Age of the Earth, Can the Bible be serious?

The Bible actually never says how old the earth is, but people do infer the age by adding up the genealogy lists which give the ages of various persons in a family line. There are several places in Genesis where it lists who was the father of who, and how long they lived, so adding those up, people arrive at an age of about 6,000 years.

It has been argued that traditionally Jewish genealogies have sometimes left people out and skipped a few generations here and there when making a list.

If that happened with the lists in the Bible, then one would expect the age of the earth to actually be a bit more, but still nowhere near the 4 1/2 billion mark that the scientifically establishment usually says. (I heard a rumor they are fixing to increase it again, this time to 6 billion)

Many Bible believers, and even some (not all) Hebrew scholars have argued that the word we translated “day” in the Genesis story referred to a time period that was longer than 24 hours. (The word can mean a portion of a day, basically a full day, or an indefinite period of time depending on how it’s used.) Here, it’s used in a way that is most easily just translated “day,” as in… a regular ol’ day.

Other’s have argued there’s a gap of time in there BEFORE the seven days of creation even start. Historically, they’ve argued that this is the time the dinosaurs lived, but the Hebrew language in those verses doesn’t really allow any gap between verse 1 and 2 for the dinosaurs to live in. Some argue that the earth was covered by water for eons, in between Genesis 1:2 and 3, but you can’t fit land dinosaurs in there.

So the plain meaning of the Bible, taking a day to be basically a regular day, is that the earth is a little more than 6,000 years old. Since there was evidently no sun until day four, I think you have give a little room for God to say what is meant by “evening and morning” on those days. I think Augustine said those were “God-defined days, not solar-defined days” and I agree. Was it 24 hours, or 19 hours, or 456 hours…??

Who cares. It’s still not easy to turn it into billions of years. The bottom line is that unless you put a gap in there, or unless you take days to really mean ages, then the Bible is basically saying the earth is much, much younger than advertised.

And it IS serious about it. The Bible describes creatures that fit the description of dinosaurs in a few places (the word “dinosaurs” didn’t exist back then, so the Bible wouldn’t use that word), and the Bible describes a cataclysmic event we call “Noah’s flood” which would have left a great deal of the evidence (fossils, sediment layers, huge valleys and canyons, even perhaps continental movement) that is generally interpreted to have taken millions of years.

It really seems to come down to our starting assumptions. If evolution is where all life originated from and developed, then there MUST have been billions of years. Actually, even billions isn’t enough, but that’s another subject. If God created life and our universe from nothing, then it doesn’t matter if the earth is young or old. Any age would do. That’s why it’s easy for someone who believes God created the world, to look at evidence and say, “I think this happened suddenly,” or “I think the dinosaurs didn’t live as long ago as we once thought.” -Because God doesn’t NEED billions of years to create everything. It opens up the options so to speak.

It’s probably why dinosaur fossils with red blood cells and soft tissue have sent the evolutionary world into a tizzy.


Author: CP

Pastor of Mountain View Christian Church, Mountain View MO. 47 years old, 3 kids and a beautiful wife! God has really blessed me.

27 thoughts on “Age of the Earth, Can the Bible be serious?”

  1. Great post, I am in total agreement with you on this issue. The Bible is very literal, although brief, in its details of creation. If allowed Genesis chapter 1 would define all of the term used in the creation account. Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning God created the [heavens]and the [earth]. If you read along in Genesis the heavens are defined as the open expanse or firmament aka. sky (vv.6-8) and the heaven of heavens aka. space (vv.14-18) The earth is called dry land after the water below the heavens are bottled up and called the seas (vv.9,10). The inhabitants of Earth follow the creation of their habitat culminating with the creation of man.
    You stated, “It really seems to come down to our starting assumptions…It opens up the options so to speak”. I agree with you but let’s say that the Earth is Billions of years old (which I don’t) then that would not change the creation account set forth in Genesis. Who knows when the fall of Man occurred was it a week after creation or a billion years. Man existed in perfect harmony with God and God is not bound by time….Be Blessed.

