The evidence for an old earth

From the responses I received about my last article I can see I must be more specific. The question that keeps coming up is, is there a gap between the first two verses of Genesis and can I support my theory? The theory that I wrote about in the previous article is a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. I base my theory on Scriptural fact. The Bible clearly states that planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. I wrote these articles as we will see later that the arguments for evolution and the creationist (young earth) point of view collapse because of how the data in interpreted.

To write these articles I had to comb through hundreds of scientific websites, both for and against evolution and creation (young earth) and along with the scientific websites I had to review theological websites and all the data that went with them. With that behind me I then had to review all the data I had collected over the years. The first problem I came across and rightly so, is that both camps, evolution and creation have very learned men and women. PhD’s are a dime a dozen so-to-speak, along with all the other degree’s issued by colleges around the country. So we have knowledge on both sides. Both sides use the same science and both sides use the same facts, the difference is, the facts are interpreted differently depending on what they believe. So in essence we have a head butting contest. (And one of those contests is with myself and another gentleman on the side of evolution). Both of us have looked at the evidence and have come up with a different interpretation, but that occurs when you look at the evidence through different filters. The question that remains is who is right? I thought about this question for some time and came to the conclusion that for me to argue talking points presented by both sides would be of little value and would probably take the rest of my life to gather all the evidence from both sides and be able to present it in a way that would be both understandable and interesting. In essence it would be a big fat book that would probably never get read and those that read it would find something to criticize, and the criticism would come from both sides. So I decided to lay out what science says and what scripture says, for in my last article I said,

“But I believe that if we take science and Christian doctrine and lay them side by side much as a person would a jigsaw puzzle, we find that when the pieces fit they form a mosaic of science on one side and the truth of Christ on the other, both of which introduce us to how awesome God really is.”

Now do I have all the facts? No, but I do believe I have enough to present a reasonable argument that shows that both evolution and those who support the young earth theory are both wrong.

The first step in the process was to see what scripture had to say about creation and does both the old and New Testament corroborate the evidence. Here’s the problem as I see it. Evolution say’s that the earth is old; creation (young earth theory) says it’s young, so how do we match up both scripture and science. To find out we go back to the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Before we look at the creation narrative I would like to point out another scripture in Genesis. Genesis 2:4 says,

These are the (generations) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The Hebrew word that is used is towldah to-led-aw' or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations.

After the creation narrative the scripture emphasizes this point. The same word is used when describing family history or the generations of births as described in Genesis 5:1. Here is what it says.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Throughout scripture we see how important it was not only to the Hebrews but to God to keep records. For we see all through the Old Testament and even in the Gospels we see the generational records of man and Christ. We see record keeping at the beginning of life as we know it and at the end, for it says in Revelation 20:12,

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Is God speaking of multiple creations, look at what scripture says in Genesis 2:1-5
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Now I ask you, why didn’t Moses write it this way if what we read in the creation narrative was the original creation?
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
In getting back to the creation narrative we find something interesting, only two times do we find water covering the earth and both are found in Genesis. Once during re-creation and second when Noah is taken into the ark.
Genesis 7:18-20 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Interestingly enough we do find corroborative evidence in the New Testament and we find it in 2 Peter 2: 4-7. It says,

KJV. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

CEV. They will say this because they want to forget that long ago the heavens and the earth were made at God's command. The earth came out of water and was made from water. 6Later it was destroyed by the waters of a mighty flood.

Notice what it says in bold. Peter is not making reference to the flood during Noah’s time because he is talking about creation. Now let’s look in more detail as we break down Genesis to see what it say’s.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

As we said earlier, when God creates he creates in perfection. So why does verse two start out as…

Now the earth was without form(formless) the word formless comes from the Hebrew word, tohuw to'-hoo. It is used and comes from an unused root meaning to lie waste or a desolation, and notice what is in parenthesis,(of surface) indicating not the whole earth just the surface was in a state of desolation which is to say, the earth was already in a created state. Notice also some of the other meanings of the word , i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.)

Now before we continue with Genesis, look at what Isaiah 45:18 has to say.

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The word Vain is taken from the Hebrew word bohuw bo'-hoo which comes from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void. He goes on to say that it was to be inhabited. Both Genesis and Isaiah use almost the same word showing the state of planet earth, but Isaiah goes on to say that in the very beginning God created it to be inhabited in perfection.

Back to Genesis.

And void (or empty) Here again the Hebrew word bohuw bo'-hoo is used and comes from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void). Void of life.

And (darkness) The word choshek kho-shek' is used meaning literally darkness; and figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness.

