PMT 2014-027b by Jonathan Sarfati
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
To continue reading this important article, click on:
http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
Tagged: age of the earth, creation
Postmillennial Worldview 
I’d like for someone to do a book review on Dr. Hugh Ross’ book, MORE THAN A THEORY: REVEALING A TESTABLE MODEL FOR CREATION. One thing that Christians need to understand is that believing in a billions-of-years-old universe does not automatically make one a godless macro-evolutionist. If you check out NASA’s website on the age of the universe, it is obviously much greater than 6,000 years old. This range of data from multi-billions to a few thousand is similar to comparing a dinosaur with an ant. It’s a drastic difference. For Christians to continue to play the game of denial is hurting initial credibility of the Bible despite the Gospels being a solid account of history. Just as Dr. Gentry will awaken your eschatological perspective, Dr. Hugh Ross will awaken your creation perspective. However, just like reading about eschatological matters, one side of the argument will have tunnel vision and not incorporate all of the facts within their side of the story. It is a very interesting read and would like a second opinion on the book. Thank you and God Bless.
Dr. Ross’ work has been reviewed by several Six-day Creation scientists.
And I haven’t been too impressed by their reviews. It’s like a premillennialist reviewing a postmillennial book on Revelation – they just have a hard time thinking outside of their ‘box’ of presuppositions. 🙂 Thanks, I’ll look into it a little more on the internet.
I think the stickiness of this topic revolves around more of one’s interpretation of Genesis 1, then whether someone is “a believer in current science or the teaching of the Bible”. Additionally, assuming the interpretation of Genesis 1 is a literal six day event (which I do not have a problem with), this does not solve the debate amongst Hebrew scholars concerning chronology. If I am correct, ANE studies show that chronologies did not always include all the descendants. Certain purposes dictated what was included OR NOT. I think it would be hard to make a clear line that shows the world is 6,000 years old through simply studying the chronologies and cross-referencing of the bible. But, again, this is an issue of interpretation….NOT whether someone believes the bible is the Word of God or not. I certainly believe the bible is AND I am completely open to an old-earth (or even Theistic-evolution for that matter).
For an article on deep time, written by creationist astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle, see: http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/
Regarding gaps in genealogies: It may be true that they do not have each-and-every link in the chain. But surely the genealogies do not skip thousands of years and hundreds of generations.
Good point, Dr. Gentry. This would seem highly unlikely.
Putting that aside, I think it is undoubtedly important to find the true meaning of Genesis 1 since we are believers and wish to know its meaning. But I believe it is also important to never equate a person’s non-literal day interpretation with someone who does not take the bible seriously. This article hints at that and I have seen that too often. Make your case, do it well, and do it with conviction. But always be open for correction upon your own view, especially with this topic that is an issue of hermeneutic and not an issue of “biblical authority vs scientific authority”. I feel this runs the mistake of literalism found in dispensational circles where what they mean by “Do you take the bible literally?” ACTUALLY means, “Do you believe the bible is true?”. Thus making it an issue of the state of the soul of that particular person as opposed to interpretation methods.