TAO (The Anonymous One; aka Turretinfan)
A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.
Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.
Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd.
Some do so by disbelieving the testimony of Scripture outright: these are the so-called Theistic Evolutionists. They deny that God created man from the dust of the Earth and woman from the rib of man. Others, however, seek to harmonize the Bible somehow to the old earth claims of the science crowd. These are termed Old Earth Creationists. They create novel and sometimes bizarre interpretations of Scripture to try to justify a timeline that holds the universe to be tens of billions of years old, and biological life to be billions of years old. . . .
Today, the idea that man was created less than 10,000 years ago is out of vogue with the science crowd, . . . the science crowd will not agree that all of humanity descended from a single pair of human ancestors who lived less than 10,000 years ago. Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd. (7-3-07)
There is no need for further evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC), since Scripture speaks clearly via the Creation account (one week) and the Old Testament genealogies. (11-7-07)
UPDATE: I get to AFFIRM the resolution.
I don’t link to an OEC like Hugh Ross because I don’t find much of either scientific value or exegetical value in his writings. . . .
The universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take. . . . I agree, but with certain qualifications . . . (10-22-06)
YEC takes Scripture as its frame of reference . . . (3-9-09)
"Saint and Sinner"
Due to my philosophy of science, Instrumentalism, I allow Scripture to speak for itself, and so, I am a YEC. (3-11-07)
R. C. Sproul
I now hold to a literal six-day creation, . . . Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
(Truths We Confess: A Layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Volume I: The Triune God (Chapters 1–8 of the Confession) [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2006, pp. 127–128, cited at a YEC website)
We have a problem not only with a six-day creation, but also with the age of the earth. Is the earth a few thousand years old or billions of years old (as scientists today insist)? . . . If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (Ibid., pp. 121–122)
Bishop "Dr." James White
Thaxton's book, The Soul of Science (Bible Science Association, 1994), co-written with Nancy R. Pearcey (a young-earther) and Marvin Olasky (yet another young-earther), is listed in YEC icon and central figure Henry Morris' lengthy Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography. Morris states: "The books listed in this bibliography represent works of authors advocating literal creationism, including the six-solar-day creation week and a worldwide cataclysmic flood." That pretty much proves that Thaxton is in the YEC camp.
Bradley and Olsen, however, are old-earthers. There is a chance White is the same, but in favorably citing YEC Kenyon's foreword to a book at least partially written by YEC Charles B. Thaxton, the likelihood is that White, too, is a young earth creationist, since those who deny the YEC position generally don't cite YEC's as reputable scientific authorities (I certainly would never do so).
According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days’ time and rested on the seventh day. . . . To reject a literal, six-day interpretation is to confound that memorial. Furthermore, it is a denial of the completeness of God’s creation. (6-20-10)
Uniformitarian geologists start with the assumption that the earth is millions and millions of years old. When they go to the evidence, they find what they’re looking for—old fossils, old rocks, and the marks of long ages of time. But what if you start with a different set of assumptions? What if you go to the evidence assuming the biblical record is true, namely, that the earth is relatively young and there was a cataclysmic event known as the Flood. (7-2-10)
Phil Johnson (Pyromaniacs)
I know, of course, that old-earthers like to fudge on the questions of whether all creation (or Eden only) was a perfect paradise; whether the six days are a chronological account of creation or merely some kind of poetic framework; whether the flood was a global or regional deluge, and whatnot. But regardless of what hermeneutical machinations one imposes on the text, I can't see how any reasonable person—someone for whom words are in any sense truly meaningful—could think it possible to reconcile the first nine chapters of Genesis with the bald assertion that "the same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world." . . . every biblical creationist who rejects uniformitarianism strongly affirms divine providence. . . . Few old-earthers truly grasp how much their capitulation to evolutionary theory compromises when it comes to hamartiology, hermeneutics, biblical history, biblical anthropology, and the authority and reliability of the Scriptures. But it would be nice to see a conscientious effort from old-earthers to deal with Christian doctrine and the foundations of Christian faith seriously. (6-21-10)
It has to do w/ the age of the earth. As I'm sure you know, it is oft claimed that an old earth is the more "scientific" position, and that one would have to hold to a young earth position (say, less than 10,000 yrs old) solely on faith. What I've been discovering in my journeys of thought, debate, and polemics over the last 3-4 yrs, however, is that any opponent of my position who accuses me of blind faith has at least an equal investment of blind, unprovable faith in their own position, but they don't realise it (for the most part) or hide it (I suspect that is the case for at least a few). (2-19-07)
[Catholic Peter Sean Bradley] you seem to think that defending a literal six days of creation is completely different.
Since Scr[ipture] teaches the 6 days of creation and doesn't teach geocentrism, I don't see any reason to make an apology on that. (11-9-07: on the notorious know-nothing Boors All blog)
The Bible doesn't really support an old earth . . . (5-2-08)
. . . Young Earth Creationism, especially the kind that I generally argue, where my answer to why geological structures appear to be really old is b/c God created them, like Adam, with a certain appearance of age to the natural eye. (9-25-09)
So, is [Alvin] Plantiga a heretic spreading false teachings? Does Plantiga have an inconsistent worldview?
I don't know much about his doctrine, but yes, if he believes in an old earth, then he has an inconsistent worldview.