  2. Thank you, and I think you are right to leave some of the Biblical options open, too -such as the one you mentioned concerning how much time may have passed before the fall of Man. To me, that’s just a fair-minded way to approach it. Nevertheless, it seems we both agree the age of the earth is much younger than advertised, and the account is literal.

  3. I agree with your point MRDaniels. I would have to say though, that I think it was pretty quickly that man fell, perhaps days after the creation week ended. I’m not sure man could have existed long with that kind of temptation in front of him, perfect or not.

  4. May I ask what litterary rule you are using to take ‘day’ to mean 24 hr, but ‘morning and evening’ to mean something else? How does someone credibly argue for a plain reading of one word but ignore it just one or two verses later? Seems awfully selective.

  5. There’s no literary device or rule, it’s just plain ol’ practical matters. Since there is no sun to rise or set on Day 1,2,and 3… then what does “morning and evening” involve? For us, morning is when the sun rises, and evening is when it sets, but those days had no sun. I have no idea what morning or evening would look like without a sun to rise and set. So on those days, only God knows what “morning” or “evening” looked like, or even how long it took. Evening and morning take 24hours -ish, because that’s how fast the earth turns. Was the earth even turning then? Who knows? Now, I believe the length of the days were normal because of the context with the other days, the fact the same language was used, and with the context of the rest of the Bible, but only God knows what morning looks like without a sun to rise. I imagine the light of God waxing and waning, but I’m just speculating.

  6. This is the point. Morning and evening, as well as day have meanings which may not be just the plain ol’ understanding. The same language was used for day on the seventh, but we are still in the seventh. So we have morning and evening before the sun (suggesting it was God’s light is reading into the passage what isnt there in order to keep the 24 hr reading) and we have one of the days not 24 hrs. From other Genesis passages we see all the activities Adam did all in one day? We have a lot of bending to do if we take day as 24 hrs.

  7. Ah. Well, the passage in Genesis does not describe the seventh day as continuing. The Genesis story simply says God rested on the seventh day and that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy in Genesis 2:3. This is repeated in Exodus 20:10 where the Scripture applies it directly to an actual day. The plain sense of Genesis and Exodus is toward regular days.

    The passages in the New Testament book of Hebrews DO describe God’s “rest” as continuing (or at least available for us, since God does indeed work, even on the Sabbath), but Hebrews is looking at it symbolically to make a particular point. It doesn’t mean the original story wasn’t literal. The book of Galatians also takes the story of Ishmael and Isaac symbolically in order to make a particular point, but it does not mean the original story didn’t happen literally.

    Genesis 2:4 calls the whole creation period a “day” (in KJV or ASV) using the word in a general sense, but that does not mean that chapter 1 cannot be talking about 7 distinct days in a more specific sense. You can always look at things in more than one way, but one doesn’t preclude the other.

    Could a person take the days of Genesis to mean longer periods of time? Sure. Lots of people do. I just don’t agree, and I don’t think it’s necessary.

    Now about God’s light, well it was His no matter how you look at it IMO. Verse 3 clearly says God put light into the darkness, and 2 Corinthians 4:6 quotes this verse by saying “and God who said, let light shine out of darkness.” Who else would the light belong to? It’s His light even if He gave it via a flaming ball of gas like the sun. (Some argue the sun was already created and simply couldn’t be seen because the earth was covered with thick cloud cover. That is certainly reading more into the Scripture if indeed we are trying to avoid that, but truthfully, it’s unnecessary. Revelation 22 says the “new earth” won’t have need of a sun because “the Lord God will give them light.” So Biblically speaking, suns are optional.)

    There aren’t many problems with getting everything done in one day if we don’t read stuff into the passage too much. He named a few thousand animals, or maybe just a few hundred, fell asleep, met a wife… big day for sure, but no big deal for God.

