Episode 75: Days of Creation
February 8th, 2012 at 10:20 pm (Protology, Evolution, Old Earth, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Nathan Schumacher, Young Earth Creationism)
Listeners Cowboy Bob Sorensen and Nathan Schumacher join me to discuss the age of the earth, evolution and the authority of Scripture. This episode contains part 1 of our discussion; listen to episodes 76 and 77 for parts two and three.
Music
- Terrance Bell, Days Of Creation from the album, Relative to Life, 2011
Promoted Resources
- Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
- Glenn also created my podcast's theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
- Cowboy Bob Sorensen's blogs
- Books
- The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth - Past, Present, and Future, by John Morris
- Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth, by Donald DeYoung
- Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Dr. Russell Humphreys
- Organizations
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [01:09:24m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (613)
james brown said,
February 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Hey Chris- Though I don’t follow your position it was an enjoyable podcast as always.
Though I would add, as far as the scientific concerns you addressed- asides from the radiometric dating of rocks, calculating the age of the stars, using genomics to determine the age of a particular species etc, there is one or two more things to consider- and that’s the time needed for the formation of igneous and metamorphic rock. I’ll outline the briefly below:
Metamorphic Rock • Metamorphic rock is formed from sedimentary rock undergoing extreme pressures and temperatures many tens of kilometres below the surface • The events needed to form the rocks are as follows: a) deposition of sediments, b) compaction to form sedimentary rock, c) subduction of rock deep below the surface to undergo high pressures (>30,000 bar pressure) and high temperatures, d) uplift of the rock back to the surface. This process cannot have taken place in under 6,000 years given the time needed to perform each of these individual tasks, with the estimated time being measured in tens if not hundreds of millions of years
Igneous Rock • Igneous rocks usually come in two forms: basalts (extrusive rock formed by the cooling of lava) and granites (intrusive rocks, formed underground by the cooling of magma) • Lava pools formed by volcanoes often take around a year (depending on the climate) to completely cool from liquid form to the freezing point of the rock • Granites can take a lot longer to cool, given that they are a) formed underground and are insulated by the surrounding rock (with temperatures there of up to 900ºC), b) they are not cooled by the air and c) the magma will continue to be pushed up into cracks in the rock by molten magma pushing from behind meaning that there is heat being supplied to the system. The rate at which the magma is pushed up into cracks can be incredibly slow as demonstrated by laboratory tests where the situation has been replicated using different sized tunnels, rock types and temperatures • Granite contains crystals. As anyone will have learned in basic high school science, crystal-forming substances will produce larger crystals when the substance is warmer as there will be more time for growth before the substance freezes. Given the average temperature of magma, the time taken to produce crystals of the sizes found in granite can be calculated to help determine when the rock was formed. It has been determined that in many granites, the time that would have been needed to produce large sized crystals would be measured in hundreds of thousands of years, with a 6,000 year period being an utterly insufficient time period for cooling to occur, never mind 4,700 years if you argue they were formed during the flood given that igneous rock is often found between sedimentary layers • The time needed to push magma through cracks of certain widths is also measured in tens of thousands of years (6,000 years is again too small), with the cooling time needing to be added on top of this • Granites are sometimes found exposed at the surface. For this to be the case, the rock will have had to have gone through a number of lengthy processes including a) intrusion of the magma, b) cooling of the magma and c) weathering of the overlying rock leaving the granite exposed. Again, the time needed for this cannot be less than 10,000 years and is more likely to be measured in the 100s of thousands of years • It would be easy if all granites were small, as the time needed to cool would be much lower. However, some areas of granite cover areas of over 50km in extent. Such areas would have to take millions of years to cool. If they cooled within 6,000 years, the amount of energy released within a short time period would be enormous. The authors stated the following regarding the suggestion that those rocks could cool that quickly.
But as you all said the science is secondary to Gods word, However I just don’t see the text making the same claims as you and your guests do in respect to a young earth (or even a global flood) and its in the text I find confidence for my position rather than science.
Should you ever follow up It would be interesting to consider the style of writing of Genesis 1, which is quite different to the rest of Genesis, and also where the idea of a young earth and figure of ‘around 6000’ years comes from- as the text itself makes no such claim; this is implicit rather than explicit, taking some amount of deductive reasoning to arrive at.