Now I have to make this note, the word darkness is used not only to describe physical darkness but spiritual darkness as well for we see the same word used in Job 3: 4-5 KJV says

4Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. 5Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.

The CEV says,

4Forget about that day, cover it with darkness, 5and send thick, gloomy shadows to fill it with dread.

So what the writer of Genesis is saying is this, there was a physical darkness that covered the earth as well as a spiritual darkness for we know… and we need to back up and look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Young earth creationists use this verse to say there was no sin prior to Adams fall, but I disagree for it was in eons past that Satan fell through his rebellion and passed on the sin to man. But before he passed it on to man he passed it on to the creation as well. When God said, you shall die we know Adam did not die immediately and so it is with the creation, it was a process. In the last article I looked at the laws that govern our universe, and just as Adam eventually died so did creation as we will see later.

was over the surface of the (deep) Here the word thowm teh-home' or thom is used; meaning an abyss as a surging mass of water, especially the deep or the main sea or the subterranean water-supply. The Hebrew word hamam haw-mam is also used. It is used in this sense as to put in commotion; by implication, to disturb, drive, destroy:--break, consume, crush, destroy, discomfit, trouble, vex.)

I think that in using these words the writer of Genesis is trying to show the state of creation. While surfing the internet I came across an interesting article which I’ll put here. Later we will refer back to it for reasons you will see later.

Giant star is a dying water world
July 12, 2001 Posted: 10:49 AM EDT (1449 GMT)
By Richard Stenger
(CNN) -- A red giant star in its death throes seems to be vaporizing a horde of comets, raising the possibility that another planetary system possesses water, an ingredient necessary for known life, astronomers reported Wednesday.
The carbon-rich star was not expected to contain significant amounts of water. But an orbiting NASA radio observatory detected huge concentrations of water vapor around it.
"The most plausible explanation ... is that it is being vaporized from the surfaces of orbiting comets, dirty snowballs that are composed primarily of water ice," lead investigator Gary Melnick said Wednesday. Several hundred billion comets, located in the far reaches of the star system, would have been necessary to produce the intense concentration of water vapor, Melnick and his colleagues told reporters.
Although that amount seems colossal, the mass is comparable the estimated quantity of water in the Kuiper Belt, a swarm of icy debris beyond the orbit of Neptune, during the infancy of our solar system.

"Occasionally a comet comes in close to the sun and starts to vaporize," said team scientist Saavik Ford. But CW Leonis "is so much more luminous that the sun that comets start to vaporize even at the distance of the Kuiper Belt."
CW Leonis is about 500 light years from Earth, located in the constellation Leo. Astronomers think the red giant is shedding its outer material, which in tens of thousands of years will produce a nebula system.

"We think we are witnessing the type of apocalypse that will ultimately befall our own planetary system," ( I’ll add this, it has already happened if we read and interpret Genesis correctly) said David Neufeld, who helped analyze the data from the Sub millimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite, which has searched the universe for signs of water for more than two years.

In about six billion years or so, the sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel supply and expand into a red giant like CW Leonis, incinerating planets along the way.
"Even Pluto will be vaporized, leaving a cinder of hot rock," Neufeld said.
The observations suggest that other planetary systems resemble our own, the astronomers said. More than 60 planets have been discovered outside the solar system, but their composition remains a mystery. The new findings boost speculation that many posses’ vast caches of water, like many bodies in our solar system.

Melnick, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and his colleagues were to report their findings in the July 12 issue of the journal Nature.

and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice, it does not say that God created water, it says that the Spirit of God Hovered over the water, so in essence water already existed as did old earth. And as we see according to the word used there was great trouble within and around the earth both physically and spiritually. One other thing I would like to point out is this, that nowhere in the creation narrative does it say anything about God doing anything to the earth, and that’s because it was already in its created form with mountains and valleys.

Before we leave this argument lets look at one more thing I think is important.

Genesis 1:1 it says, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:6 So God made the expanse and separated the water
Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights, He also made the stars
Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image. Now this is where it gets interesting because it’s the only time God does both.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In the beginning God created out of nothing the heavens and the earth. He made out of existing material the expanse, the sun, the moon, and the stars. He created out of nothing that which lived in the sea and the birds, and from what the scripture implies, birds came from the water. Out of existing material he made the animals after their kind. And then he took what was already in existence and created something that had never existed before as you will see later on.

