Roses are Red, Violets are Blue...
by Tim Chaffey
Roses are red, violets are blue, these two flowers destroy every compromise view. Allow me to explain...
The debate between old earth creationists (OEC) and young earth creationists (YEC) has been going on for about 200 years. As a YEC, I must ask the OEC, “if the days of Genesis 1 were thousands, millions, or billions of years each, how could violets (plants were created on day three) survive without the sun for that amount of time?”
The typical response from OEC is that the sun was created on day one but did not appear until day four. This clearly is not scriptural but a desperate attempt to reconcile two irreconcilable things (God's Word and long ages of time). The question is usually asked of YEC “how could you have days without the sun?” This really is not as difficult as it may seem. All that is needed for a normal earth day is a rotating earth and a directional light source. Since there was evening and morning on the first day, it is apparent that both of these conditions were met.Dr. Hugh Ross claims that plants can't survive a nanosecond without the sun. In a sense, he's right - life would not, could not exist on earth without the sun (unless God was taking care of that part as He did on day three). In another sense, he's wrong. Plants survive just fine during every night. So it is not a big deal for the YEC as to how plants could have survived without the sun for a day. All they needed was light and heat. Did they have those? Well, there was light - "Let there be light" (Gen. 1: 3). It would be a safe assumption that this light brought heat as well since the "waters" (Gen. 1: 2) were not ice. Violets are not only blue, they make the OEC turn blue.
Let’s turn our attention to the "roses" part of the poem. According to the uniformitarian view of the fossil record, roses evolved (or were progressively created) about 35 - 40 million years ago. These fossilized roses look identical to what we have today - thorns and all.
Here's the problem for the OEC. Genesis 3:18 reveals that thorns and thistles were a result of Adam's sin. So the OEC has three options, Adam sinned more than 35 - 40 million years ago, the dating methods are wrong or God's Word is wrong. I'll go with option number two: the dating methods are wrong. But if the dating methods are suspect (that’s the understatement of the year) then all of OEC is in trouble since the vast ages form their framework (pardon the pun) for interpreting Genesis 1 - 11.
So even though "a rose never knocked a man off a horse" (Jocelyn, A Knight's Tale) it certainly has destroyed every compromise view.
 The first “compromise view” was the Gap Theory promoted by Thomas Chalmers in 1814. However, Christians had been wrestling with the idea of vast ages for a few decades before this. Ever since this time, a large percentage of Christians have held to various compromise views. For an explanation of these views and their theological problems see Other Views.
 Dr. Ross made this statement on the John Ankerberg show during a debate with Dr. Kent Hovind.
 If you didn’t catch it, the pun is that one of the compromise views is called the Framework Hypothesis.
(back to articles)