Morris who by the way is the father of the scientific creation research

Foundation, California the greatest group in the world on these issues

Now let's stop for a minute and look at the scientific data, and we're not gonna You know we can just barely touch on this this afternoon

I'm gonna give you four or five very interesting points to think about it'll also give you some ammunition the next time you're talking to a

Petroleum engineer or something about how old the earth is I've had that opportunity several times being in the oil business

I have close friends that are petroleum engineers that work with me, and I'll engage them in conversations

It blows their mind. You know they think you know they looking at all the strata and they think that the earth is billions of years old and They know that I'm somewhat educated, and they can't believe

I think it's only 6 ,000 years old, so it's a lot of fun But this will give you some ammunition

From the scientific point of view these theories Still do not make the

Bible fit current Darwinian theory I want you to know that all of the theories that we talked about that Theologians have tried to come up with to stretch those days beyond 24 -hour periods none of what they've done have made it fit

Darwinism and none of the Darwinists would accept what they say as scientific So all they've done is they've just messed up the scriptures.

They haven't done anything to make it fit the science These theories still do not make the Bible fit current

Darwinian theory and their violations of universally understood Scientific facts are worse in some cases than the evolutionary theory, and that's why dr.

Morris and the creation scientists out of California have not accepted these Theories of long ages they believe in what we call a young earth

So let me give you some interesting points now. I'm going to take most of the remaining points from a fascinating little book

I wish each of you could could get hold of called the panorama of creation by dr.

Carl Ball who is a friend of mine? I had seen him and I need to have him come here and speak to us because I hadn't seen him in a while But he's a wonderful man

Wonderful speaker and a brilliant scientist who can take that sort of thing and put it down on layman's terms where we can all understand it and has the

Wonderful speaking ability which is not normal for for most scientists So he's just really great at this but a lot of what

I'm going to say here comes from his book called the panorama of creation First I want to speak to you about the impossibility of botanical life

Existing beyond day three if there are more than 28 days separation between day three and day four

Okay, let me say that again the impossibility of botanical life forms existing

Beyond day three if there are more than 28 days separation between day three and day four

First of all, we have the problem of photosynthesis the botanical life forms were created on day three

Remember, I pointed that out when we read through The Sun was created on day four if these days represent eons of time then the plants would have had to exist without photosynthesis for millions of years until the

Sun and stellar heavens were visible and usable as light sources Within 48 hours most of the botanical life forms would be dead and in a matter of 28 days

All of them would be dead Now if you say well But the light that God created before he made the

Sun could have created photosynthesis Then let's talk about the problem of procreation

If you take the plant life It was not until day six that God created the insects that are so very important to the procreation of most of the plants

If the six days of creation were not literal then plants could not have begotten themselves for three million years

Until the insects were created as we know the insects carry the pollen from one plant to the other in many forms of plant life

Now let's talk about a second problem the electromagnetic field of the earth

Dr. Ball moves into this area That Of science that would be violated unless the days of creation or six literal 24 -hour periods the

Electromagnetic field of the earth has been decreasing exponentially losing one half of its energy every 1 ,400 years

This is why the field is weak today causing such problems as depletion of the ozone layer

With increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation, which we know is going on 1 ,400 years ago the electric

Electromagnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is today and 2 ,800 years ago it was four times as strong as it is today if you go back beyond 10 ,000 years ago you find that the electromagnetic field of the earth would have been too powerful to allow life to exist on the earth

So the earth could not be older than 10 ,000 years old Third problem is the shrinking

Sun The Sun is losing energy and a certain number of feet per hour

Not per hour But a certain number of feet in Surface material well per hour actually you wouldn't be able to measure it per hour, but I guess if you

Got it down to tiny numbers you could but the Sun is shrinking and scientists know this if you extrapolate

Back several tens of thousands of years at the same rate that the

Sun is currently Decreasing in size and you go backwards in time to see how large it might have been

The Sun would have been so large that the earth would have been scorched just a few tens of thousands of years ago

Also, the magnetic pull of the Sun would have Catapulted the earth into the

Sun a long time ago So the earth cannot be more than a few tens of thousands of years old

If the Sun has been decreasing at the same rate now remember one of the greatest premises of the scientific world today is the theory of uniformitarianism

And they say that everything has always happened as it is happening today and therefore we can

Predict how it used to be based on that So if we use their own theory then the

Sun must be decreasing at the same rate that it always has and therefore The Sun would have been