Look at Genesis 1:20

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Did feathered dinosaurs exist?
New evidence raises questions about current theory
Biologists examining evidence for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs have reached some surprising new conclusions. However, they caution that "the problem of avian origins is far from being resolved." Their analysis is published online October 10, 2005 in the Journal of Morphology, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and available via Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/morphology).
Dinosaurs have long captured the imagination while their relationships have eluded full explanation. Innovative research and a comprehensive consideration of the old can also inspire new interpretations, as researchers recently found when examining the evidence supporting the current theory about feather origins and the relationships of birds and dinosaurs.
All experts agree that birds are related to theropod dinosaurs; however, debate has raged on over whether today's winged creatures are derived directly from advanced theropods, or from an earlier shared ancestor. The current theory supports direct derivation, but recent fossil discoveries in China have led to new questions about the claim. The Chinese discoverers reported finding all stages of feather evolution and ancestral birds, even though the deposits are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx.
Researchers, led by Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, considered the new findings in the context of the existing literature and furthered the knowledge base with additional experiments. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin, and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors (protofeathers). Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales also examined evidence relating to the tridactyl hand, which is composed of digits 1-2-3 in dinosaurs, the most critical characteristic linking birds to derived theropods.
Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar and Hinchliffe found no evidence for the existence of protofeathers on dinosaurs and no evidence in support of the morphogenesis of the feather from putative filamentous protofeathers. They suggest that 'protofeathers' described on fossil findings "are probably the remains of collagenous fiber 'meshworks' that reinforced the dinosaur integument." Based on their examination of fossilized remains of dinosaurs with no relationship to birds, they suggest that decomposition of skin can lead to patterns resembling feathers.
Birds have been thought to be related to theropod dinosaurs because both groups have a hand reduced to three digits. Theropods are known from fossil evidence to exhibit a hand with digits 1-2-3, the thumb and next two digits. However, the researchers found that the vast majority of evidence supports a 2-3-4 digit identity for bird wings. The bird hand "appears different from that in theropod dinosaurs," they say, and casts doubt upon the theropod derivation hypothesis. Finally, they discuss the significance of the Chinese discoveries with respect to bird origin and flight.
The authors emphasize that the totality of evidence from various branches of science must be included if we are ever to solve the mystery of bird origins and the origin of avian flight. From their careful examination of the available evidence they offer an interim attempt to define morphologically the most salient features of Aves: "Birds are mesotarsal bipedal archosaurs with pennaceous feathers, and a tridactyl avian hand composed of digits 2-3-4."
It is too early to abandon debate on the origin of birds, the authors say. However, mounting evidence suggests that "a possible solution to the disparate data is that Aves plus birdlike maniraptoran theropods (e.g., microraptors and others) may be a separate clade, distinctive from the main lineage of Theropoda, a remnant of early avian radiation, exhibiting all stages of flight and flightlessness."
Article: "Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence," by Alan Feduccia, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe, Journal of Morphology, Published Online: October 10, 2005 (DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382).
Now let’s look at 2 Peter 2:4-7 again

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of (old), The Greek word that is used is ekpalai eh'-pal-ahee meaning long ago, for a long while:--of a long time, of old.

and the earth(standing) The Greek word here is sunistao soon-is-tah'-o, or (strengthened) sunistano soon-is-tan'-o, or sunistemi soon-is'-tay-mee (including its collateral forms); to set together, i.e. (by implication) to introduce (favorably), or (figuratively) to exhibit; intransitively, to stand near, or (figuratively) to constitute:--approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with).

out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being (overflowed) The Greek word here is katakluzo, kat-ak-lood'-zo from 2596 and the base of 2830; to dash (wash) down, i.e. (by implication) to deluge:--overflow with water,) Here again the earth is shown to be covered in water.

(perished) (apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee, meaning to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.)

So what the writer here is saying, everything that was associated with old earth was destroyed.

Now let’s go back and look at what scripture says in verse three of Genesis.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now what’s interesting here is, he uses the same words when he says,

Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.

We know that seeds can remain dormant for years and as soon as whatever is covering it up is removed they start to germinate and grow. Here we see God saying, let there be light, or let vegetation grow again. It’s almost as if He’s regenerating what was once there. He does not create, he just commands the plants to grow after their kind.

Now it doesn’t say where the light came from. ( The Hebrew word used is,'owr or from 215; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):--bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun)

We know the sun had not been re-created yet, so what is he saying? I think what he is saying is this, may the darkness that covers the old creation be lifted. I believe it was an oppressive darkness brought about by the fall of Satan. I think we can almost call it a form of depression, much like what a person feels. For it says in Romans 8:18-22

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Really what it reminds me of is this. Years ago when I worked on cars I used a trouble light. Now there was light from the sun, from the garage, and from the car itself. But if I really wanted to look at something I got a trouble light out and focused it on the area I was working on. It almost sounds like God is saying, since I am light, let my light illuminate the troubled area so I can focus on the trouble at hand. Now here is where it gets real interesting and I want to remind the reader of the article inserted earlier. The Bible doesn’t say how much water covered the earth nor does it say whether the water covered more than the earth. But it does say that once God put light on the subject that it was good and He divided the light from the darkness. With that being done God now focuses on the water issue, for the very next thing God did was make a firmament. Now here is where I had to do some research.