I'm fully expecting you to throw one of the smartest Christian philosophers alive under the bus
Yes, b/c inconsistently following Jesus is all according to how smart one is. Or not. (9-25-09)
I’ve mentioned before that I am not a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). My official stance is that I am ignorant and apathetic as to the age of the Earth. I don’t know how old it is, and I don’t think it matters. Reading Genesis 1 typologically (or analogically, if you prefer) as I do leaves the days undefined, so the Earth could be vastly old.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the validity of much of the science that goes into the dating of the age of the Earth. I think the evidence for the age of the Earth is vastly overstated and requires one to presuppose too many “facts” before beginning the scientific process. In other words, when it comes to dating the age of the Earth most of the science is simply assuming that certain processes would take a specific amount of time to accomplish, finding those processes, and then declaring that it took a specific amount of time to accomplish those processes (a viciously circular argument). . . .
But even though the article references geological time, they still defend it. (Obviously, for how would it be good “science” if they questioned scientific orthodoxy?) . . . So here we have the comparison to the Grand Canyon, along with the assurance that the reason the Canyon Lake Gorge came so quickly is because it was on a fault line and water was cutting for millions of years already. But the only reason that we make that assumption is because we first assume that the Grand Canyon did take 6 million years to get to 6,000 feet deep. . . . Now, I for one do not need Flood Geology (as in Noah’s Flood) for my worldview, but seriously if a three-day flood can carve an 80 foot deep channel, why couldn’t a flood that lasted over a year and covered the entire Earth be unable to carve the Grand Canyon?
(BTW: in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t believe in a world-wide Noah’s Flood; I think the context of the passage is localized. So this actually wouldn’t be the cause of the Grand Canyon in my book. And this is why I still maintain an ignorant and apathetic view toward the age of the Earth. Still, this is something that scientists ought to be able to counter as there are probably many people who read my blog who are YEC and who do believe in a world-wide flood.)
Anyway, I might have more to say on this later. As I’m studying Darwinism, I’m seeing more and more just how time-bound Darwinists are. That is, if they do not have enough time for evolution to occur then the theory is falsified no matter what other evidence they have. However, my own position doesn’t care about how old the Earth is; to me it’s completely irrelevant and thus it could be 10 minutes old with all our memories of the past manufactured, or it could be 10 trillion years old–neither would change my argument, nor the horrendous grammatical structure of this sentence. So I find it kinda funny how important the age of the Earth is for YEC and Darwinists alike. (10-7-07)
That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think. And that's because I can see ways in which the "evolutionary sequence of events" fit even within the YEC framework, let alone the OEC framework, without holding to evolutionary processes. . . .
The difference between the evolutionist's concept of the sequence and the creationist's concept of the sequence is that the evolutionist is required to have huge periods of time in those events, whereas the creationist doesn't require that. God could plant trillions of bacteria on Earth and have them instantly do their job of creating the environment needed for him to then introduce the next level of life needed to keep the planet functioning. All that could take place instantly, yet it would look like an "evolutionary sequence." Again, the "lie" would not be on God's part, but rather on man's faulty assumptions here. God is not misleading anyone about the nature of the fossil record, for He gave us His Bible so we'd know He created the universe; it is man who makes assumptions about what the fossil record must mean through time that creates the lie. (3-7-09)
9-5-06: "Contrary to the popular idea that every creationist is a young earther (YEC), there are many old-earth creationists around. [Hugh] Ross is one of them (as, for that matter, am I)."
11-1-06: "I do not hold to a literal six day creation. . . . I am agnostic and apathetic toward the age of the Earth . . ."
6-3-07 ("YEC & Flood Geology"): "As I've stated elsewhere, I am 'agnostic and apathetic' when it comes to the age of the Earth, holding the six-day creation account to be typological/allegorical. This doesn't mean I rule out a literal six-day timeframe, as it is definitely possible it was a literal six day period (as we currently understand the term 'day') as the foundation of the typology; but it could just as easily have been longer or shorter on my view. I must add, of course, that modern radiometric dating is so full of errors and endless question begging as to make it scientifically impossible to verify the age of the Earth. Thus, although I do not believe the text of Scripture requires us to interpret it as a literal six-day period, science does not require me to view it as anything but a literal six-day period either. . . . there are far fewer (and less talented) YEC scientists then there are secular scientists. . . . This is no reason to think they are wrong, of course. In fact, it's striking how well YECs do despite the tilted, biased playing field. . . . there are various ways of accounting for the real or apparent discontinuities. And flood geology may be one such way."
10-7-07: "I’ve mentioned before that I am not a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). My official stance is that I am ignorant and apathetic as to the age of the Earth. I don’t know how old it is, and I don’t think it matters. . . . On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the validity of much of the science that goes into the dating of the age of the Earth. I think the evidence for the age of the Earth is vastly overstated . . . I still maintain an ignorant and apathetic view toward the age of the Earth."
3-7-09: "Again, my own position is one of ignorance and apathy about the age of the Earth (I don't know and I don't care). The result is that I've been both YEC and OEC throughout my life and hold no real strong aligience [sic] to either. That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think."* * * * *
Any further relevant info. on any of the above persons or other prominent anti-Catholics (esp. John Q. Doe, Eric Svendsen, and David T. King) would be much appreciated.