53 Comments

Jesus Was a Young Earth Creationist

NASA Image

NASA Image

Some Christians believe that Genesis 1–11—the story of the creation, flood and tower of Babel— are symbolic, and the events didn’t really happen the way the Bible plainly describes them. No doubt many of these individuals are sincere and searching for the truth, while others have just gone along with what they’ve learned in school without putting much thought into the matter.

A couple theories try to fit billions of years into the Genesis account.

  • The Day-Age Theory suggests that the days described in Genesis 1 were long periods of time. Many who adhere to this theory, including Hugh Ross, believe that the flood wasn’t global.
  • The Gap Theory proposes that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. During this time, Satan fell, and the dinosaurs were created, lived and went extinct.

Some Christians try to combine evolution with those theories; some don’t. Some believe this first section of the Bible is merely a nice story and chose to believe in evolution. What they may not realize is that evolution is filled with blatant flaws, and that the theory and the Bible are mutually exclusive. Genesis 1 tells us that God created birds on day five and reptiles on day six—the exact opposite of evolution.

I think that the vast majority of those who believe any of the old Earth theories have more faith in science than the Bible. Because of that, they try to make the Bible fit with their beliefs, not recognizing the importance of conforming one’s beliefs to God’s Word.

We have an inerrant book that tells us how old the Earth is. We need to figure out what it tells us and believe it. There are plenty of hints elsewhere in the Bible, including Jesus’ words. I trust Jesus for my eternity, and I trust what He says about the age of the earth. He wasn’t just present when it was all created, He is the Creator (Colossians 1:16).

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” This means that at the beginning of creation, God created a human male and a human female. With this one sentence, Jesus rules out all old Earth theories—and evolution.

Elsewhere in the Bible, the events in Genesis 1–11 are referred to as historical fact. Jesus referred to Noah’s flood in Matthew 24:37–39, as does Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, and several other places in the Old Testament. If you believe Zechariah was a real person, you must believe Adam and Eve had a son named Abel, since Jesus refers to Zechariah and Abel in the same breath in Luke 11:50–51. In the midst of giving Moses the Ten Commandments, the Lord repeats that everything was created in six days (see Exodus 20:11).

The old Earth theories simply make no sense. Anyone who simply reads Genesis with no bias would reach the conclusion that the creation is very young. When you take the clear teaching of the rest of the Bible, there is simply no basis for anything but a young earth. The Bible simply knows nothing of the old Earth theories, and forges on with the unpopular notion that the earth was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.

53 comments on “Jesus Was a Young Earth Creationist

  1. I have seen to it that I teach my children, and myself, concerning the creation issue.

    And it is an issue.

    We cannot sideline it and get on with ‘more spiritual things’
    it need to be got on with.

    Too many Christians are confused on the issue, because of what took place in Genesis 3 “Has God said…?”

    It has worked good for 6,000 years, so why change anything now?

    God bless.

  2. Amen Doreen! Completely agree with your thoughts. It is very much an issue, but still completely ignored in many circles – particularly evangelical ones. Maybe they think if they leave the matter alone, then they can continue teaching their people the veracity of the Scriptures while condoning the fact that they and others are repeating the oldest lie in the world – “Has God said….?”

  3. I was listening to a Voddie Baucham message last night with my wife. He said that he loves to get asked by people if he believes in a literal 7 day creation. He responds, “No – He did it in 6!”

    While some folks imagine the Lord needs or otherwise has use of long periods of time, He tells us not to put too much confidence in what man calls knowledge! (1 Tim 6:20 & 21)

    And there is no warrant anywhere to take the six days of creation and twist them into something else.

    If a man doesn’t believe what God said in Genesis, how can he believe what He revealed anywhere else in Scripture? (Steve Farrar uses that question – I love it.)

  4. Exodus 20:8-11–“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

    What does a day-age believer do with this? Does he think that we work 6000 years, and have a thousand years off (see 2nd Peter 3:8)?????

    I don’t know about some of these people, but I would rather trust in what the Bible has said for 6000 YEARS than believe “science,” which is changing every decade. It’s like one fellow that does creation apologetics at our church says: “Give science enough time, they’ll catch up to the Bible.”

