Is the Earth 6000 Years Old?
Steven Collin’s has written a lengthy report to answer this question. He starts:
The answer to this question has caused a seismic divide between Christians and the modern scientific community. Both sides think that there is no possible way of reconciling their respective differences on this question. Many Christians, thinking that the Bible teaches that the earth and all life on it can be no more than 6,000 years old, answer this question in the affirmative. The scientific community, seeing physical evidence which indicates that the earth and physical Universe is much older than 6,000 years, answers this question in the negative. Additionally, scientists have heard so many Christians assert that the Bible teaches the earth is only 6,000 years old that they reject the Bible as unscientific because of that Christian assertion. Who is right? The answer may surprise you. I believe that each side has a lot of truth on its side, but they have been in disagreement because of a misunderstanding about what the Bible actually says on this subject.
To read the full article, go here: Is the Earth 6000 Years Old?
His reports describes an intriguing version of the “GAP Theory“, held by many Old Earth Creationists (opposed to Young Earth Creationists or YECists). In short, the theory indicates mankind is only about 6,000 years old, but the Earth and the Universe are much older (defined indefinitely by Scripture).
Because of my exposure to Young Earth Creationist David Hovind, I never really gave the GAP Theory much consideration, but Collins has given me much more to chew on. You can see a short snip bit of Hovind’s thoughts on the matter in Are there billions of years between verses one and two?
The Young Earth argument (against GAP Creationism) regarding “sin entering the world” is becoming less convincing to me, for Lucifer’s desire to exalt himself above the Most High was most certainly sin and likely occurred before Adam and Havah’s sin. Regardless, it seems preposterous to think Lucifer could have only sinned after the initial sin of man. Lucifer was not a man or hu-man. He himself was a mutually exclusive entity capable of making decisions which “miss the mark” of righteousness.
Forbidden Archeology: Question the Establishment and lose your Job
My interest in the following short videos is largely in the display of how the “Scientific Establishment” filters (or covers up) evidence that breaks from its so-called “consensus”. In the 6 part series of videos, you won’t hear the reliability of Radio-metric dating questioned, you won’t hear how exponential human population growth discredits the old-human paradigm, and you won’t hear the Biblical Great Flood account mentioned at all. Even so, you will see in perfect clarity how the scientific community frequently fails to consider evidence outside their predominant pet (and I would say, “religious”) theories.
Part 1 of 6:
Part 2 of 6:
Part 3 of 6:
Part 4 of 6:
Part 5 of 6:
Part 6 of 6:
Considering the global catastrophe of the Great Flood of Noah’s day and considering the advanced peoples that lived before the Flood would answer many of the questions raised by the previous videos… and yet… that specific catastrophe goes strangely unmentioned.
Creationist persecuted? Darwinian consensus?
Creationist (Intelligent Design advocates) persecuted by “Secular” Educational Establishment?
Ben Stein: eXpelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben blows the horn on the Educational Establishment’s suppression of scientists who question Darwinian theory or question complex existence without design.
Darwinian (Macro-evolution) consensus within the scientific community?
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism by Discovery Institute
Related Content:
The Priests of Evolution
Evolutionism (that which dominates the current secular learning in$titution$ around the world) has all the markings of a “Religion”. It is a religion with priests who promote it feverishly on a global scale. It’s members donate large sums religiously to their temples of worship and study. And even more compelling is this fact: if you don’t embrace the creed of Darwin, you are removed from prominent places of the Priesthood. The latter point is why this list of scientists rejecting Darwinian evolution is not more lengthy. “But why?” you ask. Because they would likely lose their jobs and/or their credibility and/or their funding within their respective in$titution$.
There are at least 6 meanings for the word “Evolution”, and all of them minus one are purely religious. You’ll see them listed further below. The reason I refer to scientists who zealously teach Evolutionistic doctrines as Priests of Evolution is because they blindly teach the precepts of their religion (largely based upon Faith) with similar dedication as a Catholic Priest would, although I think the Catholic priest has much better evidence to support his belief.
The reason I even bother to talk about the Priests of Evolution here is because they are the keepers of most all the genetic evidence we need to identify Israelites in the world today. They look at most all the genetic evidence through a mental filter called “Evolution” and thus they feed the world Evolutionistic interpretations of the data and you must accept it because they are “Scientists”. Never question a Priest, right?
I realize most Evolutionists are brilliant and very capable scientists, but their religion often gets disguised as “science” by association and it then impedes the real science that employs them. To be fair, I also realize that religious non-biblical doctrines have impeded science more than once in the past. The raw biblical data generally doesn’t conflict with any realm of science. It is usually just religious people and their own ideas or agendas which come into conflict with scientific progress, and sometimes rightfully so.
The following is taken from Dr. Hovind’s 250,000 Offer.
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Radio-Carbon Dating, scientific idiocy
The origin estimation dates of all genetic haplogroups are largely obtained by haplogroups are largely obtained by Radiometric and/or Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) dating of ancient human remains and other archaeological materials, such as tools, pottery, etc. Unfortunately, Radiometric dating of any kind is enormously unreliable and consequently, the official estimation of 35,000 to 40,000 years is discarded in my Israelite Haplogroup (DNA) Hypotheses.
Radiometric dating techniques are a precious tool for evolutionists, particularly because they make what appear to be a frontal and successful attack on the credibility of the Scriptures and the Elohim of the Scriptures. Being able to accurately date archaeological materials is and should be a pursuit of science, but evolutionists who use radiometric dating systems transform too many assumptions into unquestioned constants which in turn have resultants that (of course) figure nicely into Evolutionism’s “old earth” doctrine. Any reasonable person can see many of those time-zero assumptions can’t possibly be known, especially not from a scriptural point of view. For example, the makeup of elements and radioactive elements within the atmosphere prior to the Great Flood is certainly not the same as it is today. In addition, there have been Calderic events which likely damaged the accuracy of dating resultants. Note: many of the larger Calderas, such as Yellowstone, likely erupted during the Great Flood.
To see a list of many misleading assumptions that radiometric dating methods are based upon, see 16 basic reasons why radioactive dating methods are notoriously unreliable.
In the very least, we should regard such dating methods with enormous suspicion, especially when it is zealously defended by individuals who insist on such religious ideals as: “Everything came from nothing” or “All matter was always present, but then started becoming more complex matters without any Intelligent intervention.”