  8. I wonder why dinosaur bones are never found in the same strata as humans and their habitats? I wonder why we can find human bones deeper in the strata in many places that are deeper than the biblical lands…meaning they lived earlier than those of the Biblical area.

    We find ruins and human artifacts in much deeper depths in many places around the world. Humans moved from Africa and the Levant into the European and Asian continents as early as 40,000 years ago. Humans moved into the North and South American continents as early as 15,000 years ago…some say even earlier than that.

    Something to consider in your thinking about science and Biblical differences is that since the time of Galileo whenever the two magisteria have argued points such as these…science has always been proven right, and religion shrinks a little further in explanatory powers. Seems as if only the evangelical fundamentalists mindset frantically hangs on to the archaic notion of a less than 10,000 year old earth.

    I wonder if this is the reason so many children of fundagelicals have such a hard time in schools, and some colleges have been turning religious High School graduates away because of lack of common knowledge?

  9. Dinosaur bones have been found in the same strata. Of course, you won’t believe this, or you will insist on some explanation to account for it, because it doesn’t fit your world-view.

  10. I used to be an old-earther, so I know there HAVE been some valiant attempts at interpretations that argue for an old earth. After all, we’ve been taught a naturalistic world view for 150 years, and it seems wrong to think the earth could be young. Evolution requires it, and even 4.5 billion years isn’t nearly enough. In a naturalistic world-view, any other view besides an old-earth is impossible.

    In the end, however, I believe the Bible is true, while understanding that interpretations of it may or may not be. I suggest that science and evidence surprisingly argue for a younger earth, as does the straightforward reading of the Scripture. That’s why I believe the earth is much younger than advertised. I no longer feel the need to accept the evolutionary world-view.

  11. Hello Brian, I hope you are well.

    The things I talk about can be proven to be true. About the only thing in the Bible that can be proven to be true are some geographical locations and some names.

    There has never been any proven magic or supernatural.

    Even Jesus and the resurrection cannot be proven as there is NO supporting written word by ANYONE in Jesus’ time.

  12. the word of me… what about Josephus? He was a Jewish historian, not a Christian. He confirmed a lot of the historical accuracy concerning his day (which was also Jesus’ day). He’s only one of several. Your statement that there is no supporting evidence is simply not true. There is plenty of supporting, extra-biblical evidence.

    John, to address the morning/evening day question above: you don’t need a sun to have a day. All you need is a planet in rotation, and a light source. The light source was created on day 1. Hence, the ability to have days. There’s no reason NOT to accept them as literal 24-hour days.

    In fact, the Hebrew word used to describe the sun when it was created is the same root Hebrew word as menorah; it’s defined as a “light-holder”. This implies that the sun is only a vessel to hold the light. God himself is the source of the light.

    No other explanation other than literal days fits the data.

    The Hebrew word for day, “yom”, ALWAYS meas a literal 24-hour period when used with a qualifier, such a number, ie “first day”, “second day”, etc. Everywhere else in Scripture where we see this word with a numerical qualifier, it always means 24 hours. To use your phrase, it “seems awfully selective” to use it consistently thoughout the Bible except for the Genesis 1 passage.

  13. the word of me… in reference to your comment above, #8. Your worldview prevents you from seeing the geologic column correctly. An evolutionary worldview requires you to look only at the top few layers as recent history. As a result you see no evidence for biblical reality. But in fact, the ENTIRE geologic column is recent history. It’s all sedimentary deposits laid down during one global catastrophy, not deposited over eons of time. So in fact, there is much archaeological evidence to support the Bible. Your “deeper evidence” isn’t 40,000 year old data. It’s all less than 4500 years old. Every rock layer we can see is evidence of Noah’s flood. Instead of looking at the top few inches as recent history, try viewing the entire column as recent history. You might be surprised at what you see.

    By the way, show me one place, ONE PLACE, anywhere in the world, where the geologic column looks like what you find in high school and college text books. It doesn’t exist that way, anywhere.