Destroyed the earth. Oh, maybe, you know 40 ,000 years ago. Well, they're saying the earth is what what

I say? 5 .4 billion years old so We would have been scorched a long time ago

Now, let me give you a fourth thing the changing distance of the moon from the earth The moon is receding from the earth a few inches every year

If this is extrapolated out say ten Several tens of thousands of years

In the past the moon would have been so close to the earth that it would have lost its orbit and collided with the earth

Dr. Ball concludes this section of his book by saying that everything was meticulously and artistically designed

It was orchestrated at the beginning and we don't have Thousands and millions of years to deal with in relation to this inter context of the days of creation

Now, let me give you a fifth thing They've looked at the rings that are around Saturn.

Have any of you ever been able to see that through a telescope? I bet you have Bill. It's neat.

It's one of the neatest planets to look at because of the rings Dr. Ball talks about some of the space probes that have been sent to Saturn And on one of these the mission discovered that the rings of Saturn were intertwined or braided

Now if you look at them through a microscope, they don't look that way. They just look like one ring and then another one and then another one but when they flew the the

Saturn Space probe there and looked at it up close they found that these

Rings were actually intertwined and inter braided together all of the laws of physics show that after several thousands of years

This intertwining of the rings would have been lost and the rings would have become uniform in composition

This means that someone designed them in their braided form just a few thousand years ago.

Dr. Ball says I love the way he writes The sixth thing and this is something that I have a little bit of personal knowledge with and that's downhole pressure and oil and gas wells

I Mean this is logic and I've really made some petroleum engineers blush with this one myself

But if you think about it when you look for oil or gas, you're always looking for it in a porous

Formation One of the things you do when you do a log or when you do core samples is you're looking for porosity and you want high porosity

You want a type of rock that the gas can flow through and the oil can move through That's exactly what you're looking for.

So dr. Ball comments on this From the pressure of oil wells the downhole pressure it appears that the earth is just a few thousand years old

Otherwise all the downhole gas pressure would have long since leaked through the permeable earth crust

Ball brings out that all the processes of dating radio isotopic material and alpha particle decay known to science give different ages when various Portions of the same rock are examined.

All these processes are based upon the concept of Uniformitarianism, which of course the flood or any other form of catastrophic event would preclude

If you look in Hebrews chapter 11 in verse 3, you might want to jot that down because it's it's just a it's a divine smack in the face of evolution

Hebrews 11 3 says through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the

Word of God So that things which are seen were not made by things which do appear

That is a direct strike at the theory of uniformitarianism God said the things that you see today were not made by the things that you see today

The way things work today were not placed into existence in the way that things work today and Yet the whole theory of evolution demands that everything has always been uniform and always worked the same way

You can't have carbon dating unless everything has always worked the same way The flood itself would have messed that up and many other things

Create all kinds of problems with carbon dating and yet if you read any kind of anything in a popular magazine

It has to do with some new bone. They found or Any artifact they found and they'll use carbon dating and they'll say this is several billion years old

Or if you take your kids to the museum and it's showing all these things. This is 12 billion years old You know, this is such -and -such our kids around here

Just laugh when we take them on field trips and they they'll read it and they go Yeah, sure, and they'll go the next one.

But most of the kids in the world believe that stuff Because they are told matter -of -factly.

Well, this has been carbon dating It sounds very scientific until you begin to study how carbon dating works and it's based on you

Uniformitarianism bill where you want to make it? I thought maybe you want to make a comment on that carbon dating stuff

How do you think the collapse of the vapor canopy would have affected the ratio in outer

That's right First Timothy 620 says this

Oh Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so -called

Evolution is in fact a science falsely so -called because it is not science at all. It's faith

It's faith based because they have no facts Absolutely, they're there they have to take

A jump or a leap in logic to come up with their theories Now, let's talk about the red shift a minute.

Some of you be familiar with that It has to do with astrophysics But some of the stars appear to be billions of light -years away.

We know that's fact, isn't it? I mean they do appear to be billions of light -years away

Astrophysicists will admit that the formula which indicates long ages for the stars known as quote the red shift theory

Or the Doppler effect is an error Although you won't find that in popular magazines where you read

If you if you get into some of the scientific journals, they may admit this but you're just reading

Time magazine or something I just say well the The Doppler effect proves that the stars are billions of light -years away and it's just given matter of factly

In fact in the all the textbooks that the elementary school and junior high kids have in our public school systems

They don't make mention that these are in error Do they bill the Doppler effect is is a current theory because the textbooks are always would you say?