  5. Jesus had a few words to say concerning this:

    “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46&47

    If the six day creation account in Genesis can be disproven, then all else that God has said is brought into question and the Gospel becomes null and void. Now would be a good time to decide who you will believe—God or the evil one.

  6. I don’t mean to be the dissenter in the group, but you are painting with a pretty broad brush. The vast majority of theologians who hold to the day-age theory, trusting in science more than scripture as you say, is a pretty impressive list. Really liberal, anti-church guys like Wayne Grudem, Ben Witherington, and D.A. Carson. Hardly scientists…

    And let’s assume for a moment that what Jesus was discussing in Mark 10 was on the literal order of creation not the role of God’s design in marriage. But wouldn’t we end up saying that ‘from the beginning’ would have to mean that male & female were created on Day 1, from the VERY beginning? It seems to me your argument over states your case, leaving us with Jesus saying something that misunderstands even a literal six-day creation. Fortunately we know that isn’t the case. Clearly Jesus was not speaking to the issue of the order of creation, as the context would also attest to, but was addressing the categories by which God uniquely displayed his image in the unity of male & female in marriage.

    I appreciate your respectful tone and insightful thoughts throughout the post, but Mark 10:6 being a proof-text for a literal six-day creation is hardly tenable.

  7. The Bible clearly refutes the currently popular theories of what is falsely called “science” (I Timothy 6:20), and the proponents of these theories who are “willingly ignorant” (II Peter 3:5). When a “scientist” claims that, several billion years ago, some sort of cosmic accident formed the “universe,” he would do well to repent, and read Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

    “Uni” comes from the word meaning “one,” as in “unicycle” (a cycle with one wheel), and “uniform” (a set of principles or things which have been standardized to one type). A “verse” is a sentence of language, usually found in a poem or song. Therefore, God created the “universe” in “one sentence.” That sentence is found in Genesis, Chapter One, Verse One.

    What’s worse is that most “scientists” who have come to believe the heretical lies of the “big bang” and “evolution” theories learned these at a “university.” Perhaps they should call it a “multiversity.” The Bible, on the other hand, is based on the foundational truth that God, the omniscient, omnipotent Creator, exists eternally, and that all “things” and living “creatures” were made by Him and for His Glory.

  8. Jared,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I agree that Jesus was discussing marriage in Mark 10, and his main point wasn’t the age of the universe. However, the thrust of the Bible’s teaching on the topic is clearly a young earth, and Jesus’ statement is not only consistent with a young earth, but a very strong indication of a young earth.

    Since you disagree, maybe you can tell us what you think it means, or try to fit it in with one of the old earth theories.

    I’ve heard a lot of old earth Christians try to justify why the universe could be old in spite of the seemingly clear teaching of the Bible. However, I’ve never heard a good explanation from any of them about why they think the Bible actually teaches an old earth.

    What are your beliefs on this topic? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in a global flood?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  9. Young-earth creationist Kurt Wise, who has a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard, remarked in his book “Faith, Form and Time” about Jesus creating things that were “old” as an example of God the Father creating the earth and universe “old.”

    As one example, Dr. Wise used Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine. It was not cheap wine, but the “best” wine implying that it was well aged. Regardless, wine requires many days to ferment, etc., yet Jesus did it in mere seconds.

    Another example is Jesus healing the lame man. Doing so would have required Jesus to strengthen the man’s leg muscles, tendons, etc. which had atrophied over several years of complete non-use; yet, again, Jesus did it in a split-second.

    Still another example is Jesus feeding the 5000 with just a few fish and loaves of bread. In effect, Jesus would have had to literally create old fish (not eggs and wait for maturity) so that they would be large enough to be food for men, and old bread bypassing the growing of the grain, etc.

    Although admittedly Jesus was not specifically speaking of creation in Luke 11:50-51, He undoubtedly demonstrated it repeatedly in His earthly ministry.

  10. Since Jesus spoke of Genesis as Literal HISTORICAL fact, the Old Earth theories fall flat. Jesus of course knows exactly how long creation took, He was there !

    (No Scientist can say they were there at the beginning,they can only theorize) so whose report will YOU believe? I Will believe the report of the Lord!