    And… Colleges haven’t been turning away Christian high school students because of a lack of knowledge. Not they are denied because their worldview differs from their evolutionary dogma of secular universities. Check the test scores. Christian schools and home schools have consistently higher scores than most public education.

    And one more thing. In a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans believe in an earth history of less than 10,000 years. Only 16% believe the idea that humans evolved over millions of years without any divine intervention. Here’s the article: Again, check your facts first.

  14. Hello Jeff Randleman, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    You write:
    “the word of me… what about Josephus? He was a Jewish historian, not a Christian. He confirmed a lot of the historical accuracy concerning his day (which was also Jesus’ day). He’s only one of several. Your statement that there is no supporting evidence is simply not true. There is plenty of supporting, extra-biblical evidence.”

    You are of course referring to the following “Testimonium Flavianum” from “Antiquities of the Jews”

    “Antiquities 18.3.3. “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

    I believe that the majority of Biblical scholars have discounted this passage as an addition to the “Antiquities” manuscript by scribes at a later date. At any rate the original writing (probably not the Testimonium) is from about 94 AD, long after the reputed death of Jesus. Josephus was born after the death of Jesus.

    What other sources do you have that wrote about Jesus and his “miracles” in his own time? And where might I find the secular writings about the resurrection, on or about the time of its happening?

    You write:
    “All you need is a planet in rotation, and a light source. The light source was created on day 1. Hence, the ability to have days. There’s no reason NOT to accept them as literal 24-hour days.

    The actual light source for the earth is the sun…which supposedly not created till the 4th day, after plants were created. The sun would be the source that would give you days and nights, because it is directional and not a suffused overall light that would light up all the earth at once, which is what Genesis implies about first light.


  15. Long after the reputed death of Jesus and we’re talking 94 A.D.?? Now, TWOM… 🙂 The apostle John was still around distributing copies of Revelation around that time. How can we say it was LONG after Jesus death when one of the original 12 disciples is alive and kicking?

    There are some 60,000 extra-biblical manuscripts from letters and records revolving around Jesus from people in his day or a few years afterwards. There is more evidence for the existence and teaching and miracles of Christ than any other person in history. More than anyone, Julius Caesar, Socrates, Shakespeare, you name it….

    But… other than writings, (since cameras weren’t invented) how else can there be a record of a miracle like the resurrection? And how can a miracle be “proven” if all you have is writings? You either reject them, accept them, or consider it for awhile, but it’s pretty difficult to prove something supernatural happened 2000 years ago.

    You can use reason, logic, (I once read a 15-page philosophy paper “proving” the resurrection by eliminating all other possible explanations for facts that everyone agrees upon) historical evidence, Bible prophecy and reliability, etc… and you can dig up a few places and names and see that the people and places did exist. But ultimately, you have to make a decision and a decision to believe in Jesus usually comes from a variety of reasons. There IS faith involved, but then, there is faith involved in everything.

    Back on topic, suns are not necessary if God exists. The new heaven and the new earth will not have a sun (see Revelation 22) because God gives the light. He IS the light, and evidently, is quite effective for photosynthesis and stuff….

    And just musing here, but I think the separation of the light from the darkness in Genesis 1 actually implies it was directional, not suffused overall. As well as the fact you have a “morning and evening”

  16. I agree Brian. The word of me, there is absolutely no indication in the text of Genesis that the light was suffused. None. The phrase “morning and evening” implies a rotation of the earth, and that light and darkness were alternating. That indicates the the light must be directional. To illustrate it simply, go spin your globe and shine a flashlight at it. You’ll see morning and evening and morning and evening and morning and evening…

    Your response doesn’t refute my statement above at all.

    Since the light WAS directional, it clearly allows for morning and evening by a simple spin of the earth. The sun wasn’t necessary at all for the light to be there, and so God waiteduntil day 4 to create it.

    There are several texts in the Bible that speak of light coming from a supernatural source.

