A friend recently gave me a copy of a classic book by Clarence Larkin. It's been popular with Bible students who appreciate distinguishing various economies in the outworking of God's purpose.

In his commentary on Genesis one, Larkin presents what is usually called "the Gap Theory," assuming a long lapse of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Although the Young Biosphere Creationist model doesn't accept the view of the "gap," their interpretation of Day 4 also acknowledges the earlier creation of the stellar heavens (1:1):

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. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:14-19)

Larkin wrote:

 FOURTH DAY: SOLAR LIGHT RESTORED

The appearance of the sun and moon on the Fourth day was not a new creation. They had existed in connection with the Pre-Adamite Earth and had not been destroyed when it was made waste The words translated "made" in the 16th verse is not the same word as is translated "created" in verse one, and does not imply a "creative" act. What is meant is that the clouds broke away and permitted the sun and moon to be seen, and that from that time they were appointed to measure the days, and years, and seasons as we have them today. In other words, on the Fourth day "Time" in contrast with "Eternity" began.

Dispensational Truth: God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages, Clarence Larkin, Glenside, OPA: Larkin, 1920, p. 27

I can't help but wonder, that if Dr. John Whitcomb had this interpretation, Dr. Henry Morris may have grasped the model Gorman Gray has presented. If it was then taught in Morris' book, The Genesis Flood, YBC would be the more primary model among Young Earth Creationists.

Growing Gap between Two Tectonic Plates

Gorman recommends you check this out:

"Drifting apart: Amazing underwater photos that show the growing gap between two tectonic plates"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1385589/The-growing-gap-Eurasia-North-American-tectonic-plates.html

More on Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

(See David Carvers comment on the previous posting)

Anyone who asserts, as Bruce Waltke does, that the overwhelming evidence from science supports evolution theory does not know what scientific evidence is. True, at the present time, the overwhelming concensus from the academic world parrots that opinion. If concensus is taken as evidence, Waltke is right for the time being. But if evidences from science only are the criteria, he is dead wrong.

Evolutionists perform all kinds of good science in areas peripheral to the central iissue, like genetics, cell function, plant and animal behavior, and similarities in morphology. But at its core, evolution theory is simply guesswork, minus persuasive scientific data. Many studies from good science surround evolution theory and this is used as a persuasive front, leading unwary followers to assume that the core assumptions must be scientifically established as well. They are not, not by any means.

If data exists supporting evolution using rigid, scientific protocol, where is it? I have seen nothng that is not far more sensibly explained by creation. Morphological similarites, whether on the molecular level or the macro level, only prove, as creationists often affirm, that they have a common Designer.

A major weakness in creationist arguments comes from a superficial reading of Genesis with the conclusion that God created planet earth and the stellar heavens less than ten thousand years ago. It is no wonder that many scientists turn off at that point and it enables them to take the absolutely underwhelming evidence for evolution and make it seem credible. Bruce Waltke's tragedy should alert us all to the power of "strong delusion" at this terminus of history.

- Gorman Gray

Bruce Waltke's Conclusion

Last month renowned Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary. In a March 24 release of an interview from 2009 Waltke stated:

"...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

This statement came as a shock to many of us. The Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Hugh Ross' research, and Young Earth Creationists unite in proving the fallacies of Darwinian evolution.

This announcement from Waltke is another indication of the need for sound, biblical exegesis of Genesis one that harmonizes with valid scientific observation. We believe that Young Biosphere Creationism (as explained in The Age of the Universe book) accomplishes these objectives. May we each use our intellectual and spiritual gifts productively to defend and teach the Who and how of origins.

Age of the Earth/ Age of the Biosphere

My friend, Dr. Jackson, answered a query about the age of the earth this way:

"Dr J. I have a teacher who thinks God created the world but used evolution so the world is millions of years old. How do creationists refute that? What evidence do we have? Does it matter how old Earth is? Ok thanks so much. God bless! - Jessica G."

"Jessica, we've got dino bones with blood still in them. They've gotta be only 4000 years old. pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html We found a group of WW2 warplanes 275 feet inside a glacier that's moved miles in just decades not eons. Glaciers grow faster than they are telling us. http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm Cave stalactites don't take "millions" of yrs, either. Just look up— next time you drive under a stone bridge that --is not-- millions of years old—you'll see them there anyway. The problem is ... how do --evo's-- get off saying Earth --is-- billions old?? Keep thinking. Dr J" - POINTS OF ORIGINS with Dr. Jackson Creation Truth Foundation www.CreationTruth.com

We agree with young earth creation apologists, but call attention to the distinction between the older age of our planet's mineral base and the relatively recent creation of the biosphere. (This latter creation is described in Genesis chapter 1). We believe that the undefined age of the universe model fits a literal exegesis of the Genesis account, allows for the observational evidence of astronomy, yet defends the recent origin of earth's biosphere and the divine creation of all living things.

- posted by J. Woodward