I recently came across an article that was written a couple of years ago by someone whom I greatly respect. The author of the article believes in a young earth because he thinks the Scripture indicates such. So do I. While I appreciated his article, I do have to disagree with one statement he made. He said that he unhesitatingly believes the world looks old. So, while he is a young earth creationist, he believes that the earth looks older than the 6,000-10,000 years indicated by Scripture.
Why do I disagree with this statement? Doesn't the world look really old? Below is a portion of an email I wrote to him concerning his article. It gives some reasons why I disagree with this brother's statement.
 |
| photo courtesy of www.freeimages.com |
Why do I disagree with this statement? Doesn't the world look really old? Below is a portion of an email I wrote to him concerning his article. It gives some reasons why I disagree with this brother's statement.
What do you think? Do you like or not like my argument? You can leave a comment for me by clicking on the Comments link below. Please feel free to share this post on Facebook or Google by choosing one of the share buttons below this post.I would argue that "looking old" is subjective. As a child, I thought everyone over 13 years of age looked old. Now, I have an entirely different perspective. I know a woman who will celebrate her 100th birthday next month and she looks no older than another acquaintance of mine who recently died at 55.Consider rocks for example. In a side-by-side visual comparison of two rocks, could you tell if Rock A looks older than Rock B? How could you know for sure? What does a 6,000 year old rock look like in comparison to a 6,000,000 year old rock? Because no one has ever witnessed and recorded the formation of a 6,000,000 year old rock, or a 6,000 year old rock for that matter, there is really no way to confidently tell. The best we can do is speculate based upon certain assumptions. One could assume, because Rock A appears to have a smooth surface and Rock B has surface wrinkles, then Rock A must be older. But that is an unfounded conclusion. .Geologists don't date rocks by their visual appearance. Instead, evolutionary geologists date rocks using faulty techniques based upon element decay rates, etc. They don't say this rock looks older because it has more wrinkles. Instead they use uniformitarian assumptions and date the rock based upon speculative and inconsistent means. They say a rock "looks old" because of their faulty dating methods that yield millions of years. Therefore, when you grant that the world's rocks "look old", evolutionists hear you as saying, "I agree with your dating methods".My concern is that in the creation/evolution debate, you are giving ground unnecessarily. Your statement that the world looks old could give the other side ammunition that they don't deserve. Perhaps you could have better stated your position. You could have said, for example, that the world looks no older than about 6,000 years based upon the Bible's chronologies. This would free your position of dependence upon speculation and instead would firmly establish that you are standing upon the authority of God's word.