Anyhow keep it up the great work brother Shalom James
Cowboy Bob said,
February 15, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Perhaps this will help? http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Dating-secrets.html
james said,
February 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm
thanks Bob, but this is’nt a dating issue- rather a formation one.
mshumayeli said,
February 16, 2012 at 4:02 pm
For you to consider
The Hebrew word for day that was used for the creation days of Genesis chapter 1 is the same word used at Genesis 2:4 as a reference to the whole of the creative period, six days, “in the day that . . .” The Bible uses the word for “day” as longer periods than a 24-hour day “one day is as a thousand years.” (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4) There are indicators within the first two chapters that we are dealing with periods longer than 24-hour days.
(1) Third Day: At Genesis 1:11-12, we find that trees grew from seeds to maturity, and produced seeds of their kind. This takes months, even years.
(2) Sixth day: We find Adam was created, went to sleep, named thousands of animals (names that indicate observation of the animals), grew lonely (looking for a helper), went to sleep, Eve was produced out of Adam’s rib. This is obviously longer than 24 hours.
james said,
February 16, 2012 at 4:09 pm
(probably worth noting then- the sleep was a deep sleep)
james said,
February 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm
(probably worth noting then- the sleep was a deep sleep, not a nap ((though not necessarily and indication of time spent unconscious))
Cowboy Bob said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:20 am
“There are indicators within the first two chapters that we are dealing with periods longer than 24-hour days.” No, the indications are quite clear that God used literal days. Any possible exceptions do not negate the majority — if you can find those exceptions. God wanted us to know that he used literal days, and said so quite clearly. Think about this, that if he wanted us to know that he used ages or long periods of time, he would have told us using different words.
“The Bible uses the word for “day” as longer periods than a 24-hour day “one day is as a thousand years.” (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4)”.
Context determines the usage. This is not in reference to the days of creation (where God actually DEFINED what a day is), but showing how God is not confined by time and space.
“At Genesis 1:11-12, we find that trees grew from seeds to maturity, and produced seeds of their kind. This takes months, even years.”
It does not say what you think it says, you are adding words to the text. Creation was complete, God rested, it was “very good”. Why would God create things from seedlings and so forth? Everything was fully functional and mature.
“Sixth day: We find Adam was created, went to sleep, named thousands of animals (names that indicate observation of the animals), grew lonely (looking for a helper), went to sleep, Eve was produced out of Adam’s rib. This is obviously longer than 24 hours.”
This is your eisegesis and opinion. See http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c001.html.
Hope this helps.
Nathan Schumacher said,
February 29, 2012 at 11:50 am
Well said, Bob. I’m working on a lengthy response to the challenge by James regarding Metamorphic and Igneous rocks, which will be available soon. Rest assured, it doesn’t take millions of years to produce either of these. The problem is not with the data, but with the uniformitarian and naturalistic interpretation of it. As usual, the challenge comes from those oblivious to the interpretive lenses they’re wearing.
james said,
March 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm
(oops forgot to include what i was responding too)
Hey Bob, I know these questions were for mshumayeli- but as we don’t get notifications and I’ve just seen your post, I though I’d jump in on the discourse so feel free to ignore, or not.
“No, the indications are quite clear that God used literal days. Any possible exceptions do not negate the majority — if you can find those exceptions. God wanted us to know that he used literal days, and said so quite clearly. Think about this, that if he wanted us to know that he used ages or long periods of time, he would have told us using different words.”
And I’d add there are exceptions and that the majority does not dictate the context. Sure on a surface reading, no one would conclude anything but literal days.. however as we all know, Gods word often requires us to dig below the surface. And as mshumayeli noted there are enough clues in the first couple of chapters (and throughout scripture) to give us good indication these are perhaps not literal days.
“Context determines the usage. This is not in reference to the days of creation (where God actually DEFINED what a day is), but showing how God is not confined by time and space.”
Agreed context defines the usage; and while Genesis 1 is not purely poetic, its most certainly a mix of poetry and prose- remarkably different to anything else in Genesis (and really much of scripture) a very unique style of writing. its a very structured; almost a restrained a account because of the structure (but God told us what he wanted) with little surface detail of creation, and what we do get uses distinctive literary devices: repeating refrains (and the evening and the morning, etc), ideas and phrases repeating themselves in patterns of 3’s 10’s and 7’s to teach us. Its quite incredible.
