In Six Days?  (continued)     

Home / Next

 

Here is the text of Mike Purrington's latest response.

There are three primary views concerning the age of the earth. Most believe it is a very young planet, and that God created it mature (old) as he created man (Adam) mature. This group has the earth varying in age from 6000 to perhaps 12000 years. Then there is a group that believes a very long indefinite period of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3, varying from millions to billions of years, and that the creation account following Genesis 1:2 is a recreation, or reshaping, of what was made void and without form by Satanís fall in Genesis 1:2. The third group believes in theistic evolution, saying God created things over a long period of time, with the Hebrew word ďyomĒ for ďdayĒ being used to denote long epochs of time during the six days of Genesis creation.

 

            To answer you question about the horse. It is assumed that the horse evolved from a 12 inch tall Hyracotherium toward its current size, however this is problematic since the the origin of Hyrocotherium (eohippus), the first horse, is unknown, as there are no

fossils connecting it to its alleged ancestors. The evolutionary line evolutionists have come up with for horses is Hyrocotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus or modern horse.

 

            Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus are all found from the same age of rocks and are very similar apart from a sequential decrease in size. One of the features of the horse that has changed through its history, and that is commonly used as an example of evolution, is its legs and feet. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, there is a morphological gap as the size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet suddenly decreases from four to three.

 

Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus are very similar and do not involve major evolutionary changes. The transition to Meryhippus involves a significant instantaneous increase in size, and the transition to Dinohippus a sudden decrease to one toe. From there itís a straight shot to modern horses.

 

            The problem I have with the reconstructed fossils of the horse is none of the fossils came from the same place but from all over. Am I right or wrong? I donít see where evolution has proved its point through the horse, the only thing I see are holes in the theory.

 

            As to your next questionÖ what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles that became more mammal like as time progressed?

 

            Let me ask you this, how would you explain a Platypus? This creature first baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate fraud, yet it was real.

 

            Consider this. The Platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them, for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasi-reptilian, still endure. In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.  Although in 1947, William King Gregory had theorized that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier with a subsequent branching dividing the monotremes and marsupials, later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.

 

            Not everything that appears to be correct is correct. Is it possible that God used evolution? Genesis says,

 

            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.

 

            So to answer your question, is it possible that creatures evolved? Over a long period of time according to its kind is possible. But evolution as you want it to be is not because it leaves God out of the equation. As I said before smart guys on both sides of the issue does not make it right, nor does it make it wrong. And since science is always updating its findings what is right today may not be tomorrow.

 

            You said, I suggest we use scientific methods, and I agree, but there must be a base line. Science without truth is science fiction. You said that Mainstream science has found that the talking points for evolution so overwhelm the talking points against evolution, that mainstream scientists refer to evolution as fact. I disagree. For every article, book, or talking point there is two apposing arguments and each side uses the same science, education, facts and data to prove their point. Iíll give you an example, go to http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm and read.

 

            This argument is short and to the point. I also placed an article on the blog you might be interested in. Let me say this inclosing. The Gap theory goes back a long ways and many early theologians agree and taught it for many years. You lost your faith because you were trying to argue from appoint of view that cannot be backed up by science. I think the fact that young earth believers put out an article and then pull it back only hurts their cause. I have read many of their articles and then later find they have pulled them because of facts.

 

            Show me this, in all of the evolutionary theory where does the spark of life come from? Evolutionary science can say tell us what compounds and chemicals make up life, but they canít create it. They can clone it from skin cells, from t cells, from eggs and embryos, but they canít create it. And if they could where did the original compounds come from? Where did it all begin?

Next

Home