Most people and myself included thought this meant just the expanse of the sky, or the atmosphere, or outer space, or both, some scholars believe it to be a relic of pre-scientific knowledge. Young Earth Creationists have interpreted the waters above the firmament as a theoretical water canopy which once surrounded the Earth, but no longer exists. (I’m still not sure it fits with the laws of physics)At this point in time I’m not sure whether it existed or not, so lets look at what Genesis has to say in chapter one verse 6.

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now, lets look at Psalm 148: Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away. Verse 7 then says to earth to praise the lord.

God divided the waters from the waters.

Now look at Genesis 1:14-15 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Now look at Genesis 1:6-7 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

If the firmament included the stars and all the stars died out, imagine as crazy as it sounds that water covered even them. But what is even stranger is this. God divided the waters so that there was water beneath and above the firmament which is an indication that the third heaven where God resides is separated from us by water. We can draw a parallel from this that the earth was floating in a sea of water.

Go back and read the article of a dying star. Suppose our universe died all at once, imagine the amount of water that would be created.

With this in mind is what I proposed possible? Science fiction or science… you decide.

Was light the first thing God created? I don’t think so, scripture simply says that Gods Spirit hovered over what was already there. Thus we have the element of water which is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and we have the elements and compounds in solid form which is matter, being the earth. Now according to physics and the equation e=mc2 and according to scripture we have matter so we must have space. And if there is space and matter we must have time. Matter, space, and time are directly governed by the speed of light which is a constant and that is the exact words of Genesis 1:2. We have planet Earth, a lot of water, and a universe in time that already existed before God ever said "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3.

The next thing we must look at is verse 4. It says,

God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
The Hebrew word for darkness is (choshek kho-shek' from 2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:--dark(-ness), night, obscurity.)

The darkness is nor only speaking of something physical but spiritual as well, so with those facts we can determine that earth and a universe were already in existence for an extended period of time. The physics or the equation e=mc2 was in operation and time, space, and matter have already been established, which means the processes which regulate radioactive decay and the half life principle are already functioning, and somewhere in the distant past Satan fell and the powers of darkness came to be before Adam was created.

Now before we forget, as I said earlier the bible is not a science or a history book but the plan for man’s redemption. The theme throughout scripture is about a war over a Kingdom and who will ultimately rule. This battle for domination goes back long before Abraham and long before Adam's day. It began sometime after God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:1. As we stated earlier in an earlier article Satan was the first ruler appointed by God somewhere in the ancient past. Lets go back to an earlier article where Satan is described. Ezekiel 28:12-19 says, “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings that they might gaze at you. You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.”
Now we have to understand, the scripture although it is speaking about several ancient kings, it is also speaking of an ancient evil, the one who started it all and who destroyed the first creation. How do we know, lets look at what scripture and science says. But before we do that remember how we set up the argument in previous articles.

We set up the possibility of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and we also showed how evolution could not have happened. For those who misunderstood the models of weather and global warming let me say this. They are models used to predict, and the data being used is more relative and accurate in the way they are used than the way evolutionary theory would use it. However, if we use the same data that evolution uses and compare it to scripture then we find just how accurate science just might be.

When and where Satan fell is unknown, however if we go into the past we can look at the different ages. If you recall I listed those in the last article. The Snowball Earth hypothesis as it currently stands proposes that the Earth was entirely covered by ice in part of the Cryogenian period 850 to 630 million years ago which is part of the Proterozoic era and it could have been part of other times in the history of earth. It was developed to explain sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical latitudes and other enigmatic features of the Cryogenian geological record.

According to the exponents of the hypothesis multicellular evolution began to accelerate after the last big freeze ended. Snowball Earth remains controversial, and is contested by various scientists who dispute the geophysical feasibility of a completely frozen ocean(possible the reason God recreated life in and from the water), or the geological evidence on which the hypothesis is based. However, how do we link this period with the Cambrian Explosion? Following the Snowball earth and the Cambrian explosion it is thought that the earth continents began to break up. This sequence of events which could be called a super ice age, the Cambrian explosion, and the breakup of landmasses marks the time of Satan’s rebellion.

Now if you recall, I said it’s all in how you look or interpret the data. But here again in order to believe this scenario one must believe that there is and was a spiritual battle. The reason many choose to believe in evolution rather than creation is simply this, to acknowledge God means we are responsible for our actions and sin does exist which means we have to change our lifestyle.