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

  11. fifth Horseman,

    In heaven, the God of heaven laughs at fools.

    By the way, our country is a laughingstock? May I remind you of the Libya fiasco and the fact that the sun NOW sets on what was the British Empire. Why, because God has given over England to her folly and her wickedness!

    The Desert Pastor

  12. When it gets down to it, the following is your argument:

    The old Earth theories simply make no sense.

    That a proposition “makes no sense” to you is not a valid argument against the proposition. I would like to hear an actual argument explaining why your position is correct.

  13. Do you believe that all the animals on earth died during the flood except the ones on Noah’s ark?

  14. David in GA,

    Yes, because that is what the Bible so states. We hold to the literal translation of the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

    In other words, “God said, and THAT settles it!”

    The Desert Pastor

  15. “Yes, because that is what the Bible so states”

    No offense Desert Pastor, but using that kind of argument isn’t really defending the christian faith. For instance, the Quran says that Mohammed flew on a horse to Jerusalem. Do you believe that just because it’s in the Quran? Of course not. I can say the same of your argument. Just because the bible says something doesn’t mean that it’s true. One must give solid arguments in order to “defend the truth and contend for the faith” as you claim you’re doing on this website.

    I asked you about the animals that weren’t on Noah’s ark because I had some follow-up questions. If you’re willing to actually defend your beliefs then I’d like to dialogue with you.

  16. David in GA,

    If your purpose is just to troll here, then I am not interested. However, if you desire true dialogue, we at DefCon are always ready to defend our faith.

    As to your question, the answer is still yes. I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible; therefore, I believe that the all the animals died except for those on the ark. We are of course referring to land animals as there is no indication that the fish world was decimated.

    The Desert Pastor

  17. In the account of Noah’s ark, I have some things that I have never been able to figure out.

    Here’s my first question:

    How did the land animals get across the ocean to the various continents? For instance, how did the deer or bears get from Mt Ararat in Turkey, where the ark landed, to North America? Or how did the kangaroos get from Mt Ararat to Austrailia?

  18. First answer,

    I believe that land bridges come to mind. I am not speaking about the so-called continent of Pangaea for the measurements do not permit such a connection in the middle of what is now the Atlantic Ocean. It is possible that mankind as they moved about repopulating the earth that they captured some of these creatures and took them to places like Australia.

    The Desert Pastor

  19. David in GA,

    You said, “No offense Desert Pastor, but using that kind of argument isn’t really defending the christian faith. For instance, the Quran says that Mohammed flew on a horse to Jerusalem. Do you believe that just because it’s in the Quran? Of course not. I can say the same of your argument.”

    I agree. While I can’t speak for DP, yours is a good question, and one possible answer is that the Bible appears to support the claim that the continents spread a century after the flood, in the time of Peleg, as per Genesis 10 and 1 Chronicles 1.

  20. Hi cl,

    You said,

    When it gets down to it, the following is your argument:

    The old Earth theories simply make no sense.

    That a proposition “makes no sense” to you is not a valid argument against the proposition. I would like to hear an actual argument explaining why your position is correct.

    I agree that me not understanding something isn’t a valid argument. But that isn’t what I said. The clear teaching of the Bible is that creation was about 6000 years ago. Some Christians try to get around the clear teaching, and their arguments are ridiculous. I understand their arguments, yet they make no sense in that they fly in the face of what the Bible says.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  21. “First answer,

    I believe that land bridges come to mind. …..It is possible that mankind as they moved about repopulating the earth that they captured some of these creatures and took them to places like Australia.

    The Desert Pastor”

    Hi DP,

    I’m not sure these arguments make sense to me. The land bridge that was across the Bering Strait was completely gone by 10,000 BC. That was over 12,000 years ago, which doesn’t line up with a literal reading of the bible.

    As for boating animals to Austrailia, it doesn’t make sense that people would load up kangaroos, koalas, emus and tazmanian devils and take them on a long ocean voyage.

    Nevertheless, I have another question that I’ll post seperately.