Ten years behind in the public schools of where science really is or maybe more now Maybe more now

So our kids are being taught stuff that they already know is wrong It's being taught as facts and they will not allow these

Brilliant creation research men to come into the schools and teach what they believe they will not allow that Although some states

I think are now allowing some of that in on a state -by -state basis If we take the formula at face value the redshift formula on Monday Wednesday and Friday the universe is twice as large as it is on Tuesday Thursday and Saturday Now dr.

Ball's genius, I mean I wouldn't know this but I'm quoting dr. Ball And Sunday is a toss -up

Recently it has been found that the Doppler effect can be a phenomenon of light rather than long age implications

Number eight let's talk about the fossil record and the flood for a moment The fossil record is really the only quote proof that the evolutionists is left with because you can blow the rest of their stuff away

Like we just did So now they're left with the fossil record and the what they call the geologic column and I said, well here it proves it

I mean we got fossils and you know, you can see evolution here

They say because if you look at the at the column You've got the complex plants and animals at the top and the farther you go down They get simpler and simpler and it proves it all evolved and that's there

That's the way they prove this When confronted with the fact that no evolution

From one basic kind to another has ever been observed to take place in the historic period of the column in fact the basic nature of natural processes as specified in the first and second laws of thermodynamics

Seems to preclude the very possibility of significant evolutionary changes of this type

The evolutionists must eventually fall back on the fossil record In other words if you tell him well, how can things go from?

Simple to complex when the first and second laws of thermodynamics in essence say everything tends towards disorder

If everything in the universe tends towards disorder, how can you take this order and bring it into order?

naturally with with no designer Well, even if they decided not to argue that they would always go well this look we have the evidence here

Look at the geologic column. That's all they can fall back on So He regards this record as firm proof of evolution

Documenting the gradual now. This was the problem of Schofield and all the theologians, too They believe they were convinced by Darwin that the geologic column was a problem for us to deal with biblically so that was their problem, but if you document the gradual increase in complexity of the organic world

With the passage of eons of geologic time This is what the evolutionist tries to do to prove that his theory is correct in fact, though the very concept of geologic ages is based on this assumption of This assumed gradation of fossils the various individual geologic ages are supposedly recognized and identified by the

Evolutionary stage of the fossil assemblages found in them. That's a lot of verbiage

Let me just tell you what what he's saying here. They're using a circular argument Because what they're doing is saying well

If you look you can see that if you've got fossils here of this kind Then it must be this age several billion years ago.

If it's this kind of fossils, then it's several billion years older than that So because it's that way then it's that old, but then they turn around and say it's that old because it's that way

So they're take they're they're inventing both sides of the argument and using each one to prove the other Which we call circular argument in logic and it's a fallacy.

It's a logical fallacy The fossil record does not in fact indicate an old earth

However, so let me give you some ideas about that. There are many scientific difficulties with this interpretation of the fossils the very existence of Fossils in any significant size and number seems to require rapid processes of sedimentary deposition burial compaction and lithification

Otherwise normal decay processes would soon destroy and dissipate such organic remains.

So the very fact that you have Fossils indicates that whatever happened happened quickly to sort of cement them in there before they could rot and So that defies what the evolutionist says happened they say it was laid down over billions of years gradually and slowly

Furthermore the fossil record does not show a continuous evolutionary progression at all as the theory requires the same great gaps between the major kinds of plants and animals that exist in the present world are

Also found in the fossil world. You don't see any Intermediary Animals or plants that turn this one into that one uses not there never has been there in Addition as mentioned above there are numerous locations

Around the world where supposedly older simpler fossils have been deposited in layers vertically above Layers containing quote younger more complex fossils one famous area of this type is in Glacier National Park where a vast block of Precambrian limestone

Supposedly nearly a billion years old is found resting on top of Cretaceous shales

Presumably only a hundred million years old The remarkable thing about this is the fact that this out -of -order block of limestone is perhaps 350 miles long and 35 miles wide and six miles thick

With every appearance of having been laid down by normal De -symmetry processes on top of the younger shale beds which are below Well that defies what they say they say that you've got complex

Forms of life and in simpler as you go down and in this particular place in In this area, it's the reverse you have the simpler stuff at the top and the complex animal and plant life at the bottom

And this is not just some little Irregularity, it's a 350 mile long 35 mile wide six mile thick piece of rock

That is laying on top of other rock and the top rock has the come has the the simple

Plants and animals in it in fact there seems to be no known present physical process that could produce such a gigantic Quote overthrust as this now.

Here's what the evolutionist says they say well We know that's out there, and we call that an overthrust what happened was it was really like this

And maybe we had an earthquake and it shifted and started going like this, and it just thrusted up over the older Portion well let me show you something dr.

Ball points out. This is why they don't debate On national TV anymore with these guys because they just blown pieces

But he says in fact there seems to be no known present physical process that could produce such a giant

Overthrust as this if indeed it could ever be demonstrated by physical proof

That the order of the strata had really been inverted by actual movements after the after their original

Deposition it would prove also that force is entirely different from anything now in existence

Must have been acting in the past which disproves uniformitarianism So in other words they can't have their cake and eat it, too

They say well the reason you've got the simpler on top is because you had an overthrust and dr.

Ball and others point out if you had an overthrust there's no known physical thing that could make it do that So things have not always worked the way they do which disproves your theory of uniformitarianism

Something was vastly different if that really happened that way the standard geologic dogma of uniformitarianism

Namely that processes of the same kind and intensity as at present are able to explain all past Phenomena is thereby thereby proved false either way

This is only one example out of scores that could be mentioned Furthermore there are even greater numbers of example of missing quote ages in locations everywhere

It is not too much to say that in some location or other one could find practically any sequence

Whatever of the so -called geologic ages Most creationists are convinced that the key to the real understanding of the fossil -bearing

Sedimentary rocks is nothing less than the great flood of Noah's day

The fossils speak not of the gradual evolution of life on earth over vast ages

But rather of the sudden extinction of life over all the earth in one age in remorse

So that stuff is fun to read and I just wanted to share some of it with you That's all we'll do for this afternoon.

But you I mean I probably have Ten books this thick that where these guys have written stuff just like that And I just give it to you for this reason.

You don't need to worry about it. You don't need to worry. Well now How how could this be six literal days?

It doesn't fit the scientific data Fact is it fits the scientific data if you include the flood which the the scientists do not believe there was ever a universal

Flood by the way, no no ever That he created with the appearance of age or with actual age

In other words, he created things mature. He didn't make Adam a baby. He didn't make trees seeds

He made him grown trees and they already had the rings in them made him look years and years old He did not create the earth as an infant it was created as a as a mature earth and by the way

It had plenty of petroleum in it and natural gas and all the gold and all the metals that we need to make

Airplanes and bombs to kill each other with it was all there and it was created with maturity from the beginning which gives a real problem to those who try to find out how old the earth is who are unbelievers because it appears to be far older than it really is and If you take all that and you put that data together the only real theory that it fits is the theory of creation

They call it scientific creation It fits the Bible perfectly None of the other attempts to make the two fit together have ever worked every one of them can be proven to have flaws in it

Except the literal six -day theory So when God said on the evening in the morning or the first day and so forth

Your pastor's theory and belief is he meant exactly what he said and if he didn't mean that how do we know the resurrection is true?

If he didn't mean that how do we know you're born again? Just because part of the Bible said you are perhaps that was inserted later

So we have to be very careful when we begin to quote interpret the Bible and I really liked what?

Morris said at the first Session this afternoon how he said that that's you know

He said I don't have an interpretation interpretation means you've changed the words to make them fit your theology

He said just read it like it is just just read. What does it say? What does the account say?

and If you take the same approach that you do for any other portion of Scripture in the

Bible if you want to read about Salvation if you want to read about the resurrection if you want to read about the birth of Jesus If you want to read about the walking on the water if you want to read about the parting of the of the

Red Sea Use the same interpretative methods you use on those but the early portions of Genesis and you're gonna come out with six literal days of creation

So let's stand and have prayer together Father we thank you for these brilliant Scientific minds that you raised up and brought to the world in our country there in,

California And we ask you to bless them even today bless their ministry bless their great minds keep them humble

It must be difficult to remain that way with the brilliant minds that they have but keep them in Christ And walking in the

Spirit we thank you for the wonderful books that they've written in the volumes and volumes and volumes of studies that they've

To disprove the theory of evolution Father we thank you that you give us these tools

And you've allowed us to live in a day that we would not be the ones that were tempted to Create some different interpretation to fit science when we know science changes every day

The one thing that never changes is the Word of God And we thank you for it and we stand upon it

And we ask that you cause us to stand upon it until the Lord Jesus comes back for us, and we pray in his name