Confusion on biology, geology, and evolution

OK you do understand the difference between Evolution (Biology) and Geology right? On the moon dust argument some of you creationists say that the evolutionists don't have all the facts to prove the moon is old. That has nothing to do with biology that's geology. Why is it that when a real scientist (geologist) makes theories based on tons and tons and tons of evidence for the age of the earth and universe creationists call it biology or evolution that's wrong, its geology. This is one reason I don't take creationists seriously, they have used the word evolution to make there spin but they don't even know the definition of evolution or any other science. Apparently any argument against the Bible is evolution. To bad we don't let the Bible evolve with us. We have to use old morals that most people wouldn't even agree with.
I think you need to preach this
Deuteronomy Chap.13 all verses (sounds like some Muslim views)
But I bet you wouldn't because it might make people think.
You just pick what you want to believe out of the Bible and all the other stuff you ignore, like it was never written.
 

– A.M., U.S.

---

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Please see our point-by-point response below. It is written with kindness, and hopefully it will challenge you to study these topics further.

OK you do understand the difference between Evolution (Biology) and Geology right?

Could you please be more specific as to where we have confused geology and biology? And why do you equate evolution with biology? Electron-to-engineer evolution is an interpretation about past biological activity. In fact, an actual observable event in biology, described by the Law of Biogenesis is a death knell to evolution. This law (one of the only laws in biology) states that life comes from life.  In the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which is what I’m assuming you are referring to since you haven’t defined evolution,  ultimately life had to come from non-life (sometimes referred to as “abiogenesis”—see Life from life...or not?), which has never been observed and violates this scientific law.

Second, our staff and consultants, such as Dr. Georgia Purdom (Ph. D., molecular genetics), Dr. David Menton (Ph.D., cell biology), Dr. John Whitmore (Ph.D., biology), and Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D., geology), have a very strong grasp of these disciplines, as do many other creationist biologists and geologists.

On the moon dust argument some of you creationists say that the evolutionists don't have all the facts to prove the moon is old.

Although this argument was frequently used by creationists in the past, we now advise creationists against using the moon dust argument. Please read the article Moon dust and the age of the solar system regarding the moon dust to see our stance.

That has nothing to do with biology that's geology.

We agree.

Why is it that when a real scientist (geologist) makes theories based on tons and tons and tons of evidence for the age of the earth and universe creationists call it biology or evolution that's wrong, its geology.

Actually, what we say is that many types of geological evidence yield ages for the earth and universe that are far younger than those required for molecules-to-man evolution. In other words, if it can be shown that the earth can’t be more than, say, several million years old, then there hasn’t been enough time in earth’s history for big-picture evolution to happen over several billion years.

This cross-discipline approach is used by many. For example, evolutionary biologists assume that geologists have correctly identified the age of things (and therefore, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that evolution has had billions of years to work with). Geologists, in turn, rely on chemists to correctly identify the half-lives of the various radioisotopes found in the rocks dug up by geologists. And chemists rely on physicists to correctly identify the details of radioisotope decay.

In fact, the idea of long ages began with geologists (see chart below). Secular geologists developed the idea of untold ages, based on uniformitarian assumptions, and biologists, believing geologists were correct about the age of things, developed the idea that life as we know it came about over those long ages.

Summary of the old-earth proponents for long ages

Who?	Age of the earth	When was this?
Comte de Buffon	78 thousand years old	1779
Abraham Werner	1 million years	1786
James Hutton	Perhaps eternal	1795
Pièrre LaPlace	Indefinite, long ages	1796
Jean Lamarck	Long ages	1809
Georges Cuvier	Untold ages	1812
Charles Lyell	Millions of years	1830–1833
William Smith	Untold ages	1835
Lord Kelvin	20-100 million years	1862–1899
Arthur Holmes	1.6 billion years	1913

Most geologists don’t challenge this paradigm, not because of the evidence but because of their preexisting belief about the age of the rocks. Please see Searching for the magic bullet.

Additionally, you state that there is “tons and tons and tons of evidence” for an old earth, and universe, yet you give no examples. Whereas we have given many different lines of evidence for a young earth and universe. For example, in Evidence for a Young World, Dr. Russell Humphreys uses secular assumptions of astronomical and geological processes to show that they are actually inconsistent with an interpretation of an old earth.

This is one reason I don't take creationists seriously, they have used the word evolution to make there spin but they don't even know the definition of evolution or any other science.

Then by all means, please define “evolution.” It seems strange that you would say we don’t know the definition, and then use it in your email without defining it. Apparently you think we know the definition enough for you to just use the term.

Besides, the word “evolution” typically has its definition changed frequently by evolution propagandists.

Apparently any argument against the Bible is evolution.

No, there are other objections, but we’ve answered them in Get Answers: Bible “contradictions” and “errors”.

To bad we don't let the Bible evolve with us.

What makes you assume we are evolving?

If by “evolve,” you mean merely “change,” then, yes, people can and do change. In fact, this is what the Bible is all about—people changing by believing in what Christ has done for us on the cross, and becoming conformed to the image of Christ.

We also believe that living organisms have changed from the way God originally created them 6,000 years ago. They exhibit great variation with their kinds, however they do not change from one kind into another.   

However, God is unchanging in His nature and in His Word (James 1:17; Hebrews 6:16–19; 13:8; Psalm 119:89). It’s not up to us to change what He has spoken to fit our needs—His Word is true for the ages past and those to come. How useless would a legal document be that changes constantly, so that no one could agree on what it meant at any one time. Would you suggest changing the works of Shakespeare? Yet how trivial are his words in both relevance to humanity and authorship compared to God’s Word.

We have to use old morals that most people wouldn't even agree with.

Why call them old? Who wants to be stolen from? Who wants there to be murder? Do you like to be lied to? Few that I have met would say they do! These “old” morals are based on the rules that the Creator has given us in His Word: do not lie, do not steal, do not murder, etc.

If you’re calling them “old” because you don't agree with some of them, your lack of agreement doesn’t take away from their authoritativeness. The problem is that you want some of the morals of the Bible without accepting the rest of what the Bible teaches. But, apart from the Bible, you have no consistent basis for morality.

The Bible is authoritative because God wrote it, whether we agree or not. One day, you will give an account of your actions to your Creator:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:3–5).

I think you need to preach this
Deuteronomy Chap.13 all verses (sounds like some Muslim views)
But I bet you wouldn't because it might make people think.
You just pick what you want to believe out of the Bible and all the other stuff you ignore, like it was never written.

 

What is humorous here is that you advise us to not to “pick what you want” or ignore parts of the Bible when that is exactly what you and many others do—particularly with Genesis. Regarding Deuteronomy 13 (and passages like it), in times past (including the OT), death was the corporal punishment for certain sins; however when Jesus came, He took the punishment for sin on Himself showing mercy to sinners and calling them to repent (e.g., the adulteress woman in John 8)—an example we should follow. The salvation and mercy offered through Christ is ignored by Muslims.

We start with the truth from the One who was there and interpret the facts of geology and biology—incidentally the same facts you have—from that perspective. The facts (fossils, rock layers, natural selection, mutations) are the same for everyone, whether he is an evolutionist or a creationist. How those facts are interpreted is critical and is based on what one believes about the Bible. We believe it is truth, so we see the facts in this light as a great confirmation of the Word of God. God has revealed how He created the world, and what we see in the world confirms this truth.

This isn't about whether we are “young earth creationists”—it is about whether we believe the Bible’s historical account of the beginning of the universe. Ultimately it comes down to who you trust as your authority: God and His Word or man and his ideas? We trust God and His Bible, and I want to invite you to do the same. Please take a moment to read the following big-picture look at the gospel:

The “good news” of being saved goes back to the “bad news” in Genesis. God originally created a perfect world (Genesis 1:31), there was no death and suffering (Genesis 1:29–30). Then man sinned against a perfect and holy God (Genesis 3). God cursed the animals and the ground because of man and sentenced them to die (Genesis 3). It is due to man’s actions that sin and death entered the world. Now we are all sinners as a result and in need of a Savior.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

When Adam and Eve sinned, God sacrificed animals (Genesis 3:21—coats of skins) to cover their sin because God decreed that sin is punishable by death (Genesis 2:17). In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22). But God loved us enough to take that punishment upon Himself. He stepped into His creation as a perfect man, Jesus Christ, to live and suffer and die a painful death to be the final sacrifice to cover our sins for good and offer salvation and forgiveness to those who will receive the free gift of eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Those who receive Jesus Christ are saved from the power of sin and death and can look forward to a new heaven and new earth (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1) – a place with no pain and sorrow (Revelation 21:4), for the curse will be removed (Revelation 22:3).  

I want to encourage you to consider your response to the salvation offered by God. Kind regards in Christ,

Brad and Bodie