  22. DP,

    I have a second question. Why would God desire animals to die in the flood? Can animals can be evil and corrupt? (Gen 6:12)

  23. David in GA,

    First, it was not an argument that I was posing in regards to the land bridge. It was merely an hypothesis. Second, while scientists do seem to agree that there were land bridges during a time of an ice age that also produced much lower water levels, I would disagree with the timing aspect as I believe in the young earth theory of an age of no more than approximately 7000-10,000 years.

    Third, I do not believe that animals are evil and corrupt as they do not have the cognitive reasoning abilities that humans do. Why would God kill all the animals? The most obvious answer would be that He simply chose to do so so that in the complete destruction of all things and the subsequent repopulation of the earth by both animals and humans, He might receive all the glory.

    There are some things that just will never be known this side of eternity. We can try to obtain all the answers, and most people (even if they had the answers) would still not believe in God or His Word. I am convinced that there are some who would want to be like the apostle Thomas and see physical tangible proof of things like Creation actually occurring or the Resurrected Christ. Sadly, they would STILL find some excuse to disbelieve the truth.

    The Desert Pastor

  24. David,

    The first man, Adam, sinned… but through man’s sin, the WHOLE CREATION has been under God’s curse. And, the creation is waiting for the time of Jesus’ return, for He will then lift the curse.

    Might I suggest Romans 8:18-25 as a place to start:

    “18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.

    “20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

    “22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

    “24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”

  25. Bill,

    You said, “The clear teaching of the Bible is that creation was about 6000 years ago. Some Christians try to get around the clear teaching, and their arguments are ridiculous. I understand their arguments, yet they make no sense in that they fly in the face of what the Bible says.”

    What justification do you have for the YEC position? That’s the clear teaching of Archbishop Ussher and others, but I don’t see anything in the Bible that emphatically claims 6,000 calendar years have passed since creation. Remember, those who lean on the Bible also used to argue geocentrism, too, so without a better argument, I hope you can understand why I can’t really accept your response. You say you understand the counter-arguments: okay, well… do you really think Adam could’ve accomplished all his day six activities in a literal, solar day? I haven’t been able to get my head around that one.

    DP,

    I hope you’ll bear with this criticism here. To David in GA, you said, “The most obvious answer would be that He simply chose to do so so that in the complete destruction of all things and the subsequent repopulation of the earth by both animals and humans, He might receive all the glory. There are some things that just will never be known this side of eternity. We can try to obtain all the answers, and most people (even if they had the answers) would still not believe in God or His Word. I am convinced that there are some who would want to be like the apostle Thomas and see physical tangible proof of things like Creation actually occurring or the Resurrected Christ. Sadly, they would STILL find some excuse to disbelieve the truth.”

    From where I’m sitting, that doesn’t make sense at all. Mass killing leads to God’s glory? No offense, but maybe more people would at least be receptive to believing the truth if Christians would actually defend the gospel instead of offering a mysticism that seems counter-intuitive and difficult to understand? I really can’t see how killing all the animals lends itself to God’s glory – of course – I also understand that my inability to understand something doesn’t mean it’s nonsense. That’s why I ask for explanations. Can you explain how wiping out the entire animal kingdom could bring glory to God?

    David in GA,

    Re your second question, any reasonable person has to eventually ask themselves: why would God destroy all the life on Earth? Why not just the sinful humans? Well, first off, Genesis said all humans but Noah and his family were wicked. Okay, well what about the animals? Maybe there was something in the genomes of the creatures saved that God wanted to repopulate? Or, maybe there was something in the genomes of the creatures destroyed that God wanted to repopulate? If it sounds silly I apologize; I’m just trying to indicate that we can think about it and discuss.

  26. The previous post got scrambled. Please ignore it and read this one:

    David,

    As for the animals dying in the Flood, there was another person on this site (different thread) who asked a similar question.

    She asked:

    “Jeff H – there’s a mountain ridge in western Colorado called the ‘Fossil Ridge’, because thousands, millions of fossils of sea creatures (shellfish etc) turn up in the rocks there, for a human eye, such as you have, to see. But Colorado is not near the coast, as any atlas will confirm. Can you explain to me how those shellfish got there and got fossilized in the rock?”

