Skip to main content

Christianity and an Old Earth




The age of the earth is believed by most Christians to be approximately 6,000 years old; there are some who date the earth a little older, at an even 10,000 years. These dates come as a result of the biblical genealogies, which I also believe is supported by science.

Darwinism, on the other hand, requires the earth to be much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Because the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, its supporters need time to make it even remotely plausible. Therefore, Darwinists have manipulated science for over a century to conclude that the earth is billions of years old.

When one considers things like the continental drift, erosion of the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls, the amount of space dust on the moon, and the shrinking sun, there is no room for billions of years. When NASA was gearing up to land on the moon, they estimated space dust to collect at a rate of half an inch for every thousand years, and what they found was three inches of dust (indicating 6,000). The Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls erode every year, and our sun is wearing out. Billions of years ago a massive sun would have incinerated our planet, and the Canyon and Falls would have eroded away North America. These things didn’t happen because the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Also consider the stars. Stars are not reproduced; there is no mommy and daddy star who come home from the hospital with an 8lb. 6oz. bundle of light. Stars, which are balls of burning gas, are estimated to last for—wait for it—6,000-10,000 years. So next time you see a falling star, that is a 6,000-10,000 year old star that just burned out. Since there are no new stars, then an earth that is billions of years old (or even 11,000 years old) would not see any stars.

So why do some Christians buy into the old earth theory? I believe peer pressure plays a part. Since most media is controlled by liberals, we are constantly hearing about the old earth. Whether on the Discovery Channel or in the classroom, you are made to look foolish if you do not accept an old earth.

Scientists, who have no answers to prove their theory, accuse Christians of not understanding science. The case is closed. The theory is proven. And Christians have a choice to make: accept the science, or cling to their fairy tales.

But the problem is that the case is not closed. Darwinism is so far fetched that no unbiased scientist would give it the time of day. Since they can’t win the debate on facts, they resort to name-calling. They moved the battleground from the laboratory to the middle school classroom and the Saturday morning cartoons, where children can be easily brainwashed.

With public opinion against Creationism, some Christians looked for a compromise on the age of the earth. This led to the Day Age Theory and the Gap Theory.

The Gap Theory believes in the Genesis creation account, but they believe that there was a gap—conveniently of several billion years—between God creating the heavens and earth and when He populated the earth. There is no biblical support for this whatsoever.

The Day Age Theory also accepts Genesis, but with a twist. They believe that each day of creation represented a longer period of time. There are two easily spotted problems here. First, the Bible says “the evening and the morning” were the first day, second day, etc. To stretch “evening and morning” into anything more than 24 hours or fewer is poor hermeneutics. Also, note the order of these days (or ages): God created the plants on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Since plants rely on the sun to grow, these plants would have to go years without sun, which is impossible.

These two theories are the result of compromise. Instead of believers holding fast to the Word of God, they abandoned the Bible to save face with science community. In Tom DeRosa’s book Evolution’s Fatal Fruit, he points out an embarrassing flaw in these theories.

The method for dating the old earth is found in rock layering, complete with fossils and skeletons. Those who believe in an old earth, whether Darwinists, or Christians holding to Gap and Day Age theories, are presupposing that these geological columns were formed before Adam and Eve were created—thus allowing for 6,000 years worth of genealogies and an old earth. But, as DeRosa points out, these skeletons and fossils required something to have died, which would not have happened prior to the Fall of Genesis 3:

“But if we assume that the earth is old, we are also saying that death came before sin…The fossil record represents death and destruction that can only come from the judgment of God on man’s sin. How could there be death before sin[1]?” (Of course, we believe Noah's Flood to have caused this rock layering.)

So Christians should not be able to accept these old earth theories. No matter how unpopular our faith might become, don’t back down. Jesus said that this world will hate us, so don’t be surprised when they rig the science to prove our Bible wrong.

And even if some new discovery makes Creation seem false, remember that we serve a God far too big to be figured out by men.



[1] DeRosa, Tom, Evolution’s Fatal Fruit, Coral Ridge Ministries, p.63

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents