Question about Age of the Earth

[ACBRown]

As I listen to men over at ID the future, or William Lane Craig, or Plantinga, or whomever, it is evident that many of the leading Christian voices out there in the realm of science and philosophy hold to an old Earth position. I'm not unaware how presuppositions and all the rest factor into the equation, but it still makes me wonder about this issue.

I grew up under a creationist teacher who believed the earth was only thousands of years old. And you know, the whole created with age response still makes a ton of sense to me. I've never heard anything that really trumps that idea. But then again, I would like to know what's out there. If I wanted to get an answer to this question, what would you recommend?

Is the evidence that compelling? I tend to think it must be, given that many of the ID guys get ridiculed for other views, thus showing that they don't simply capitulate to the latest fad (This doesn't mean I don't frown on their methodology as a Vantillian).

So what would you say? Help me out.

Austin

 

[au5t1n]

The earth is very, very old. About 6000 years or so.

 

[Marrow Man]

The "mature creation" view is sometimes objected to because it is alleged that it makes God appear deceptive (i.e., things appear to be very old when in fact they are not). However, even Vern Poythress argues (in a book being discussed on another thread) that this is not deceptive in that under such a paradigm God created, for instance, Adam with the appearance of age. When Eve was brought to Adam, she presumably was also "mature," and there was no deception involved. Therefore, why would it not be unreasonable to assume that such a mature creation is within the realm of reason while excluding a "deception" object. In other words,, if one begins from a presupposition that God is capable of such instantaneous creation, then there is no deception taking place. It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.

 

[DMcFadden]

Most of my life, I held to a very old universe (now down to 13.4 billion years from estimates of nearly 20 billion being made just a few years ago) and an old earth.

I am currently convinced of a YEC schema. Answers in Genesis was VERY helpful to me.

 

[ACBRown]

Thanks, guys. I'm totally on the same page, when it comes to the appearance of age point. But I want to educate myself with respect to the evidence that apparently many are seeing that leads them to believe the universe is very old... older than 6000 years

What is that evidence? And what should I read or listen to?

Thanks,

Austin

 

[VictorBravo]

Austin, there is all sorts of "evidence." That's the easy part.

If a person starts out with the presupposition that what God has said cannot be right and is irrelevant, and then he spends his time examining stones and radioactive isotopes, layers of sediment, background radiation, and all sorts of other things, it is easy to find evidence of an old universe.

Scientists often forget what they are doing. Most start out on their mission saying, "I'm going to just look at empirical facts. I am specifically going to disregard any notion of God while I try to explain the universe."

That's reasonable as far as it goes as an academic and hypothetical exercise (although fundamentally it is morally wrong). But for a scientist to then say, "see, my observations have demonstrated that God's account is wrong," is invalid because he cannot prove the negative of what he has refused to consider and what is outside his scope of investigation.

 

[au5t1n]

I'm going to get really confused not being the only Austin anymore.

 

[ACBRown]

VictorBravo,

Thanks for the response. You know, I gotta agree with ya. I recently listened to a podcast interviewing a woman who examined the religious beliefs of major scientists in America. Half were atheists. How many Chritians were there of the other half? She didn't say. But I'm guessing most still employ a "neutral" methodology, ie., secular. So yes, secular worldviews abound in the scientific community.

Nevertheless, it isn't entirely plain to me that an old earth necessarily negates a sound Christian perspective. But again, I'm wondering if there is evidence out there that is really persuasive, given the recognition that the Earth may have been created with age. Are people seeing something that works, even with that in mind? Or is everything interpreted in light of that fact, namely, apparent age?

In other words, is the position falsifiable?

Austin

 

[VictorBravo]

I don't think the old-earth view is completely falsifiable (in principle) by empirical observation. The current understanding could be falsified, but another view would come to replace it. The reason being that there is always the opportunity for another observation to be discovered that would require you to change your conclusion.

If your worldview is based upon empirical observation only, then it is always subject to change. For example, suppose someone found a subatomic particle that somehow demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant. That would certainly shake up modern science's view of time. Then the agreed-upon age of the universe would have to be revised. But it would not definitively state what the age of the universe is because of the possibility that someone might discover another particle that demonstrates something contrary.

 

[Peairtach]

I'm a YEC in the sense that I believe God formed and filled the Heaven and Earth some thousands of years ago in Six Days of 24 hours.

I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.

We are not told on what Day, or how long before God created day and night on the First Day, God created the Heaven and Earth themselves.

 

[AThornquist]

I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.

What causes you to believe in this gap? Exegesis or eisegesis?

 

[lynnie]

Google Barry Setterfield and the decrease in the speed of light theory.

If the speed of light(c) has vastly diminished the past 6000 years, and e=mc2, then e was much higher in the past and all kinds of dating techniques are related to that. (higher e still works for cellular metabolism and so forth).

Been a while since I read it all, but back then it was fascinating. 22 measuremnts the past 400 or so years show a parabolic curve of decreasing light speed.

Old earth creationism assumes a constant unvaried world since the fall. It does not assume a vastly cursed world since the fall, such that rates of decay are changed. The fall was huge and all of creation was cursed.

Here is Setterfield's timeline with the light speed correction:

A Brief Earth History: Summary of the Monograph Creation and Catastrophe

He and others also go into the subterranean water theory. Water at high temps and pressure under the earth was able to dissolve massive amounts of minerals. When the fountains of the deep erupted under Noah, the strata were laid down quickly as the minerals precipitated. No need for a million years.

 

[littlepeople]

While I really appreciate the mature creation explanation, I have been more helped by "time as a function of velocity" theory. Our measurement of time is already flawed because we are in a galaxy that is traveling exponentially faster across the universe as it expands (time dilation). So there is a sense in which the space of six days is literally 24 hour periods, yet an hour then could be a million years by our watches now because we are moving faster. Now I am not pretending to be able to wrap my head around that, but here is an illustration of the principle. I have an industry standard tape measure that indicates my kitchen table is 4 feet across. My daughter has a toy miniature measuring tape. She insists that the table is 40 feet across because her measuring tape is 1/10 scale. We are trying to restrict God's "timelessness" into our understanding of time. Did that make any sense to anyone?? I'm awful at articulating it, but it really is extremely helpful to me.

 

[ACBRown]

It's funny because I wonder if that isn't the way to go, Richard, granting that there is really good evidence for old universe. For it seems plain to me that we can't reasonbly tinker with the days of creation. The days sure sound like days. But when verse one says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then it says, "The earth was without form..." one wonders if maybe a lot of time passed between those verses (or maybe time operated differently?). Is there exegetical grounds for this? Well, I don't think so. But neither does it seem that we are constrained to say that there couldn't be. Doesn't the Bible have narrative gaps? All the time. Just read through the Gospels. Maybe the focus in Genesis is on the formation of the Earth and its being filled?

Maybe this is all hogwash. I dunno. But I'm still interested in knowing why, exactly, old earthers hold to their position.

Austin

 

[littlepeople]

Apparently Lynnie posted while I was typing Right on. Great minds think alike.

 

[ACBRown]

Thanks lynnie. I'll check that out.

 

[Repre5entYHWH]

 

[Bern]

At risk of being shot to pieces here... Austin, don't let intellectualism rob you of the plain reading of scripture. Its only because of evolutionary theory that people started trying to match up the age of the earth with "evidence" in modern science. There are some great men of God who held to old earth theory, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Eventually, modern science may catch up with the bible. The problem is that scientific theory is always changing, while the bible does not.

 

[ACBRown]

No gunshots here Thanks Bern.

 

[sastark]

If you have not read this book, get yourself a copy and read it. It's great:

Amazon.com: Did God Create in 6 Days? (9780975484609): Joseph A. Pipa, David W. Hall: Books

 

[cih1355]

Thanks, guys. I'm totally on the same page, when it comes to the appearance of age point. But I want to educate myself with respect to the evidence that apparently many are seeing that leads them to believe the universe is very old... older than 6000 years

What is that evidence? And what should I read or listen to?

Thanks,

Austin

The people who believe that the universe is old say that the rocks dated by the radiometric dating methods are millions and millions of years old. When one uses radiometric dating, one has to make assumptions concerning the initial conditions of the rock sample, the amount of parent or daughter elements in the sample, and whether or not the decay rate has changed. If one makes false assumptions about these things, then the rock sample will be given the wrong date.

 

[Peairtach]

I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.

What causes you to believe in this gap? Exegesis or eisegesis?

Exegesis. Can you tell me on which Day of the Six Days the Heaven and Earth themselves were made? Having said that, the Bible doesn't indicate how long before the Six Days they were made. But it does teach that they were made before God made the First Day on the First Day.

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

It's funny because I wonder if that isn't the way to go, Richard, granting that there is really good evidence for old universe. For it seems plain to me that we can't reasonbly tinker with the days of creation. The days sure sound like days. But when verse one says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then it says, "The earth was without form..." one wonders if maybe a lot of time passed between those verses (or maybe time operated differently?). Is there exegetical grounds for this? Well, I don't think so. But neither does it seem that we are constrained to say that there couldn't be. Doesn't the Bible have narrative gaps? All the time. Just read through the Gospels. Maybe the focus in Genesis is on the formation of the Earth and its being filled?

Maybe this is all hogwash. I dunno. But I'm still interested in knowing why, exactly, old earthers hold to their position.

Austin

Well it gives time, if time was needed for the supernatural creation of God's Heaven and the angels to be created and for the rebellion and fall of the angels.

The Earth and empty Space, since it was far more central to God's plans than His Heaven (He intended to become eternally God and Man not God and Angel, after all) would have been made in the very beginning when God's Heaven and the angels were created. But it may not have been worked on by God until after the rebellion and downfall of Satan and His minions.

There's this book:-

Three Views on Creation and Evolution Counterpoints: Exploring Theology Counterpoints: Bible and Theology: Amazon.co.uk: Paul Nelson, Robert C. Newman, Howard J. Van Till, John Mark Reynolds, J.P. Moreland: Books

To some extent I don't like these books because they tend to present certain views that are not within, or shouldn't be classed within, the evangelical fold, as evangelical. E.g. This book compares, YEC, OEC and theistic evolution as evangelically acceptable.

I don't consider theistic evolution to be evangelically acceptable as it more than plays fast and loose with Scripture. Theistic evolution just plainly ignores Scripture, or uses Scripture as a wax nose when it wants to.

Nevertheless this book will show you why some are enticed into the OEC fold and why theistic evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

 

[ACBRown]

Thanks Seth! I'll check that out.

Richard: It's funny you bring up the angel thing. I'm actually working on a manuscript entitled, "The Fall of Satan and the Meaning of Life: Reflections on Satan’s terrible idea and its implications on the unfolding human drama." It's basically a fresh theory of the angelic fall and the irony of sin. While we simply don't have any evidence concerning the timing of Lucifer's rebellion, it does seem rather strange to think that he convinced a whole host of angels to follow him in a rebellion in such a short period of time. But of course, this is assuming time works the same way in their realm. Here I think of Narnia

Austin

 

[Peairtach]

I believe that all creatures are subject to time, even Christ's human nature in Heaven, as all creatures are subject to space. Only God is free of these constraints.

The passage in Revelation in which the great angel (undoubtedly Christ) says "there should be time no longer"(KJV) is more properly, "there should be delay no longer".

It's difficult to know if Heavenly time is synchronised with Earthly time. From my reading of Scripture, I think the natural inference of the reader would be that Satan's rebellion happened before the creation. Or if we posit that Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they Fell a longer period than we sometimes think, during that period.

I think we maybe tend to think that Adam and Eve were in the Garden a short period before they Fell, because they don't seeem to have made sweet love before they Fell, or if they did, they hadn't conceived, otherwise their child would have been sinless.

It makes sense that Heavenly time is in some sense co-ordinate with earthly time, as that would tie in with the fact of God's peculiar condescension to and interest in Man, such that He is now a Man.

E.g. Are we saying that our prayers made today to Christ, reached Him centuries ago, or that they will not reach Him until centuries in the future.

It is only the souls of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23) that are in Heaven, because there bodies can presently be found in the earth.

I think the fact of the incarnation and ascension points to co-ordinate time in Earth and Heaven.

Otherwise the souls of deceased believers could now, from our perspective, be in Heaven at a time long before Jesus' exalted and glorified humanity arrived there, or they could already be reunited to their glorified bodies and in the New Heavens and the New Earth, while the resurrection hasn't happened yet and the New Heavens and New Earth haven't been inaugurated.

This is all unConfessional and unbiblical. The Confession insists on the intermediate period of the perfected and glorified soul enjoying God in Heaven.

I don't think there's too much of Narnia going on, although there might be some.

 

[ACBRown]

Ah, no Narnia. Bummer. No seriously, thanks for the thoughts.

 

[goodnews]

Austin,

I've read some good posts on this thread already and don't want to be redundant. But, to me, the biggest reason a Christian would be a YEC has to do with the fact the the Bible clearly states that death, and the curse, didn't appear on earth until the fall of man in the Garden. This certainly rules out any notion of jiving the Bible with the old-earth evolutionary theory (although natural selection within each kind is an obvious phenomenon) since lots of things have to live and die before man existed, or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory. Also, I respectfully disagree with the need to say God made everything look really old. None of us has lived for thousands of years allowing us to definitively say how old something looks when it's thousands, and certainly not millions, of years old. I've seen things age considerably over a couple of decades (myself notwithstanding) and would imagine something a few thousand years old would look very old. I just trust what the Bible says. And In my humble opinion, I don't think Bible Believers would naturally glean an old-earth belief from tha natural reading of Scripture w/o the influence of evolutionary theory.

 

[Peairtach]

or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory.

My own "gap theory" doesn't posit death and destruction in the gap. Just that the Heaven and Earth were created some time before the First Day, whether five minutes or whatever. We're not told. But we are told that they weren't created during days 1-6, but before.

 

[goodnews]

or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory.

My own "gap theory" doesn't posit death and destruction in the gap. Just that the Heaven and Earth were created some time before the First Day, whether five minutes or whatever. We're not told. But we are told that they weren't created during days 1-6, but before.

I can get with that Richard. What I'm against is the "ruin-reconstruction" idea of traditional gap theory. However, I can see from Scripture that God created the unformed earth first and then followed it up (however long later) with the light of day 1.

 

[au5t1n]

Where are we told the heavens and earth were not created on the first day?

 

[ACBRown]

That's an important question, Austin. As I see it, the way to falsify Richard's view would be to show that everything was made in six days. In other words, the unformed earth and universe were part of day 1. Do the Scriptures provide sufficient evidence to establish that point?