One can logically and scientifically hold to the Biblical account of the Earth’s age

[panta dokimazete]

Christians are commanded to take every thought captive, so I developed a rationale that harmonizes young and old earth perspectives.

With the frame of reference and primary authoritative source of truth for reality as the Bible and modern science as a secondary source, I propose that there is empirical and scientific evidence supporting that the earth is both young and old, depending on the observer’s frame of reference.

I do not assume the present is the best interpretive framework for long past events.

Personal experience has given me confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible and that God is logically omnipotent and not bound by natural laws (supernatural).

The Biblical historical record evidence is that the earth is young, according to the frame of reference of the observer.

Science has proven that time is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Modern scientific observations of the geological record indicates a geological chronological age of approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Modern scientific discoveries also support a young earth (e.g., DNA in fossilized dinosaur bones, polystrate fossils, etc.)

Conclusion: The historical observer experienced time at a different frame of reference during the Flood while the geological components of the earth were supernaturally chronologically accelerated, thus the earth can be logically understood to be both “young” in the Biblical frame of reference and “old” in the scientific frame of reference.

Thought exercise:

The geologic earth aged as naturalism predicts, it just processed at an accelerated time frame.

Some indestructible and immortal person standing underwater on the ground would observe time moving at a normal pace, therefore all the measurement systems modern science uses would be accurate.

On the other hand if someone on the surface of the water were able to look down to the ground below, they would see an incredible site of rapid geological change, because the inorganic components of the earth were being vastly and supernaturally accelerated - basically like hitting ultra fast forward on a video.

Organic material was not exposed to this process so it would not have degraded at the same rate. Thus, Dino-DNA in geologically old strata.

Naturalists, of course will reject this scenario, as they axiomatically reject the supernatural. There will therefore be no use case or evidence one could ever, ever, ever produce that they couldn’t rationalize away. Since they have no way of observing the past or duplicating the timeframe in a physical lab, they make up “just so” stories to fit their worldview based on their presuppositions.

In fact, the simulations that have been done using naturalistic assumptions basically illustrate my scenario. They don’t run the sim for 4.5 billion years, they artificially accelerate the time frame, just like God did with His divine Program. The frame of reference of the simulation observer is analogous to the Biblical observer’s.

This reconciliation allows the Biblical Christian to integrate modern scientific observations into our worldview without adopting materialistic naturalism’s presuppositions, which are essentially atheistic.

I think of myself as neither a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist, but rather a Biblical Science Creationist.

Sister article here - feel free to pull any components of it into the discussion, as well.

 

[chuckd]

I like to think of the creation of Adam. If you were telling someone how it happened, his “age” is kind of a weird question to answer. 30 years old? 1 second old? The point is we receive the story on faith. (Heb. 11:3)

 

[panta dokimazete]

Agreed. And all "evidence" around us must first be submitted within the literal reading of God's Word.

That's why it broke my heart that the PCA supports this type of reasoning:

Article here

Apparent age does NOT make God a deceiver, it challenges us to conform our reasoning to His Word. And if no contemporary understanding enables it, having faith that progressive understanding will, as I pray my rationale does.

 

[No Other Name]

When the PCA referenced "apparent age" they were talking specifically geology and as such are generally referring to the description of deep time in secular models. This view cannot be divorced from materialism which the PCA rightly denounces - all while still allowing for its members to be OEC as well.

It seems you are being a bit unfair to the PCA - especially since - even allowing for "apparent age" to be a challenge from God to us to conform to His Word - your rationale does not include a full scientific model for the resolution of apparent age.

You say "the universe is both young and old" but on what basis? Your link takes me to a basic description of special relativity. How does the difference in frames of reference with relativistic velocity and mass resolve the paradox?

Allow me a specific example for you to elucidate.

For example, in YEC there is a catastrophic SFP theory (supernatural formation processes) that describes God using a supernaturally accelerated rate of formation for the Creation week.

On Day 3, these proponents claim that the "land appeared out of the sea" in a catastrophic explanation for Precambrian geology (that would most likely be more violent than a global Flood!) However, in the Precambrian levels there exist stromatolites (geologic structures shaped like mounds due to bacterial accretion powered by photosynthesis). This is unanswered by them due to the lack of a sun on Day 3 and begs the question for them as to deception of "appearance of age".

But Ken Coulson believes the SFP theory should disallow catastrophe and tries to avoid altogether the language of "apparent age", "mature creation", and "apparent history". He advocates for both a concept of SFP theory and a conceptual universe "fully functional and existing universe in the mind of God from eternity prior to any time-dependent creation events during the creation week".

This sets up the time-lapse creation model where all facets of natural processes rapidly mature "from an embryonic or undeveloped state" and as they grow hold to a "constancy of relative rates of processes".

"For instance, if two plants grew at different rates relative to each other, God would've sped them up so that their rates of growth remained the same relative to each other." Everything grows normally relative to each other, but the system as a whole would be sped up. Life and death within the creation day would not be anything other than maturing the system and - he argues - may even be crucial for a functioning plant ecosystem."

His answer for the stromatolites is that on Day 3, the land coming out of the sea only occurred out to a kilometer thick shelf and the stromatolites appeared during the SFP of Day 4.

Many thoughtful YECs disagree with Dr. Coulson - especially since his argument seems to have a philosophical oddity. In defending his model, he relies on his "conceptual universe' and it seems that he assumes that - since God has the whole plan in his mind that counts as being "real" which is deeply problematic to say the least. Sometimes scientists should stay away from philosophy.

(Parenthetical aside: Ken Ham and the ICR are not one of the thoughtful dissenters. He hates Coulson and - embracing the nonexistence of "appearance of age" altogether - derides him as "YEE" (young earth evolutionist) and posts rebuttals on his AiG site anonymously because he claims that all the scientists that collaborate with AiG are all in agreement.)

Anyway, how is the universe both young and old? By what mechanism can one build a scientific model of creation on your "middle of the aisle" approach?

Thanks in advance.

PS - all quotes are from the review of Coulson's book Creation Unfolding in Journal of Creation, but creation.com is down for maintenance right now and besides, the link would be hidden to paid subscribers only (of whom I am one).

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thanks for the engagement!

One of your key points is the absence of the sun until day 4, however there was an external source of light, one assumes God Himself, on day 1.

Let’s start there and we can cover your other relevant points after this one.

 

[No Other Name]

Thanks for the engagement!

One of your key points is the absence of the sun until day 4, however there was an external source of light, one assumes God Himself, on day 1.

Let’s start there and we can cover your other relevant points after this one.

Why would one assume the external source of light is God himself on Day 1-3 from God decreeing "Let there be light" meaning the light was created while God himself is eternal?

That's the first thing I would reply to that assumption. The second thing I would reply is why would stromatolites photosynthesize the external light - whatever its constituency - as if it was sunlight? After all, plants cannot photosynthesize just any light whatsoever that is external to them.