    This was my response:

    I’ve assemble the verses from Scripture that specifically address the reason for the Flood, God’s covenant with Noah, the description of the Flood itself, and the effects of the Flood:

    Genesis 6:9-14 and 17-18

    9 “This is the account of Noah.
    Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

    11 “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

    13 “So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

    17 “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.”

    and Genesis 7:18-20 and 23-24

    18 “The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

    23 “Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

    24 “The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.”

    Being omnipotent, God could have merely killed everyone but Noah’s family with His direct will alone.

    The Flood, however, demonstrates both God’s just judgment (the wages of sin is death) and His mercy.

    His mercy is demonstrated in that whenever a person comes across an artifact of the Flood (such as sea creature fossils embedded in the rocks near the top of a landlocked mountain) he is reminded of God’s judgment of our sin – *and* His provision for forgiveness: Jesus Christ.

    Our God is full of loving-kindness, indeed!

    In Jesus,

    – Jeff H

  27. DP,

    God receives glory for drowning animals in the flood? I don’t understand how, as Gen 6:12-13 states, God found violence and corruption in animals. How can animals become corrupt?

    Jeff,

    You stated:
    His mercy is demonstrated in that whenever a person comes across an artifact of the Flood (such as sea creature fossils embedded in the rocks near the top of a landlocked mountain) he is reminded of God’s judgment of our sin – *and* His provision for forgiveness: Jesus Christ.

    How do fossils remind people of God’s judgement of sin and his forgiveness with Jesus Christ? Animals don’t sin and don’t need forgiveness. Therefore, why would God destroy them? I’m still not clear on this.

  28. David,

    You wrote: “How do fossils remind people of God’s judgement of sin and his forgiveness with Jesus Christ?”

    The fossils are artifacts from a global Flood that God brought about as a JUDGMENT for mans’ sin. Jesus is the Author of salvation, and His Christians obediently continue to proclaim that there is forgiveness of sin through Christ.

    You wrote: “Animals don’t sin”

    You are right, but they die anyway. As I said (quoting Scripture), the whole Creation is under the curse.

    God is using the cursed Creation to highlight the wages of man’s sin: The fossils in the mountain soil point to the Flood… The levitical laws concerning the shedding of animal blood to “cover” sin – thus pointing to Christ being the “sacrificial Lamb” Who takes away the sin of the world.

    God is revealing to man Who He is, His Attributes: His Glory in the Creation, His Holiness in the curse (due to man’s sin), and His Mercy and Grace in His Plan of Redemption (Jesus Christ).

    The animals are not more important to God than man is, they are less so. God loved man so much that He did not even spare His own Son to redeem us.

    But, one day, the curse will be lifted and the Creation will be restored.

    I hope this helps you, David!

    Come Lord Jesus!

    – Jeff H

  29. Jeff H,

    Do you believe all fossils are a result of the global flood during Noah’s time?

    Thank you,
    David

  30. Hi David,

    You wrote: “Do you believe all fossils are a result of the global flood during Noah’s time?”

    ALL, no.

    Most, probably.

    Given the scale of the Flood, and also its purpose, it seems consistent that a vast record should and would be left.

    A great site for you to get biblical answers to your questions about the Flood and other, related issues is Answers in Genesis

    Here is the link, if it’s o.k. with Pilgrim to include it:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/

    Blessings,

    – Jeff

  31. Jeff,

    Thank you for the link but I’ve been to the AIG website several times. The answers they provide aren’t convincing. Plus I’d rather have a two-way discussion like we’re having rather than read someone else’s website.

    Thanks,
    David

  32. David,

    You wrote: “I’d rather have a two-way discussion”

    You got it!

    – Jeff H

  33. Jeff H,

    If most fossils are from the time of the flood, that would mean that most fossils are only a few thousand years old (if the earth is only 6000 years old). However, the overwhelming majority of fossils are several millions of years old. How can this be explained?

  34. Bill,

    Along with my other questions, I’m still waiting to hear your justification for your claim that the Bible claims 6,000 calendar years have passed since creation. Just a polite reminder.

  35. Hi David,

    You wrote: “the overwhelming majority of fossils are several millions of years old.”