    1.During the three-day plague of darkness on all the land of Egypt, all the Israelites ‘had light in their dwellings’ (Exodus 10:23).

    2.In the exodus from Egypt, God led the Israelites by a ‘pillar of cloud’ by day and a ‘pillar of fire, to give them light,’ during the night (Exodus 13:21). At night the pillar of cloud moved and stood between the Egyp­tians and the Israelites, and there was darkness for the pursuing Egyptians, but ‘light by night’ for the Israelites (Exodus 14:20).3

    3.When Moses descended from Mt Sin­ai with the two tablets of stone, ‘the skin on his face shone’ as a result of his having talked with God (Exodus 34:29).

    4.At the birth of Jesus, ‘the glory of the Lord shone round about [the shep­herds]’ (Luke 2:9).

    5.At the transfiguration of Jesus, ‘His face shone like the sun’ (Matthew 17:2).

    6.At the Resurrection of Jesus, the angel at His tomb had a countenance ‘like lightning’ (Matthew 28:3, see also Luke 24:4).

    7.During the famous ‘road to Damas­cus’ experience of Saul (the Apostle Paul), ‘a light from heaven, brighter than the sun’ shone round about him (Acts 9:3; cf. 22:6, 9; 26:13).

    8.When an angel of the Lord released Peter from prison, ‘light shined in the prison’ (Acts 12:7).

    9.In John’s vision recorded in Revela­tion, the face of Jesus was ‘like the sun shining in its strength’ (Rev. 1:16).

    10.In John’s vision of the New Jeru­salem, ‘the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb [i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, cf. John 1:29, 36]’ (Revelation 21:23).

    11.This description of the heavenly city is repeated: ‘And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light’ (Revelation 22:5), as refence by Brian above.

    Probably, God created the whol electromagnetic spectrum on day 1, and the light was a physical manifestation of God’s glory.

    I would like to see some support for your claim that the light was diffuse, if you could please.

  17. I’m short of time right now, please see below in regards colleges turning down students from certain religious schools

    “Justices turn away appeal over college admissions

    By The Associated Press

    LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from two Christian high schools in Southern California that wanted the University of California to grant college-prep credit for courses with *religious viewpoints.*

    The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Association of Christian Schools International, which accused the university of violating freedom of speech and religion for refusing to honor some Christian high school courses when considering UC admissions eligibility.

    Last January, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Los Angeles federal judge’s ruling that the university did not discriminate against Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta and Calvary Baptist School in La Verne.

    In 2008, U.S. District Judge S. James Ortero said the schools had failed to prove that religious intolerance, rather than academic merit, led to rejection of Christian course credit.”

  18. Thanks for the reference, but it’s still only one isolated incident, whereas the scores of myriads of students reflect that religious schools and home schools stand very strong on their own. Not sure that the AP article reflects a complete view.

  19. Hello again Mr. Randleman,

    You write:
    “the word of me… in reference to your comment above, #8. Your worldview prevents you from seeing the geologic column correctly. An evolutionary worldview requires you to look only at the top few layers as recent history.”

    My world-view aligns with the predominate scientific understanding of our worlds history. It is a view that is supported by testable repeatable science that 99% of all scientists agree with. Well maybe not 99% anymore as I hear that places like “Answers in Genesis” and “Creation Research Institute”, etc. are sponsoring Master’s and Doctoral candidates who will sign an agreement to spout the proper YEC lines.

    You write:
    “…the ENTIRE geologic column is recent history.”

    I have worked in oilfields and in the oil industry in general as well as studied the available text-books on geology of the oilfields, and seen hundreds of core samples…anyone who has seen the actual evidence and has an open mind cannot in all honesty conclude that all of what is shown in said cores was done in a year. That’s just ridiculous. Oil primarily comes from the Permian era…nearly 300 millions years ago and earlier and there are many places where the entire** geologic column is available. It was when early scientists first started to really notice the geologic column in the early 1600’s that men started to seriously doubt Noah’s Ark.