Satan’s fall is in the timeframe from about 750 million to 580 million years ago. Lets look at the evidence. When Satan fell so did creation. If you recall in our last article we looked at the question of the laws that operate the universe and how God would follow those laws. When Satan fell so did creation and following those laws creation began to unwind Their fossilized remains prove that there was a struggle for life under that sentence of death across the geologic ages.

Now if you recall we discussed the age of our sun. I said that it’s thought to be about 5 billion years old. If we look at the ages above we can see its possible the universe could have very well shut down over time for we have no idea when the original creation took place. Evolution says that life evolved. I ask this question, what if life was going strong at the time Satan fell. Here is an article I found that supports my theory, however those that read this may well find one that does not.

The Cambrian Explosion provides devastating evidence against gradualistic evolution
By Kevin Miller


If you believe in evolution then I challenge you to consider the facts surrounding the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion is the compound term used to describe the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago. Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years (and some Chinese scientists even believe that time period is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)). Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of Pre-Cambrian life forms (Ediacaran fauna), blue green algae, and single celled animals show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.

Evolution is considered probable by many because of the amount of time proponents believe has been available for change. But not even the most firm believers in evolution can provide a reasonable explanation for the complexity increase that takes place in about 5 million years starting 540 million years ago. Five million years is like a blink of an eye when it comes to the evolutionary timeline. As mentioned earlier just about all of the 70 phyla that have ever existed on this Earth first made an appearance in the fossil record at the time of the Cambrian Explosion. Today only 30 of these 70 phyla are still around - with the rest having gone extinct.

Some evolutionary proponents say that there was less competition around so evolution could take place in a fast manner. The truth of the matter however is that there are biological limits to how fast species can change. The only so-called rapid evolution takes place in the space of small single celled animals and bacteria that have very short life spans and fast reproductive cycles. And fast evolution doesn't always occur in that space either. The Science 268 1995 issue contains a story that tells of the live bacteria named Bacillus being found in the stomach of a 25 million year old bee encased in Amber (like Jurassic Park). When they compared the genetic makeup of this bacteria to the same species of bacteria living today they differed only 6.7%. This is evidence that is problematic for believers in evolution. Michael Jackson made morphing technology popular and it's nice to think that animals can change in similar ways but the reality is that change occurs very slowly.

Others have claimed that perhaps the precursors to the Cambrian creatures existed but never fossilized. Considering the wide array of creatures found during the Cambrian explosion this can be considered at best special pleading.

The dramatic sudden increase in complex life on Earth about 540 million years ago is enough to put aside the theory of evolution as the only cause for speciation for the life forms on Earth. It speaks of sudden creation like that mentioned in the book of Genesis. In general the entire fossil record is marked mainly by periods of stasis with very little gradual change. (Science March 10,1995). And the change that has occurred mainly happens vertically in the tree of life. The subject of transitional forms has been a controversial one and maybe some good transitional forms do exist that show that an evolutionary lineage of a particular species but the complete dearth of complex animal fossils before the Cambrian Explosion is simply not in support of evolution. Transitional forms require interpretation, the lack of fossil precursors does not. If one takes the evidence for what it says the Cambrian Explosion explodes the theory of evolution.

Consequently, what appears in the fossil record to the evolutionist as an explosion of life is to the creationist, an explosion of death. The sudden appearance of the remains of extremely complex life forms does not mean those ancient life forms were only as old as the Cambrian times. They could have been living in the geologic times long before the Cambrian. Things that are alive don't leave remains until they die. The Cambrian, therefore, marks the first record of death of complex life forms in the Earth's history, not the very beginning of complex life itself.

Now here’s where we have to back up to Genesis 1:2 the Earth is a lifeless and uninhabited planet drifting in the cold and darkness of the chaotic remains of the old universe. The planet is submerged in water, and waters also rage around it and across a ruined universe. When did this happen? If the ages of the geologic fossil record are true and faithful, as is commonly accepted; if the principle of radioactive decay and half-life dating is true and reliable; if those same dating techniques are reliable when they show that the oldest known rocks on the earth are around 3.8 billion years old, and that the first fossil remains of macro organic life on this planet were approximately 500 - 700 million years ago, then we are confronted with the only logical conclusion: The record of creation in Genesis is a re-creation. The Creation vs. Evolution paradox is not about direct descendents of things long past but of direct descendents from the Genesis creation. So how does Genesis read.

