A Question I Was Asked:

"Why Can't the Earth be Billions of Years Old?"

Creationism and the Issue of Time

"I have read many of your evolution pages, and must comment that while Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species may be arguable, the issue of 'time' is a separate issue. When you discounted carbon dating, you didn't offer any substitute. I for one still don't see any reason why a several billion year universe history can't co-exist with God's plan. What we know of recorded history shows that there are, for instance, Java, Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthal skeletons, different than modern humans, etc. How would we date archeological finds, and why would a 7 day creation time frame change anything? Isn't that just something more to argue/speculate about? Isn't faith and salvation the whole belief issue, and how does creationism affect that, unless to argue for a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Would an Old Testament with some fallible parts change the new religion Jesus brought? Seems to be an argument straining at gnats.
[I write] As a devout believer in Jesus and the Trinity.... "

UK Apologetics Reply:

Thanks for your comments on our approach to evolution.

Yes, God could have given us a universe which is millions or billions of years old but the Scripture which many of us believe to be divinely inspired says that this world is not that old. God chose not to do it that way. Indeed, until Lyell's uniformitarianism became all the rage in the 19th century, very few in the western world doubted a thousands of years old world (that is, in opposition to a millions of years old world; however, the belief in a millions of years old world did exist among some hindus). I may say that uniformitarianism is now a dying theory, but let's stick to the main points here.

First of all, the issue is not what may "co-exist with God's plan," [as you state it], that is, from a humanistic point of view, it is about what the Bible states on the matter and, for sure, it may not state everything which every fundamentalist would wish it to state. However, Christ is the 'Second Adam,' most all of Paul's theology is based on that very important point. Adam caused confusion, Christ, the Second Adam, came to reconcile man to God, a separation having been caused by Adam's choice to follow Satan's path. The existence of Adam, make no mistake, is necessary to the revelation of Christ. Further, the Old Testament insists that Adam was the very first human being to be created. Could there have been human-like creatures before Adam, that is, creatures with no possibility of access to God? The Bible seems to rule it out, although, it is true that this could conceivably be posited. Personally I reject the idea. For sure, modern "Science" is knee-deep in various hypotheses and speculations about so-called "ape-men" but - believe me - when you shred away the trimmings, the propaganda and the hype not a single thing has ever been proven, all the "evidence" would be thrown out of any court of law. Much of modern science should be called 'scientism,' this is where science has got all mixed up with a naturalistic philosophy; this, if you will, is 'dawkins-science' and it is all propaganda, assumption and speculation. About which more later.
If we are going to state that "a devout believer in Jesus and the Trinity" [which you claim to be] may decide to reject large parts of the biblical revelation about Jesus we start to have great problems indeed! I could say more but we have many articles which consider these things at some depth. You say that you have "... read many of your evolution pages," but - at this point anyway - you don't seem to have gone into much detail.

You take me to task over 'carbon dating' and other dating methods. I admit to not having a sufficiently deep understanding in this area, however, we feature articles from several writers who are very expert in this area and they expose its errors in some detail. As you must surely know, such dating methods are not like looking at a clock to see what the time is, as - even now - many evolutionists seem to believe. At some point all such methods require a suggested time frame to be fed into them. I have had the most rabid evolutionists come to me and freely admit that that is the case! Therefore, like such prodigious experts in this area as Dr Robert Gentry, I reject the whole charade. I freely admit that the Bible never states that this world is between 6 and 7 thousand years old, however, the Bible has genealogies and, once again, most experts in this area insist that we are looking at a Creation which is newer than 7-8 thousand years old. Even the age of this world's oldest civilisations point to the fact that the millions, or billions, of years of macro-evolutionism are a sheer fantasy. I don't care about the current theories of scientism [which may change at some point in the future], the evidence of a young creation is quite abundant.

I may say that the very fact of the badly named "micro-evolution" [that is, natural selection, selective breeding etc] shows that 'macro-evolution' [a billions of years old world with man having evolved from some primitive slime] to be an utter nonsense because - just as Genesis states - things only reproduce after their kinds. Kinds are never broken without sterility or other similar problems. Meanwhile, mutations are widely accepted [even by evolutionists] to be around 97% either entirely negative or positively harmful. yet Neo-Darwinism has to rely on them to explain the changes which have occurred. The general public really has no idea how many flaws are contained within the theory.

You further state that,

"What we know of recorded history shows that there are, for instance, Java, Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthal skeletons, different than modern humans..."

But here again you refer to a charade full of hoaxes and now often freely-admitted mistakes. Do you really believe such fairy tales over and above the Word of God, a Word inspired by the One you profess to believe in?? If the Bible contained such dreadful errors [which you obviously believe to be the case], how could you ever count on the Jesus - Who inspired it - in matters of faith??

I do understand that there are a group of believers out there who accept Jesus yet insist that the universe is billions of years old. I don't judge them but I do lament that they have such a weak understanding. They obviously disbelieve much of the Old Testament; they profess to accept the Word yet actually reject much of the Scripture inspired by the Word. I say that in an age where evolutionism has lost so much ground, there is no need for such scepticism.

Generally, I no longer debate on this matter because we now have such a large number of articles which go into all of this in depth but thought I would make an exception here in your case.
Robin A. Brace. July 31st, 2010.