    ***The entire geologic column is found in 25 basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
    • The Ghadames Basin in Libya
    • The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
    • The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
    • The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
    • The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
    • The Adana Basin in Turkey
    • The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
    • The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
    • The Carpathian Basin in Poland
    • The Baltic Basin in the USSR
    • The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
    • The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
    • The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
    • The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
    • The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
    • The Jiuxi Basin China
    • The Tung t’in – Yuan Shui Basin China
    • The Tarim Basin China
    • The Szechwan Basin China
    • The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
    • The Williston Basin in North Dakota
    • The Tampico Embayment Mexico
    • The Bogata Basin Colombia
    • The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
    • The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
    Robertson Group, 1989;
    A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
    N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)
    More information can be found at:

    “I would also like to point out that the majority of the provinces of China also have the entire geologic column. Not every place in these provinces has the entire geologic column, but within each listed province there are areas that do have the entire geologic column.” The data is from: Ma Lifang, editor, The Geological Atlas of China, Translated by Liu Nailong, (Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2002).
    Inner Mongolia
    Ejin region
    Jilin Province
    Heilongjiang province
    XiaoHingong Mtns
    Jiangsu province
    Zhejiang province
    Anhui province
    Hubei province
    Hunan province
    Guangdong province
    Guangxi province
    Guizhou province
    Xizang province
    Lhasa district
    Ningxia Hui province
    Shaanxi province
    Gansu Province
    Qinghai province
    Xinjiang province
    Liaoning province
    Sichuan province
    Jiangxi province

    You write:
    “And one more thing. In a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans believe in an earth history of less than 10,000 years. Only 16% believe the idea that humans evolved over millions of years without any divine intervention.”

    Well I guess that shows why Americans pick TV shows like “American Idol” and “Dance with the Stars” and make them number one and many recent graduates from High School can’t even find America on a globe or make change at their fast-food jobs. We are either at or just barely above the bottom in Science and math world-wide. Our schools are pushing out people who are woefully unprepared for life as we know it today. And yet those darn fundamentalist religionists are pushing the teaching of creation “science” in our schools…which of course will make our grade-point average even lower as a nation.

    Would you agree that it would be a bad idea to validate scientific facts by how many people believe in the results?

    Isn’t killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?? Arthur C. Clarke

  20. Oil is produced when massive amounts of dead biologic material is put under enormous pressure and heat. The same thing that would have happened in Noah’s flood when massive amounts of animal and plant life died, and was buried under heat and pressure.

    There nothing in the geologic column, that is not also explained by the events described in the Bible. Those events would create the same effects on strata. In many details, the flood is a better explanation.

    I remain VERY skeptical, to the point of insisting on seeing it, that we have found even a single case of the entire geologic column in one place. If we did, it would have been on CNN, as this has been (and continues to be) one of the main creationists arguments for decades. But I’m quibbling. My real point is not to knock the idea of the geologic column. It would be difficult to find a complete column regardless of whether or not it is valid. My point is simply that the flood would account for it in similar fashion. Two competing models that strive to explain the same evidence.

  21. Your argument is full of logical holes. Using the claim that oil is 300 million years old to support the claim that the earth is old is called Begging the Question. You’re simply assuming your concluson is true by saying “the earth is old because oil proves it. Oil is old.”

    Another fallacy you use is the fallacy of Appeal to Belief. You wrote, “a view that is supported by testable repeatable science that 99% of all scientists agree with…” This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true. And, as I will address in a moment, it’s simply not true. But then you contradict yourself by the end of your response: “Would you agree that it would be a bad idea to validate scientific facts by how many people believe in the results?” At least you recognize the fallacy. But you still fell into the trap of using it…

    I’m sure that I’m guilty of using fallacious arguments from time to time as well. But I try make my arguments as logically sound as possible.

