Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Old Earth, Young Earth: Which is it?

I had a discussion with a fellow church member and friend of mine concerning his view of creation as he is an old earth creationist. For the record, I do not come down on either side as I have yet to study it at a length to form an informed opinion on the subject and I do not view it as a salvation issue. I then was reading a fellow blogger's blog post on a literal six day creation and this peaked my interest a little more on the topic.

Here are some links to arguments presented to me for the Young Earth model.
-Answers In Genesis as to why 6 days.
-Answers In Genesis deals with Death.
-Prayer Thoughts as to why the Bible should usually be taken literally.
-Answers In Genesis.

Here is a resource I found for the Old Earth model.
-Answers In Creation Deals with the problem of death before sin.
-Answers In Creation Rebuts Answers In Genesis concerning evolution.
-Answers In Creation.

Here is a neutral resource that lays out the pros and cons in a short synopsis.
-Third Mill weighs the pros and cons of both.

From what I have above, it appears as if the Answers In Creation links make more sense and logically flow while the Answers In Genesis links appear to resort more to emotions.

Again, I have not studied this in depth and I am not going to form a world view concerning the age of the earth based just on these three sources above but I would like your input and thoughts on the subject.

14 comments:

Triton said...

I put together a theory of my own, if you're interested.

Laz said...

Where do the biggies as far as Reformed theology come out on this?

j razz said...

Triton, thanks for the link. I read through it and will need to again. It would be more solid if you provided citations for your claims concerning dating methods.

Laz,

I am working on looking for reformed sources. I have found one: Vern Poythress. He is very much reformed and an old earth creationist. Here is a short excerpt of his (and he has written more on the subject).

If I find more, I will post them. I would dare say though that most have not come down on a stated view as it was not a point of contention with the early reformers or early church fathers as far as I can tell.

j razz

j razz said...

Here is Grudem on Old Earth in his systematic theology book on the topic and here is Grudem on Young Earth.

Here is David Snoke on the topic as well (he is old earth)

Anyone got anything else on this?

j razz

Laz said...

J,
Thanks for the resources, I'll try to take a look later on.

What do you think of this quote by paleontologist Kurt Wise (who is a young-earther),
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

Do you think the early church fathers and/or the Reformers didn't see a point of contention because Darwin's dogma hadn't been set forth with such tenacity?

j razz said...

What do you think of this quote by paleontologist Kurt Wise (who is a young-earther)...

I don't know what he means by "young-age". Do you have more context to that quote? As for the rest of his statement, I think it stands to reason that what he says is a faithful response, but I would wonder if God would ever allow such evidence to come to fruition as God is the one who created the laws of physics and the universe which we hold that they govern.

As for the reformers and church fathers, I don't really know as I am ignorant on this topic for the most part. I would like to get some informed discussion on the matter from those who have studied such things.

I have a friend who is a young earth creationist and very passionate about that view. I may ask him if he will add to the discussion. I also have another friend who is old earth and I may ask of him the same. I want to be discerning in this though.

j razz

Timm said...

Here is John MacArthur talking about a literal 6 day creation.

j razz said...

Thanks Timm, the Exodus passage is a stickler (as pointed out by MacArthur and the "Third Mill" link I posted) but something that I have difficulty with is how are we to take Genesis 1? Genesis 2 is said to be the account of the creation, not Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is written in such a style as to be elusive of any set genre. Is it literal? Is it poetic? It does not seem to match up with other literal passages of scripture and it does not quite fit the poetic portions either.

Anyways, thanks for the link Timm.

j razz

j razz said...

Dr. Kent Hovind has a lot of controversy surrounding him (IRS issues) but he has several resources on the young earth side of things and for combatting evolution.

Note: to watch these free videos you will need to download the DivX web player (it is safe and I recommend it). Basically, once you click on the linke a yellow bar will pop down from below your browser top panel, just follow the prompts and accept. (NOTE: if you do not want a yahoo toolbar, select no on that part- it is obvious).

He is witty and funny, but sort of arrogant about his position and I don't know how straight his facts are.

Here is the link to one video: Click here.

Here is a link to more of his work: Click here.

Here is his blog concerning the controversy that has surrounded him. There are more up to date posts but this one addresses the accusations against him.

They are entertaining if nothing else.

j razz

Triton said...

It would be more solid if you provided citations for your claims concerning dating methods.

Oh, man; I actually don't remember at all where I read about that stuff. I would guess either Wikipedia or Answers in Genesis, but I don't know.

In any event, I think the usual young-earth sites address this subject. Sorry I can't be more specific.

j razz said...

No problem, I am sure I will run across it at some point on Answers in Genesis. It appears that they are very much for the young earth model- I just wish they were more gracious in their presentation and less arrogant about it.

j razz

GalatiansC4V16 said...

Hey j razz, thanks for the post and the fair comparison links. As you know from my blog I fall strongly on the young earth side of this debate.

To answer Laz, most reformed people I know are also strongly young earth-ers.

I think the issue mostly comes down to whether Scripture is ultimately one's authority or whether one's view of science is their ultimate authority.

I don't mean to say that OEC think little of the Bible, but that the Scriptures are clear as to which issue it teaches (in my view) and the OEC view has recently only popped up since the Enlightenment era and "science" has made us feel the need to shove millions of years into the Scriptures.

For the one who sees the Scripture as authoritative, the "begats" alone should settle it! ;-)

tr

P.S. For other reasons I've stated pls visit the link to my blog j razz put in the original post.

GalatiansC4V16 said...

For those looking for more research Albert Mohler recommends a good book on this subject:

Why the Doctrine of Creation Matters -- Robert L. Reymond

http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=184

tr

Mike Beidler said...

J Razz,

I appreciate your humility in approaching this controversial and (for many) emotional topic. Feel free to swing by my own blog to read about my own journey from YEC to TE.