Dr. Ben Carson’s Speech

Dr. Ben Carson (famous surgeon and since 2017 the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development) affirmed his belief in creation as taught in Genesis chapter 1. He specified that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but this was an unspecified amount of time prior to the creation days 1-6. This view is what we web call “Young Biosphere Creation model” (or Two Stage Creation). Dr. Carson summarizes this view of creationism in a speech posted on YouTube Feb, 2013. Note especially his comments beginning at minute 19:30.

Halley’s Bible Handbook

It was brought to our attention that the later edition of Halley’s Bible Handbook (which was quoted on this site under “Online Resources”) was changed in the Fourth Day section. However, editions 1-24 affirm a Young Biosphere perspective. Here is the original text:

Fourth Day 1:14-19

Sun, Moon, and Stars. They must have been created ‘in the beginning.’ On the ‘first day’ their light must have penetrated the earth’s mists (Gen.1:3), while they themselves were not visible. But now, due to the lessened density of the clouds, as a result of further cooling of the earth [and intervention of the Creator] they became visible on earth. Seasons came when the earth’s surface ceased to receive heat from within, and became dependent on the Sun as its only source of heat.

Bracketed phrase added – JBW

The page under Online Resources has been changed to this original edition.

The Bleeding World of Noah’s Flood

Attached pictures illustrates my current treatise called, “The Bleeding World of Noah’s Flood.”  The fountains of the great deep (Genesis 7:11) were not water fountains at all, but lava fountains, volcanoes, igneous intrusions worldwide, a perfect lithosphere broken into tectonic plates all by a super huge asteroid impact of “Goldilocks” size about 5000 years ago. Anyone who wants to read the treatise (25 pages) just request it and I will send it by email.
– Gorman Gray

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

William Kelly: An Older Universe

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[f] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. Genesis 1 (NKJV)

The Young Universe/Earth model advocates consider those who don’t interpret Genesis 1:14,15 to be an ex nihilo creation to have a deficient concern for the biblical text. This would also imply that the YBC belief in an undated universe indicates a less fundamental view of biblical doctrine. But Bible Truth Publishers is the vehicle of conservative Brethren writers from decades past. Note this quotation from William Kelly that Day Four describes the purposing of the solar heavens instead of their initial creation out of nothing:

Then we are told [Gen. 1: that “God made,” not created, “the two great lights.” The language is never varied without purpose. Rosenmüller the younger was an admirable Hebraist, and certainly free enough in his handling of scripture; yet he has no hesitation in his discussion of this question formally, but insists that the genuine force of the construction is not “fiant luminaria” (i.e., let lights be made), but “inserviant in expanso coelorum”, i.e., serve in the expanse of the heavens). He compares he singular with the plural of the Hebrew verb for being, and deduces the inference that the language can only express the determination of the luminaries to some fixed uses for the world, and not to their production. (Kelly, William. In The Beginning – and the Adamic Earth, 1891, reprint. 1970, Bible Truth Publishers, pp. 62-63.)

Astronomy’s Indications of an Older Universe

Christian apologist, Frank Turek, discuses the origin of the universe and includes this observation by astronomers:
“Robert Jastrow suggested the same when he ended his book God and the Astronomers with this classic line:  ‘For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’”
Excerpted from Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p. 84)
Gorman Gray has addressed this issue in The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits (p. 20,21).
Dr. Duane Gish has authored a book entitled Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. Dr. John Morris has published The Young Earth. Neither publication addresses the question of the speed of light and the magnitude of the universe. When asked, separately, why they did not pursue that topic, these well-known authors answered almost identically. Both simply asserted that they did not want to get into that subject. Explanations attempted by other writers leave thinking people uneasy. A large segment of creationists interpret Genesis as limiting the age of the universe to a maximum of 10,000 years. And yet galaxies exist whose light requires millions, even billions of years to travel to earth. How can this be?
The question begs for an answer.
So far, no one has suggested a satisfactory response to this problem. Despite various attempts, doubts persist that this issue has been resolved. Barry Setterfield has proposed that light velocity has changed from near infinity at the original creation to the presently measured rate. His theory thrived for a while among creationists, then was less popular but is still within consideration. Dr. Russell Humphreys, creationist physicist, has offered an attempt, and because it has largely replaced the previous unsatisfactory answers in popularity, chapter 7 [in The Age of the Universe] will offer a more elaborate critique of his idea. Dr. Humphreys, like Setterfield, tackles the problem head-on, but both may be leading us down a dangerous, “snowbound” trail. Mistaken basic ideas followed by ever so perfect logic necessarily lead to a mistaken conclusion….
Creationists have a serious problem. Avoidance of the subject by some of the top leadership, a lack of consensus everywhere, and quick response to any glimmer of hope (such as the current interest in relativity or the changing speed of light) is a tacit admission that the answer has eluded us. Young-universe creationists are dogged by an unresolved problem.
…Creationists are trying to make the Bible say what it does not say in the same way that theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists are trying to make the rocks say what they do not say. …Whether promoting uniformitarian geology or a mandatory young universe, we are asking our listeners to believe something for which there is neither biblical nor scientific proof in either case. Arguing from an inaccurate factual or biblical base—disaster is assured.
In taking the undefined-age-of-the-universe position, no concession is made to popular scientific opinions regarding the age of the cosmos or world geology. Acceptance of Flood geology leaves one an outcast to evolutionists and rejection of a mandatory young universe leaves one an outcast among many creationists, hardly evidence of yielding to intellectual pressure.…The straightforward Bible interpretation offered here solves all major problems by keeping us out of dangerous territory, namely, a universe required to be young and a fossil record required to be old. It is a simple, biblical solution for both errors, unpopular to both camps.

The Context of Dinosaurs

Genesis Apologetics has posted a 20 minute video on YouTube entitled: Does the Bible (Job 40) Describe a Sauropod Dinosaur (Behemoth)? It gives an informative summary of the amazing design of these animals and convincing evidence for the global Genesis Flood.  Young Earth Creationism (as represented in this video) and Young Biosphere Creationism (as advocated on this web site) hold in common this belief in the way dinosaurs relate to Scripture and the fossil record.

The Origin of Oxygen

One of our readers (Wes S.) submitted this post for our consideration. Written from a Young Earth Creationism perspective, it also corresponds to Young Biosphere Creationism in it’s argument against macroevolution.

Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined
by Barry Tapp

…The article [by James Kasting, in Nature] outlines various creative ways that researchers have tried to address these problems [of adequate levels of oxygen in early earth’s atmosphere] over the years, but ends with a rather forlorn conclusion: ‘The ancient atmosphere may have had a more complex evolution than we imagined.’ In essence the author admits that within an evolutionary framework the data is contradictory, and no resolution of the contradictions is in sight, hence the need for ‘creative thinking’.

However, it is the naturalistic evolutionary framework that is the problem. Within this framework a reducing atmosphere is needed initially if the first cell is to have any possibility of arising by chance.3 But it must then change into an oxidizing atmosphere to permit the evolution of aerobic bacteria and multi-cellular life.

These problems disappear when the problem is approached from a biblical framework. There never was a great oxidation event because oxygen, at concentrations necessary for life to flourish, was present in the atmosphere during Creation week at the beginning. The geological evidence, including sulfur minerals and carbonate rocks, is explained by deposition during the early part of the global Flood.

Read the full article at creation.com/origin-of-oxygen-more-complex-than-imagined