But let me ask you – if a 24hr day (a solar as we know it) is defined by the earth rotating on its axis, in relation to the suns position in the sky- what sort of days were the first 3? - being as the sun appears on day 4? Are they still solar days, or 24 hour periods? If so how do you know this?
I’d also add that the text tells us quite clearly in v14 what the lights created on the forth day are for:
“14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years”
so what are days before the sun (days 1-3), why and how are they 24hours?
And would you be comfortable saying days and years were created on the forth day?
“It does not say what you think it says, you are adding words to the text. Creation was complete, God rested, it was “very good”. Why would God create things from seedlings and so forth? Everything was fully functional and mature.”
Everything was only ‘fully function’ and ‘mature’ (and those words are reading in to the text ((but I’m happy enough to continue)) and very good at the end of the 6th day; so lets back up a bit to day 3- did the vegetation just appear ‘fully formed’? Or was it brought forth from (or produced) by the ground)? (indicating small-large/infancy–maturity?
“This is your eisegesis and opinion. See http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c001.html.”
The links dormant, so can’t comment.
Grace and peace.
Cowboy Bob said,
March 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm
This link may serve as well: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html
“Sure on a surface reading, no one would conclude anything but literal days.. however as we all know, Gods word often requires us to dig below the surface. And as mshumayeli noted there are enough clues in the first couple of chapters (and throughout scripture) to give us good indication these are perhaps not literal days.”
Not true. To get anything other than literal days (and this was not an issue until people wanted to compromise and let “science” tell us what Scripture says), we have to force-fit our interpretations into a straightforward reading. If God wanted to say “ages” or some other indicator of long period of time, he did a lousy job by using the word that means literal day when there is an indicator like “evening”, “morning” and an ordinal number. There are other words that God could have used to indicate long ages.
It seems to me that you are trying very hard to get ages out of days. Why is that? Did you listen to the podcasts and find out about the domino effect of compromise that you have to go through? Essentially, it leads to Jesus, Peter and Paul being liars!
Cowboy Bob said,
March 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm
It was pointed out to me that I misspoke in this episode. I said something to the effect that Jesus referred to Genesis more than any other book. Seems like I combined two facts into one monstrosity. Jesus did refer to Genesis as literal history. Also, Genesis is quoted and referred to more than any other book in the Bible. Guess it’s important, huh?
Noah S. said,
March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Great discussion. I have slowly been coming a young earth point of view as the biblical evidence seems to point me more and more in that direction.
However, I do feel James brings up a valid point on the length of time that it takes to form either igneous or metamorphic rock. I’m interested (excited is more like it) to see the response to this.
Cowboy Bob, I also appreciate what you’re getting at. It’s one of the things that’s influenced how I look at the issue as a whole. I’m trying to keep my biblical (read: factual) lenses on as I sift through the information…
But I gotta tell ya….it’s really hard to shake what seems like a matter of fact when considering the length of time required to form said rock types. At least from this non-scholar’s point of view.
Either way…great question and great discussion! Please keep it coming…
theopologetics said,
March 16, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Noah, thanks for the comment. Nathan Schumacher sent me a response to James’ criticism, which I turned into a PDF for him and posted on Facebook. He’ll be posting a comment here in this thread with that link, too. He addresses in great detail James’ arguments for an old earth.
Nathan Schumacher said,
March 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm
I’ve finally finished my lengthy response to James’ claims regarding metamorphic and igneous rocks. I’m happy to announce that I’m more confident than ever that Young Earth Creationism has the answers. Link to the PDF here or on the Theopologetics FB page.
http://theopologetics.podbean.com/mf/web/w4y779/CreationResponse.pdf
Noah S. said,
March 17, 2012 at 1:11 am
Thanks, Nathan….and thanks, Chris for linking. Wow…At 19 pages it looks a bit meaty, so I’ll print it out and give it consideration bit by bit.
Cowboy Bob said,
March 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Some excellent information on the Hebrew scholars, the days of Genesis 1 and so on: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/24-hours
Cowboy Bob said,
March 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Some useful information about Hebrew scholars and the meaning of “day” in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/24-hours