A long time ago, in very distant times past, the Lord God first created the heaven and earth Genesis 1:1. But then as Genesis 1:2 states, there was a vast gap in historical time, on the order of possibly hundreds of millions of years. In the beginning (verse 1) we have a perfect creation of heaven and earth, but in verse 2 we see a decimated heaven and earth. The geologic column fits in between Genesis1:1 and 1:2, and the geologic time marker at Genesis 1:2 is the very end of the Pleistocene. The end of the Pleistocene which is about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago shows evidence of global extinction and a severe drop in global temperatures. From the evidence we can see that all life perished from the face of the Earth for a brief period before God regenerated a new creation from the remains of the old heavens and earth.

The last Ice Age started about 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago (during the Pleistocene epoch). The Earth was much colder than it is now. The sea levels were lower than they are now since much of the water was frozen. Snow covered much of the land and glaciers and ice sheets extended over large areas. These phenomenon changed the landscape of the earth, forming lakes, changing the paths of rivers, eroding land, and depositing sand, gravel, and rocks along the glaciers' paths.

During the last Ice Age, there were many large, interesting mammals, like the saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, mastodons, and mammoths. These animals have long since gone extinct and are known mostly from fossils, from frozen, mummified carcasses, and even from ancient cave drawings. The geologic time frame preceding the six days of Genesis correlates roughly with the end of the great "Ice Age" at the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary, which dates to about 10,000 to 14,000 years.

So what happened to these large mammals?

Now you have to remember that according to scripture Adam was a worker of the soil. We see that in Genesis and his family was as well and we don’t see an indication of hunting until Genesis 10:9. So if the Paleoclimate data is valid and the time line of the bible is as well, then we must conclude it must have been a another race of humanoids.

Who were they? In the next few pages we’re going to look at Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon since many believe they are the early descendents of man. When we’re finished we’ll look at Genesis to see what it has to say and see if we can find common ground between what science says and what scripture has to say and what it implies.

But before we can look at that lets look at what DNA is. DNA is a linear array of these four bases A,G,C, and T, only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical which would indicate that all living forms of life came from one source which would make the argument for evolution. Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical, so we can use that as our base for our argument

Human DNA is said to be 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. So the question is, what’s in the other 1.6 percent that makes us different from them? If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? They have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh blood group genes, and fewer Alu repeats in their genome than humans. They are also different in that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes, so there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions. Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. So, now that we have determined where 75% of the base DNA is, we have to look at the remaining 25%.

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, it was discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals. This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly “miniscule” difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind how can we say that other species are almost identical to us simply because of a large genetic overlap.

Now lets look at what is thought to be another ancient ancestor.

Neandertal DNA by Mark Rose
If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 May, 2003 BBC
The scientists found that while, unsurprisingly, modern humans show clear genetic signs of their Cro-Magnon ancestry, no such link between Neanderthal DNA and modern European DNA could be established.
The results, they say, indicate that Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the genes of modern humans.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 January, 2004 BBC
Researchers collected data on 15 standard "landmarks", or features, on over 1,000 primate skulls. Computer software transformed this data into sets of 3D coordinates for each skull and then superimposed all these sets on top of one another. Using statistical analysis, they compared differences between modern human and Neanderthal skulls with those found between and within 12 primate species. The results support the view that Neanderthals were indeed a distinct species.

Recently the remains of an "anatomically modern human" (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia, have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA genetic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. Read the article below.

Mitochondria and Mitochondrial DNA
Written by: Annemarie Nagle
What is surprising about this fossil, aside from its incredible age and apparent gracile characteristics, is that the mtDNA sequences isolated from the bones do not match those of the Australian Aborigines or any other known lineage in the modern world. One possible implication of this evidence is that this particular lineage may have evolved independently in Australia, casting doubt as to the certainty of the out of Africa migrations. Another possible explanation is that Mungo’s lineage actually originated in Africa and was carried to Australia via migration. The fact that this mitochondrial sequence has never been seen before suggests that the lineage went extinct in both Africa and Australia (and presumably everywhere else it may have been carried) following these migrations. This theory would also assume that LM3’s mitochondrial lineage branched off before the most recent common ancestor of mitochondrial lineages extant today. Scientists have discovered, however, that a portion of Mungo’s mtDNA sequence appears to have been inserted in the nuclear DNA of chromosome 11, a trait that is widespread among modern human populations.

Many scientists have also questioned the integrity of mtDNA analysis on a fossil of such great age, and organic molecules of comparable antiquity have only been recovered from fossils in very cold regions. Excavations in other regions of the world in climates similar to that of the Willandra Lakes area have shown that these conditions are not normally conducive to the preservation of DNA greater than 10,000 years old.

12,000-Year-Old Human Hair DNA Has No Match With Modern Humans© Copyright © 2001 by Linda Moulton Howe - All Rights Reserved.