    By whose reckoning?

    Radiometric dating does not fit with the “young earth” view.

    Radiometric dating is a method which are used to ‘determine’ the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter (rocks, etc), though there is one radiometric dating technique, radiocarbon dating, which is used to ‘date’ organic specimens.

    The three key underlying assumptions are:

    1) the rate of decay of parent into daughter has remained constant throughout the unobservable past;

    2) the specimen which we are examining hasn’t been contaminated in any way (that is, no parent or daughter has been added or taken away at any point during the unobservable past), and

    3) we can determine how much parent and daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process – not all of the Pb206 present today necessarily came from decaying U238; Pb206 may have been part of the original constitution of the specimen.

    If any one of these assumptions is wrong, the method cannot accurately determine the age of a specimen.

    In reality, ALL THREE of these assumptions are suspect, at best.

    If you are interested in additional information and evidence about radiometric dating techniques and their shortcomings, David, let me know.

    It certainly is not reliable enough to use to reject God’s Word.

    The body of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth is vast.

    While there is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth, the Old-Earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations.

    While most scientists share the Old-Earth perspective, it’s not surprising, considering that is all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess.

    There is, however, a growing number of professionally-trained scientists — experts in their fields — who are accepting a Young-Earth perspective as being MORE consistent with the evidence.

    Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:

    1) Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire Geologic Column would need serious revision.

    2) Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, it sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. And yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the Geologic Column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

    3) Lunar Recession. The moon is slowing moving farther away from the Earth. This has to do with the fact that the Earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and upon taking several other factors into consideration, physicists have determined that the Earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years. This is 3.4 billion years less time than Old-Earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the Earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

    4) Helium diffusion from ‘Precambrian’ Zircons. Helium is produced within the Earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (Uranium and Thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that in zircons, where a billion years of Uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much Helium remains—way too much Helium. It appears as if the Helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

    First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common Old-Earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of Uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past.

    One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of Uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the Helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

    Second, because the zircons came from ‘Precambrian’ rocks below the Geologic Column, currently accepted Old-Earth interpretations of the Geologic Column may need serious revision.

    These and numerous other scientific evidences for a Young-Earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.

    I’ll be glad to elaborate on any point, David. Just ask away.

    As an Aerospace Engineer, I’m not dealing with these issues as an untrained novice. The more I look at the evidence, the more I am inescapably pointed to the biblical account as being correct.

    Remember, though, David, the Bible does not need us to ‘find’ evidence that it is accurate. It is the Word of God, and IS correct.

    Blessings,

    – Jeff H

  36. Jeff H,

    So you are saying that all rocks on or in the earth, no matter what geologic layer they are in, are 6000 years old or younger?

  37. David,

    You ask a good question! The implied sorting of layers in the ‘geologic column’, according to the old earth camp, is that these are constructed temporally (over time). Specifically, the idea is that the layers are laid down over many years.

    Another way to view the genesis of the same layer evidence is to suggest that they were the result of water-suspended soil and rocks in Flood waters settling and being sorted according to density.

    If you took a glass jar into your back yard, filled it half way with soil, and the rest of the jar with water… then shook it, you would find that it would settle into layers, similar to what you would see if you dug a deep hole and looked at the earthen layers.

    Rock strata (or layers) are accounted for in a like fashion.

    Poly-strata trees that have permineralized (fossilized) appear to have “grown” through many “millions of years” of soil depositions, according to the old earth geologic column proponents.

    Yet, we know that an exposed dead tree would have rotted long before “millions of years” would have passed. The soil burying the tree MUST have been deposited quickly, otherwise the tree would have disintegrate.

    We can, however, see a small scale representation of the effects of a large flood, by examining the effects of the Mount St. Helens eruption. When the volcano dome exploded, the blast knocked down hundreds of trees, many of which were deposited in Spirit Lake. As the mud and trees settled, clearly visible soil stratification and poly strata trees resulted.

    – Jeff H

  38. Jeff H,

    Did you answer my question? If so, I didn’t catch it. A simple yes or no would’ve sufficed.

  39. David,

    You wrote: “Did you answer my question? If so, I didn’t catch it. A simple yes or no would’ve sufficed.”