    However, I will address your arguments. In spite of your impressive looking list, not one of those sites contains the geologic column as is printed in high school and college textbooks. I still maintain that that does not exist on the face of the earth. I have some background in geology as well, although not apparantly as much as you, and I have yet to see the geologic column in it’s assumed evolutionary form. it’s just not there. Regardless of how many “sites” claim it.

    Again, your worldview betrays your presuppositions. You assume that the earth is old because oil is old. But, as Brian mentioned above, there is another explanation that fits the data, in fact better than evolution. That explanation is a global cataclysm, relatively recent, within the last 4500 years. That could easily explain the presence of oil, coal, and other fossl fuels just as easily as your view.

    There are literally thousands of top scientists that do not accept evolution as an acceptable model of origins. Thousands! Many of these scientists are leaders in their fields. And many leaders of scientific breakthroughs thoughout history have been Christian as well. It’s simply not true to state that the majority accept the “predominate scientific understanding of our worlds history.” Simply not true. If it were truly predominant, there wouldn’t be so many people questioning it’s veracity and truth. In fact, I would suggest that your “predominant” thinking is actually the minority. And comments like this: “I hear that places like “Answers in Genesis” and “Creation Research Institute”, etc. are sponsoring Master’s and Doctoral candidates who will sign an agreement to spout the proper YEC lines…” are simply inflamatory. You can do better than that. They don’t require any of their classes to sign any such agreement.

    Finally, I fail to see how American Idol and Dancing With The Stars incriminates Americans intellectually. “Yet those darn fundamentalist religionists are pushing the teaching of creation “science” in our schools…which of course will make our grade-point average even lower as a nation.” Again, that’s simply inflamatory. I believe that evolutionary proponents resort to personal verbal attack because they realize at some level that their position is in jeopardy of falling out of prominence, because it cannot answer the questions of our orgins. It simply cannot.

    I’m sorry if you find my statements blunt and/or frustrating, but when you use emotionally charged language, it’s impossible to carry on a reasoned dialogue. I’m sure that nothing I will say here will sway your thinking in any way. I’m truly sorry for that. My goal is to teach the youth under my care, and especially my children, the truth. My prayer is that their eyes will be opened to the deceit we accept all to blindly, and recognize this world for what it is: a temporary place in the eternity of God’s creation. And I eagerly await the day when He restores it to it’s original created perfection.

  22. By the way, the students referenced in your AP Release referenced above were denied based on FAITH-BASED college prep courses; and not because of poor test courses in those, or any other, courses. That actually helps make my point stronger.

  23. So why add the final age of each generation listed. Men don’t typically die the day that their son’s are born. These calculations seem flawed. Unless you are adding the years of life between father’s birth to they day their son was born you will get an incorrect figure. Lives have to overlap otherwise the major patriarchal stories we’ve learned could never have taken place. Nor could they have been alive to have multiple children. So unless you only add the number of years between births in stead of the full lifespan of each generation, your figures will be incorrect. Strange that no one else has realized this crucial point?!

  24. I haven’t done the math myself, but the genealogy list in Genesis 5 notes how old the father was when a particular son was born, and how long the father lived afterwards. So I would think they take that into consideration already. For me, I also take note that it is considered common for ancient lists like that to skip over people or generations when the records for them were lost, or when they weren’t considered important. So any gaps like that would mean the actual number of years which passed could be somewhat higher.

  25. I believe in a literal, six day creation (YEC, Young Earth Creationism), as I believe that is the plain reading and meaning of Genesis.

    This is not a total, all consuming topic for me though, not in the sense of having any desire to argue endlessly with theistic evolutionists or Christian old earth agers about it – but – I do get perturbed by how a lot of the Christians who reject the literal view act very arrogant about it. A lot of them act as though Christians who believe in YEC are ignorant, uneducated idiots.

    I am not reformed in theology, but there is a reformed Christian guy with a blog that has a lot of interesting posts on YEC, that are critical of theistic evolution and old earth age, if you’d like to visit. This is from his old blog (he has a new blog):

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s