Now lets look at another article that deals with Neandethal.

Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton
By Bjorn Carey, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 10 March 2005 04:51 pm ET

Anthropologists have built a "Frankenstein" Neanderthal skeleton, the first and only full-body reconstruction of the species. The result, announced today, is a shape no one expected. "It's almost like making my own fossil discovery," said Gary Sawyer, one of the skeleton's architects.

Sawyer, an anthropologist at the American Natural History Museum in New York, and his colleague Blaine Maley of Washington University, pieced together the skeleton using bones mostly from an individual known as La Ferrassie 1.

La Ferrassie 1 was missing its rib cage, pelvis, and a few other parts, so Sawyer and Maley had to scrounge around to find some parts.

"The missing parts had to come from another classic Neanderthal that was similar, if not identical, in size to the La Ferrassie man," Sawyer told LiveScience in a phone interview.
The spare parts came from Kebara 2, a 60,000-year-old skeleton discovered in Israel in 1983. Kebara 2 was previously known as the specimen with the best rib cage, pelvis, and vertebral preservation.

The La Ferrassie man was discovered in France in 1909 and is about 70,000 years old.

'Dwarfy-like beings'
Sawyer said the replacement bones are remarkably similar in size to La Ferrassie man - most were off by only a few millimeters.

Still, as the scientists pieced together the bones, something didn't look quite right. A rotund, bell-shaped torso, produced by a flared lower ribcage, and a pelvic region that looked slightly wide and feminine, began to form in front of their eyes.

"The biggest surprise by all means is that they have a rib cage radically different than a modern human's rib cage," said Sawyer. "As we stood back, we noticed one interesting thing was that these are kind of a short, squat people. These guys had no waist at all - they were compact, dwarfy-like beings."

Other bits and replacement pieces, mostly the ends of bones, were collected from half a dozen other Neanderthals. The remaining gaps were filled in with reconstructed human bones.

The finished product is "like Frankenstein," Sawyer said.
Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.

Evolutionary side road
"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots."

The reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton is currently on display at the Dolan DNA Learning Center in Cold Spring Harbor, NY. It will eventually go on permanent display at the American Museum of Natural History.
This research will be published in the March 11 issue of the Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist.

Neanderthals were a relative of homo sapiens that co-inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia with hum from about 120,000 to 29,000 years ago. They were well adapted to the cold and were very muscular -- good traits for hunting large animals.
"They had very strong hands," Sawyer said. "If you shook hands with one, he would turn your hand to pulp."

That’s one opinion, now here’s another.

DNA study deals blow to Neanderthal breeding theory
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:38 PM ET

Neanderthals and early human ancestors probably did not interbreed, according to Italian researchers. Scientists know Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were different species who both lived at the same time, about 40,000 years ago.

Researchers at the University of Ferrara in Italy extracted and analyzed DNA from the bones of four Neanderthals, as well as two Cro-Magnons found in Paglicci Cave, a paleolithic site in southern Italy. The scientists took every precaution to prevent the samples from becoming contaminated.

The team looked at mitochondrial DNA from cell structures in the samples. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from generation to generation along the maternal line.
The DNA from the Cro Magnon specimens resembled the variation scientists see in today's humans, but the Neanderthal samples "differ sharply," the researchers said in the May 27 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The results suggest Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the modern human gene pool, according to the study.

"This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neanderthals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool," the study said. Neanderthals and early human ancestors probably did not interbreed, according to Italian researchers.

Scientists know Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were different species who both lived at the same time, about 40,000 years ago.

Researchers at the University of Ferrara in Italy extracted and analysed DNA from the bones of four Neanderthals, as well as two Cro-Magnons found in Paglicci Cave, a paleolithic site in southern Italy. The scientists took every precaution to prevent the samples from becoming contaminated.

The team looked at mitochondrial DNA from cell structures in the samples. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from generation to generation along the maternal line.
The DNA from the Cro Magnon specimens resembled the variation scientists see in today's humans, but the Neanderthal samples "differ sharply," the researchers said in the May 27 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The results suggest Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the modern human gene pool, according to the study.

"This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neanderthals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool," the study said. The findings support the prevailing "out of Africa" hypothesis that modern humans emerged from Africa a few hundred thousand years ago and spread out, replacing the Neanderthals.

The competing "multiregional hypothesis" holds some interbreeding took place between Neanderthals and early humans. Supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point out its impossible to prove the ancient DNA is authentic.

