Category: Age of the Earth

In my previous entry, I mentioned two options for the person who believes in an ancient earth and still wants to interpret the days of Genesis as 24-hour days. The first is that God created with the appearance of age. However, that goes against God’s nature, because God would have to lie to create the earth with the appearance of age.

The other option is both more interesting and does not conflict with God’s character. That option is to believe the days in Genesis are not given in earth’s frame of reference. Instead, they are given in a completely different frame of reference. This idea, proposed by MIT professor Gerald Schroeder, is probably not correct, but it is incredibly interesting.

Continue reading “Here’s Your Second Choice…”

As I have written previously, there is some evidence that indicates the earth is old. Both the absence of most short-lived radioisotopes on earth as well as the ratios of certain isotopes in certain kinds of rock point to a very old earth. In addition, while some aspects of geology are best understood in a young-earth framework, others are best understood in an old-earth framework. Hopefully, I will eventually write about these old-earth evidences, as they are important to know and understand. However, for right now, just assume they exist.

Let’s suppose, then, that a person is convinced by the old-earth evidences. He or she thinks the data that indicate the earth is billions of years old outweigh the data that indicate the earth is on the order of ten thousand years old. Even though I disagree with such an assessment, it is a valid position to take. Now, even though it is not necessary to do so, suppose a person who believes the earth is billions of years old also wants to interpret the days of Genesis as 24-hour days. Is it possible to believe both of these premises? Actually, it is. In fact, there are two options such a person has:

1. Believe that God created the earth with an appearance of age.

2. Believe that the 24-hour days in Genesis are not earth days, but are days in another reference frame, such as the rest frame of the universe.

The second option is rather esoteric, but it is definitely feasible scientifically. I hope to write about that next. In this entry, however, I want to address the first question: Could God have created earth with an appearance of age? My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Continue reading “Did God Create Earth with an Appearance of Age?”

So far, I have discussed how the earth’s magnetic field, dendrochronology, the amount of sodium in the oceans, and the amount of helium in the atmosphere all indicate a very young earth. The last on my “top five” list is the nature of the thermonuclear fusion that powers the sun.

The sun is the earth’s main source of energy. Nearly all of the energy that powers life on this planet comes from the sun. In addition, the sun’s light and the characteristics of the earth’s atmosphere make our planet a perfect living oasis in the midst of an otherwise dead solar system. While most people know what I have written so far, you might not know that if the earth and sun were billions of years old, most likely the earth would have been simply too cold to support life throughout most of its history.
Continue reading “My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 6 of 6)”

So far, I have discussed how the earth’s magnetic field, dendrochronology, and the amount of sodium in the oceans all indicate a very young earth. The fourth on my “top five” list is the amount of helium in earth’s atmosphere.

We all know what helium is. It is a lighter-than-air gas. When we fill a balloon with helium, the balloon floats in air. What you might not know is that there is actually some helium in the earth’s atmosphere. There are roughly 5 atoms of helium for every million atoms (or molecules) in the atmosphere. Obviously, that’s not much helium, and that’s not what you would expect if the earth is ancient.

Continue reading “My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 5 of 6)”

In the previous entries on this subject, I talked about the earth’s magnetic field and dendrochronology as evidence that the earth is on the order of 10,000 years old. I want to continue this discourse now with one of the most well-studied processes used to estimate the age of the earth: the amount of salt in the oceans.

Everyone knows that the water in the oceans is salty. In fact, the average sample of seawater is 2.7% table salt (sodium chloride). To a chemist, the term “salt” includes a lot more than just table salt – it includes any ionic compound. If I include all things that chemist classify as salts, the average sample of seawater is 3.5% salts. It turns out that the amount of salt in the oceans has been studied for almost 300 years¹, so we know a lot more about it than most of the other processes used to estimate the age of the earth. What we know indicates that the earth is young.
Continue reading “My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 4 of 6)”

As I posted previously, planetary magnetic fields give us strong evidence for a young solar system and a young earth. It’s not just that the young-earth theory reproduces data that were known when the theory was produced, but it also predicted data that were not measured until later. Given that no old-earth theory comes close to doing this, it seems clear that from a planetary magnetic field standpoint, it is more reasonable to believe the earth and solar system are young than it is to believe they are old.

Moving on, I would like to discuss the next set of data that leads me to believe in a young earth: dendrochrology. This is just a fancy word for counting tree rings, and it probably represents the most reliable way to date things for which there is no historical date available. This reasonably accurate dating method once again gives us strong evidence for a very young earth.

Continue reading “My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 3 of 6)”

Having told you why I am skeptical of the idea of an ancient (millions or billions of years old) earth, I would like to give you some of the data that lead me to believe in a young earth. I am certainly open to changing my view on this, as I see no inherent reason to believe in any specific age for the earth. However, based on what I know about science right now, it seems to me most reasonable to believe that the earth is on the order of thousands of years old, and it seems to me incredibly unscientific to believe that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. So over the course of the next few weeks, dear reader, I hope to present to you my “top five” reasons for thinking that the earth is young.

Before I do that, however, I need to provide bit of scientific philosophy on this issue. I don’t think most scientists are equipped to evaluate this question, at least not in any scientifically meaningful way. In fact, I personally think that creationists are the only people who can address the age of the earth scientifically. I don’t think that all creationists are qualified to address this issue (as will become apparent in a moment), but I don’t think a single committed evolutionist is qualified to weigh in on the age of the earth, at least not in a scientific manner.
Continue reading “My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 1 of 6)”

I think I might know why Answers in Genesis has such a hard time interpreting Hebrew. It seems they cannot read English very well! In their “Around the World with Ken Ham” blog, Answer in Genesis quotes one of my entries:

This is why I say that organizations like Answers in Genesis promote poor theology. There is simply no good theological reason to insist that the word yom means a 24-hour day when it is used in Genesis 1. As a result, it is simply poor theology to insist that the Bible teaches a young earth. While I agree that this is a possible meaning of Genesis 1 (indeed, it is the meaning I take from the passage) . . .

and then says:

So, it’s poor theology to insist the days of creation are ordinary days, and there is “no good theological reason” to insist this—but he takes that meaning himself anyway! Now, that means he must now be using “poor theology” himself, and he must have a “good theological reason” to believe in ordinary days, though he says there is no such “good theological reason.” I am truly perplexed.

The writer is perplexed because, of course, he doesn’t understand plain English. I say that it is poor theology to INSIST that the days of Genesis are 24-hour days. I did not say it is poor theology to believe that they are 24-hour days. It is GOOD theology to agree that a possible interpretation of yom in Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day. However, it is GOOD theology to pay attention to the experts and understand that there are many other possible interpretations of the word yom in Genesis 1. It is POOR theology to INSIST that the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation is that of a 24-hour day.

Once again, the science from Answers in Genesis is quite good. However, when they have this much trouble reading plain modern English, I would certainly not take their word on ancient Hebrew!

In my previous post, I quoted Clement of Alexandria. He said that the days of Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days. Instead, they were simply used to indicate priority. In the end, he said:

And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist. ¹

I find this statement intriguing, because even though it was written in the early third century, it indicates a modern understanding of time.
Continue reading “Time and Creation”