    Yep.

    – Jeff H

    P.S. David, are you interested in knowing what I believe (or, rather, what I have determined based on the evidence) – or – are you interested in why I reached those conclusions?

    If it’s the former, why do you care what I think? Wouldn’t you rather know why?

    – Jeff H

  40. Jeff H,

    I assumed the “why” was because the bible says so therefore you believe it. If there’s more to it than that, please let me know.

  41. David,

    You wrote: “I assumed the “why” was because the bible says so therefore you believe it. If there’s more to it than that, please let me know.”

    That’s what my posts have described.

    If you don’t want to read them then I can’t really be of much help to you, sorry.

    – Jeff H

  42. For those who are interested, God gives us in His word a traceable timeline from creation onward to meet known historical reference points. I traced this out once years ago. If you start with how old Adam was when he had Seth, then how old Seth was when he had Enos, etc. you can follow it yourself. Or you can save the time and just google for it and you’ll find several sites that document where in Scripture you can trace it out. A few of these are (without any endorsement to anything else on those sites):

    http://www.geocities.com/his_emissary/time.html
    http://www.enlightener.org/TimeTable.htm
    freegroups.net/library/www…org/…/howoldistheearth.htm

    When I traced it out for myself, Creation was in the 41st C BC, which would make the earth about 6000 years old.

  43. CL,

    You asked why I believe the Bible teaches that the creation is 6000 years old. I think I answered that in the post, particularly the last 3 paragraphs. If you’re asking how a specific age is derived, it is through the genealogies provided in the Bible.

    You chide me for not believing old earth arguments because the arguments make no sense, but your argument for not believing in a young earth is: “Do you really think Adam could’ve accomplished all his day six activities in a literal, solar day? I haven’t been able to get my head around that one.”

    Thanks,
    Bill

  44. Jeff H,

    I thought this website was about defending and contending for the faith. But if the end answer for everything is “because the bible says so” then that’s not really defending or contending. To me, that’s just using the bible as the ultimate trump card.

    Maybe it’s best we end our discussion. Thank you for conversing with me.

    David

  45. An observation: If the Bible is not the final word of Truth – on anything about which it speaks – then we should throw it away. The Bible does not tell us the laws of algebra nor does it describe the scientific method. But when man’s thoughts (inherently wicked) about creation depart from that which God has revealed, the man who is born again will repent from his presumptive sin and trust God and His Word.

    Defending/Contending the faith handed down to the saints. That’s the reference. Faith rests on something or someone. The faith handed down to the saints rests on Jesus who is the Christ – the Bible tells me so.

  46. The Bible is truly the Living Word. It is supernatural and powerful because it contains the Word of God. It’s not just “a special book.” It is alive, and it has the power to transform.

  47. David,

    You wrote: “I thought this website was about defending and contending for the faith. But if the end answer for everything is “because the bible says so” then that’s not really defending or contending.”

    Actually, I answered your questions and gave you several examples that show that the earth really can’t be millions or billions of years old. There are many more examples I could have given you.

    If you had actually read my entire posts to you, you would have known that.

    You seem to have a different agenda, and have chosen to ignore any evidence I give you that the Creation itself bears testimony to the biblical account.

    You wrote: “To me, that’s just using the bible as the ultimate trump card.”

    As I wrote earlier, the Bible does not need anything or anyone to proclaim it is true. The Bible, the revealed Word of God Himself is Truth.

    The Bible is the Standard, whereby all ‘truths’ must be measured by.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17

    “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

    and Hebrews 4:12

    “2 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

    You wrote: “Maybe it’s best we end our discussion.”

    As you wish.

    You wrote: “Thank you for conversing with me.”

    Any time… :)

    In Christ,

    Jeff H

  48. In light of the great discussion above, I am going to ask a question that may seem to some like asking if the earth is flat; but this I can assure you it is not. For it is an honest question asked in light of the defense we give to the Biblical record of all it addresses; whether it be sin, the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles and resurrection, and as per this thread, creation and the 6000 year (or so) genealogy.