DNA's Evolutionary Dilemma
Genetic studies collide with the mystery of human evolution
By Bruce Bower
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm

I’ll not include the entire article, just the last sentence.
"Over the next 10 years, more complex genetic models will emerge," Hammer says. "DNA research has not solved the mystery of human origins."
So the question is this, why the recreation? As I said, it is assumed that Satan fell somewhere in the ancient past, exactly when, who knows. I don’t think when he fell is as important as to why. I think to understand this better we first have to determine what was the cause of his rebellion. We also have to determine what God has been doing during the eons of past time. In looking at our surroundings both here on earth and the sky above us and looking at the theories put forth by science I think we can safely say that God has been in the process of creating throughout his existence which incidentally is time without end in the past, present, and future tense because God dwells outside of time. For us to assume that man is God’s only creation in absurd. If we look at time through the eyes of God whether it be 6000 years or 4.5 billion years, that time frame would be just a click of the second hand of your watch.
We also see something else in scripture. We see that for everything God created Satan has a counterfeit and an apposing view. One of those counterfeit teachings is evolution. Where did it start? To answer that we have to look at Genesis 6.
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them
Take a look at – sons (of) God. The Hebrew translation is this, ben bane, a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc
'elohiym el-o-heem': gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God, or a deity.
So what we see here is the sons of a deity or a super natural being looking at the daughters of men. The question is this, where did theses sons of God come from and who were they. If we go back to Satan’s rebellion it would be safe to say that they were beings that fell with Satan. But the question then arises, why did God create man in the first place? He didn’t do it out of boredom or loneliness, there had to have been a reason. If we look at what evolution calls the ascension of man, you could call it evolution. An evolution of a creature created by Satan. Why? We know that Satan was powerful and intelligent. Even Michael the Arch Angel would not directly confront Satan. So from that and from scripture we can say that other than God, Satan was the most powerful and intelligent creature God made excluding himself.
I believe that Satan watched as God created. He saw the glory in creation, he saw the adoration and worship of newly created beings towards God and wanted that. It’s possible that part of Satan’s rebellion was trying to create his own world. I believe that God allowed him to try using the technology God created in developing life, DNA. The arrival of Cro magnum was as close as he got whether it was through genetic development or procreation with early humanoid forms we will never know. But if we look at Genesis 6 I think we get a glimpse of what happened
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
I believe God allowed Satan to carry out his rebellion as far as he could and then either destroyed it or allowed creation to simply unwind and destroy itself. After the creation of man Satan once again tried but failed, for nowhere do we see the scripture making mention of the sons of God other than in reference to angelic beings or mankind.
The geologic time frame preceding the six days of Genesis correlates roughly with the end of the great "Ice Age" at the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary, which dates to about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. The geologic record reveals a mass extinction episode at this time in which hundreds of large and unusual forms of mega fauna mysteriously perish from the face of the earth.
In Genesis chapter one there is a particular phrasing "after their kind" and "after his kind." It was during this time the Lord God made the new world on the face of the old Earth during those six days. In reading the scripture we find that God filled the new world with many of the same KINDS of plants and animals that had been on the face of the Earth previously. Many were not replaced after their kind, however, but new ones were introduced in their place.
Whether God allowed the old world to totally unwind or whether he destroyed and recreated remains a mystery, however all the old is gone and everything was replaced. The DNA is similar, just like man and ape, but they were created after their kind.
God created man I believe for several reasons. The scriptures tell us he loved us before he knew us, or before we were created as he did with all his creation. But above all I believe man was created to prove to Satan that he wasn’t or couldn’t be God.
We see Satan trying again in Genesis chapter 6 to create through human means and we see the flood destroying what was left of Satan’s creation.
In conclusion I have tried to give the readers of this article both the Biblical and Scientific answers to what I believe are the issues that cloud the thinking of those that believe in evolution and young earth creation.
Science has proven that the stars we see up in the sky are much older than 6,000 years. Young Earth Creationists have listed their arguments and suggest that changes were made in the speed of light, so God deliberately made everything appear to be old. In so doing they make God a liar.
What if old earth and the original creation went out in a blaze of glory as some Old Earth Creationism believes, could we see it? If it did maybe the light show hasn’t reached us yet, after all we’re looking into the past. But if it did think of the light show that awaits us. Luke 21:25-26 says
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.(Luke 21:25-26
Through carbon dating… about 12,000 years ago which would point to the end of the Pleistocene, old earth and the heavens above became a cold, dark, and ruined cosmos 6000 years ago God recreated
To end this article I would like to add a link http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_bacteria_030106.html
I’ll leave you will the last paragraph of the article
The debate does highlight a need for clearer standards of evidence for matters paleontological and astrobiological. Ironically, despite more data, improved techniques, and increased focus on the field, scientists are finding that one of the most difficult questions to answer is also one of the most basic: "How do we really know?"