Want Some Answers ???


Hi Dale,

If you are so sure about the articles you email, can you answer a few questions?

The Bible says ‘God is good’ and in Genesis 1:31 God described His just finished Creation as ‘very good’. How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, to ‘create’ everything?

According to progressive creationist’s understanding, fossils (which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on Earth. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in ‘bondage to decay’ because of Adam’s sin (Rom.8)? In your view, hasn’t the ‘bondage to decay’ always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g. 1 Cor.15:22, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive)?

If the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the origin of nations, the Flood and the Tower of Babel—the first 11 chapters—are not historical, although written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard? The Biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. According to the evolutionary sequence, the Biblical order of creation is all wrong. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with the evolutionary order, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution or followed the evolutionary pattern in creating everything?

If the Genesis account does not mean what it plainly says Dale, but must be ‘interpreted’ to fit an evolutionary world, how are we to understand the rest of the Bible? How are we to know that the historical accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection should not also be ‘reinterpreted’? Indeed, can we know anything for sure if the Bible can be so flexible?

Dr Niles Eldredge, well-known evolutionist, said: ‘Darwin . . . taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.’ (N. Eldredge, Time Frames—the Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, 1986, Heinemann, Lon, p.13.) Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)?

If God ‘created’ using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God’s ‘eternal power and divine nature’ be ‘clearly seen’ in creation, as Romans 1:20 says? Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not

God an ‘unnecessary hypothesis’?

If God created over millions of years involving death, the existing Earth is not ruined by sin, but is as it always has been—as God supposedly intended it to be. So why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3 etc)?

Looking forward to your answers.


Hi Dale,

Since you don't discuss your articles and have no explanation for the problems they raise, then perhaps you might be interested in this by Dr Gitt from his book 'Did God Use Evolution? (p.89-93).

>>Mark, Since half my Progressive Creation article is centred on knocking evolution I will treat this item with the distain it deserves. Direct it at evolutionists - not me. Regards, Dale<<

Then just what do you believe Do you believe in long ages or "morning and evening" one solar "day"? Believe in 'million of years' but ignore the consequences? Did death exist before Adam and Eve? Perhaps if you were more ready to explain what you believe? This email is about "Progressive Creationism" if not why not? The consequences of Progressive Creation (mentioned below) are serious!.

>>I'm sure you would like to arm wrestle Mark but 'm sticking to my guns. Swapping cut pastes if fine. Detailed responses if far too time consuming. Christian regards, Dale <<

A policy that breeds confusion nor answer questions, with the impression you can’t do otherwise. Like posting articles yes, defend the articles, no. Ask me to believe without question, yes, spend time explaining what you believe, no. Ideas not worth defending are not worth believing.

When people write and avoid discussion, it’s because they hide what they believe or ashamed. The truth might not matter to you, but it still matters. If you won't discuss what you post or have any explanation, any wonder you end up in an ‘arm wrestle’......

There's no explanation (in the articles you sent) that indicates Ross doesn't corrupt the meaning of the Bible. Read carefully (tell me it's not true of you) ---

As soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil layers – then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before Adams sin. The Bible is clear that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering are a consequence of sin. God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sins (Heb.9:22). For this reason Christ came (Jn.1:29). So the millions of years which the Progressive Creationists argue for, indicate that there was shedding of blood before sin. This destroys the foundation of the atonement and the message of the cross. A serious matter!!.

The long ager's view of vast ages makes the gospel of no consequence. For both past and future they have unlimited time at disposal. Even if they accept the concept of God, the long ages means we won't convince them of God’s love or the salvation message. To them science and millions of years question the Bible right at the start. The ‘millions of years’ control their thinking. So they believe Christ’s death is unimportant because death has been used by God (or Mother Nature) over millions of years of development.

Ross allows unscientific theories to interpret the Bible and taking a non-literal interpretation acceptable. He believes a whole host of weird things that only come from his mind. Do you stand with Ross? Then no wonder you avoid discussion!! You have a lot to explain. Next time you write to the Challenge Weekly, think what Christians could write about you.