    This defense of course being made against all the weapons our modern scientist, atheist,
    humanist, socialist, et al can muster. Whether it be radiocarbon dating to “prove” the age of the earth, evolutionary models and reconstructed ape men to illustrate evolution, genetic testing to postulate that sin is due to genes, space study to validate the big bang, and so on.

    Yet stand believers do against these attacks primarily because “thus saith the Scriptures.” Yes, we may refer to other findings to support our case but the foundation is always the Scriptures. Because if we had no other “helps” we still would be required to stand on the Scriptures alone, which is where many have stood throughout history. And it is where many stand today who either do not have access to, have not read, or honestly cannot understand the scientific information available.

    My lead in is Manfred’s quote where he wrote: An observation: If the Bible is not the final word of Truth – on anything about which it speaks – then we should throw it away. Using this as my foundation, I note that everywhere I read about the sun in the Scriptures it is pictured as moving wherein the earth is always stationary. Crazy, I know, but true it is. Countless examples could be cited where I’ll only list a few below.

    “For as the lightning [rising sun] cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mat 24:27)

    “Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.” (Isa 38:8)

    “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Jos 10:12-13)

    “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecc 1:5)

    Yet of course we all have learned from infancy that this is the stuff of ignorant nomadic people who were not as enlightened as we are today. This all being reaffirmed by our pastors and elders who told us these words were poetic, figurative, and certainly not to be taken literally. Ignoring the fact that the exact same arguments are used against creation, 6000 years of history, 6 day creation, the flood, the virgin birth, sin, the resurrection, etc (even as this post by Bill notes).

    So I ask, why is this one area that we as believers do not take what is written at face value, and instead accept the conflicting scientific theory?

    To help put the matter in better perspective and to give some introductory materials for your studies, below are a few links you may find helpful.

    http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html
    http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/history1.html
    http://www.geocentricbible.com/
    http://www.geocentricity.com/

  49. The Bible is the final authority whereby we must go for truth. The Bible tells us, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” It doesn’t matter whether a person likes or believes it. God said it and that settles it, end of story! These men are defending and contending for the faith in the proper manner!

  50. brother Michael,

    I agree with your post completely. Whenever I teach Creation Science classes, I preface the lessons with the fact that the ultimate authority with respect to Truth is the Bible.

    I think that when we discuss Creation Science issues, we can easily “put the cart before the horse.”

    Specifically, God said it in His Word, and so it is true. PERIOD.

    That being said, God also tells us in Psalm 19:1-2

    “1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
    2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they display knowledge.”

    The Creation is part of God’s revelation of His Attributes.

    So, we should study the Creation in light of Scripture to help us to learn more about God (not to prove Scripture, but to ‘listen’ to the ‘speech’ coming from God through the Creation.

    There is nothing wrong with using the fact that the Creation bears evidence of complete consistency with the biblical account, in the same way we would show that much biblically-referenced archeology has been found (vs. for example, ‘revelations’ from Joseph Smith).

    We need to be clear concerning the ordering of ‘carts’ and ‘horses’, so that God receives ALL the Glory.

    The miracles (produced by a sovereign God) contained in the Bible are just as true as the narratives. It’s ALL true.

    As I stated several times here, the Bible does not need anything or anyone to proclaim it is true. The Bible, the revealed Word of God Himself is Truth.

    The Bible is the Standard, whereby all ‘truths’ must be measured by.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17

    “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

    and Hebrews 4:12

    “2 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

    In Jesus,

    Jeff H

  51. Very encouraging post Jeff. I would love to sit in on your Creation science classes! If you have a web site, do let us know. Blessings!

  52. Hi brother Michael,

    I don’t have a website, and I just use powerpoint slides that I have made (perhaps 500 or so). I usually teach the class for two hours a session, over four to six weeks.

    I would love to sit in on your Creation science classes!

    If you live near Washington, DC, stop on by! Just send me an email and I’ll give you the details.

    I was blessed to have also been invited to teach this class at a local University several years ago.

    That was a great experience to see about 200 young people, after seeing the evidence for themselves, reach the conclusion on their own that they had been lied to in their schools back home when they were indoctrinated into the bankrupt religion of evolution.

    Blessings,

    – Jeff H

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: