Why am I a young earther if all science points to billions of years?

[Deacon]

Ben, you are expressing a common but a fundamental misunderstanding of what a long creation day might entail.
I'm just trying to get us on the same page.

A long day does not mean one cycle of the sun around the planet Earth (that would be a "literal" day).

It's better understood as what is expressed in a psalm of Moses, (Psalm 109)

"For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night." (ESV)

A long creation day would simply be a period of time designated for a purpose.

Compare it to Scriptures use of the phrase, "day of the LORD," which means a period of time - not necessarily a single rotation of the earth in length.

Rob

 

[Ben1445]

Ben, you are expressing a common but a fundamental misunderstanding of what a long creation day might entail.

A long day does not mean one cycle of the sun around the planet Earth (that would be a "literal" day).

It's better understood a what is expressed in a psalm of Moses, (Psalm 109)

"For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night." (ESV)

A long creation day would simply be a long period of time designated for a purpose.

Compare it to Scriptures use of the phrase, "day of the LORD," a period of time, not necessarily a single rotation of the earth in length.

Rob

Then why does everyone explain it by saying that there were not literally 24 hour days?
I may have missed something all this time but that is what I’ve been hearing.
So what you are saying is that God took about a thousand years to make day and night, another roughly thousand years to form the firmament? On these two days alone, God must be a slow speaker!
I read that God spoke it and it was so, no spoke it and then a thousand years before it finished.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


What is the biblical definition of a day? Evening and morning, light and darkness. Just one cycle.

I don’t see any reason to stretch it.

 

[DaveXR650]

The seven 'days' of Genesis is a time-compressed description of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according their lecture to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union.

I didn't know that was Dever's position. One thing Christians who want to believe in evolution must understand is that according to Darwinian evolution theory, by definition, nothing but time and chance is allowed - or else you don't have evolution. You have to have mutation, or a combination of mutations, and that has to result then in increased occurrence of the new combination (due to a chance improvement in either survival or reproduction) in future generations. And that is the sole and only suggestion for the explanation of all plant and animal life. I just don't think it works.

 

[DaveXR650]

I almost feel sorry for those who think by backing down on creation they can somehow maintain a sense of respect and acceptance among scientific circles and yet be Christian. As we come up on Easter just remember that one thing we a know from a scientific standpoint is that a higher organism, once dead for several days, absolutely will not come back to life. That's simply a scientific fact. So if you wish to sound conciliatory to "science" just make sure you understand what in their minds you are giving up.

 

[Deacon]

Then why does everyone explain it by saying that there were not literally 24 hour days?
I may have missed something all this time but that is what I’ve been hearing.
So what you are saying is that God took about a thousand years to make day and night, another roughly thousand years to form the firmament? On these two days alone, God must be a slow speaker!
I read that God spoke it and it was so, no spoke it and then a thousand years before it finished.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


What is the biblical definition of a day? Evening and morning, light and darkness. Just one cycle.

I don’t see any reason to stretch it.

Look Ben,
I did not take any position when I posted, I simply attempted to edumacate you about what a "long creation day" means to those who use the term.

You ask: What is the biblical definition of a day?

1. Evening and morning, light and darkness, one day-night cycle (about 24 hours - but not "literally" 24 hours!)
Yes that's the way some people understand the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1.

2. Day-time only (daylight hours, ~12 hours)
Genesis 1:16: And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

3. A period of time (often undetermined)
Genesis 2:4: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

The Biblical use of the word, DAY, very much parallels the way it is used in the English language.

Rob

 

[Ben1445]

Look Ben,
I did not take any position when I posted, I simply attempted to edumacate you about what a "long creation day" means to those who use the term.

That is fair. Since you understand it, pardon me while I address you and I won’t hold you to the position since you don’t want to be held to it.

You ask: What is the biblical definition of a day?

1. Evening and morning, light and darkness, one day-night cycle (about 24 hours - but not "literally" 24 hours!)
Yes that's the way some people understand the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1.

Exact Day Length* — Mon, Mar 23, 2026​

Today's prediction: 24 hours, 0 minutes, 0.0001938 seconds (0.1938 milliseconds)

Yes it varies from day to day but if we are talking about a day being about 24 hours, are we really discussing milliseconds?

2. Day-time only (daylight hours, ~12 hours)
Genesis 1:16: And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

Half of a solar day. Sure.
But both day as in daylight and day as in day and night cycles are both defined in Genesis one.

3. A period of time (often undetermined)
Genesis 2:4: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

This is understandable in the English also. But what is described here is not the details given in chapter one.

The Biblical use of the word, DAY, very much parallels the way it is used in the English language.

It is an English translation. It should more than parallel, it should be the same way it is used in the English language or it is a bad translation.

Both definitions the first two definitions of the word day are given here.
Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

In the context of what has been described, creation happened as it was described.

Introducing the third definition puts everything into a single era of time. That doesn’t make longer days.
But to ignore the definitions given in chapter one makes no sense unless you have to say that you don’t believe Genesis 1.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't believe in billions of years of "evolution" because of the following tenets it asserts.

1]. Life from non-life. Abiogenesis. Even the origin of genetic material. They are obsolete and unobservable and unprovable assertions

Yes! I know very little indeed about science, but I do know the First Law of Biogenesis (aka Pasteur's Law): Life can only come from pre-existing life. This pretty much requires the existence of God. One of the requirements of a scientific law (I believe) is that there has to be a way of disproving it. In this case, all a scientist has to do is to create life from non-life in a laboratory. In nearly 200 years no one has been able to do it.
One of the things from which becoming a Christian saved me is having to believe in billions of years. Atheists need them; I don't.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry for the random thoughts but another thing to keep in mind is the constant changing and reshuffling of the scientific "facts". Right now you can go over to the BBC website and find articles about how Neanderthals were really just another race after all, modern man is now confirmed to be 300 thousand years old instead of the 200 thousand years previously known as scientific truth. (They themselves say this is quite a difference.) And also an article I haven't read yet claiming Darwinian evolution is outdated as a theory.

I was on a physics website a few years ago and the students were talking about the age of the universe and the math and theory to arrive at it. And they were all over the place by billions of years. None on that site were as young as we might say - although some of the students were saying that you can't really discuss "time" in light of the speeds that things were moving and the physics involved.

I don't have a problem if you think the Earth is older than young Earth creationists might say. When I look at the shape of continents and how they obviously fit together and look at the speed they currently move I'm certainly not going to condemn someone who says maybe that took a while. Same with some mountain ranges looking older and more wore down than others, stalagmite formation and so on. Still, I see no reason God could not have created everything as described in Genesis, where it is and how it is at any time if he so chose.

And as for evolution. If I am not mistaken, the science textbooks are still using pea pods, and moths changing color over time in England as their best arguments. At best this is just micro- evolution, as is "evolving" finch beaks on an isolated island, or people becoming lighter or darker for that matter. To try to explain everything with that is nothing but grasping at something, anything, that might let one off the hook from the prospect of owing something to a creator.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And as for evolution. If I am not mistaken, the science textbooks are still using pea pods, and moths changing color over time in England as their best arguments. At best this is just micro- evolution, as is "evolving" finch beaks on an isolated island, or people becoming lighter or darker for that matter. To try to explain everything with that is nothing but grasping at something, anything, that might let one off the hook from the prospect of owing something to a creator.

Absolutely! A well-known quotation from Richard C. Lewontin (of whom I know nothing, except that he is a Harvard geneticist and biologist):

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

[Psalty]

Also, if days are longer or shorter than 24 hours, you are killing the plants. Part of the reason why the earth is such a great place for life is the length of our days. To switch that around on a whim makes no sense at all. We might as well be as long as Venus or as short as Jupiter.

Mercury	1,408 hours
Venus	5,832 hours
Earth	24 hours
Mars	25 hours
Jupiter	10 hours
Saturn	11 hours
Uranus	17 hours
Neptune	16 hours

If days were not uniform as they are now, we would end up with a hot side and a cold side of the planet and dead plants before we even had a sun to cook them.
None of this makes any sense without literal days.
One thing I saw that is supposed to be a difference is that he says that creation points to Jesus while Intelligent Design points to an unnamed God. I’ve never heard an ID scientist who doesn’t know Who and say who the Designer is.

Why would you assume that days today are the same as they were in Genesis 1?

What if the earth was closer to the sun and revolving slower? What if it was farther from the sun but spinning faster?

There are so many things that we assume from our position today, and just assume that everything is just like it always was.

Was there a water canopy blocking UV and gamma rays Hence longer lifespans? Or was the sun weaker then with less radiation, less gravitational constant, etc?

For as much as christians talk about missing links and the Cambrian Explosion with living fossils, why do we not talk about the lack of fossilized human remains during these time-period layers?

How do you account for red-shift in physics?
How do you account for radioactive decay?
If you assume it’s because things were different then, why would you assume that “days” are the same?

***

As you can tell, I am far from settled on this topic. I take Gen 1 as is… there is a potential gap, and there is no 24 hour day until day 4 when the sun is actually created. That’s just what it says. How you interpret what it means is still up for grabs, IMHO.

I agree with most of Scarlett’s points, and I would also add that DNA and “information” cannot arise in a system that is inherently meaningless.

 

[Psalty]

I will also add, if you have not read this on Catastrophism, I highly recommend. I think it explains much about the ancient world as recorded in the bible:

The Mars-Earth Wars, by Patten and Windsor

edit: to add that this is not about aliens, this is about conflicting gravitational orbits of earth and mars and a 3rd planet which was destroyed by Roche’s constant. Anyhow, I strongly recommend this read, especially to support a young earth

 

[JesusFan]

Absolutely! A well-known quotation from Richard C. Lewontin (of whom I know nothing, except that he is a Harvard geneticist and biologist):

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Evolution to many is their religion, or they must make a "leap of faith" to acceptall of its beliefs, even denying good evidence against it, as just cannot allow to them what is literally impossible, idea that God actually exists ,

 

[Silverhair]

Absolutely! A well-known quotation from Richard C. Lewontin (of whom I know nothing, except that he is a Harvard geneticist and biologist):

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And then they tell us they just follow the evidence.

 

[Deacon]

That is fair. Since you understand it, pardon me while I address you and I won’t hold you to the position since you don’t want to be held to it.

Exact Day Length* — Mon, Mar 23, 2026​

Today's prediction: 24 hours, 0 minutes, 0.0001938 seconds (0.1938 milliseconds)

Yes it varies from day to day but if we are talking about a day being about 24 hours, are we really discussing

So stop using the term “literal” 24 hour day”
You’re talking about a “literal” solar day.
And peculiarly, a solar day before Genesis records the creation of Sol. An observation confounding interpreters of Genesis long ago.

Snip

But to ignore the definitions given in chapter one makes no sense unless you have to say that you don’t believe Genesis 1.

Admitting to alternative theories about creation is not denying the inspiration of Genesis.

Truly, most of those posting here do not understand how science works. Theory is not established fact . A theory is an explanation using observations known at a particular point in time.
As more observations are discerned, better explanations are developed.

The history of modern science, (touched on by Martin’s post mentioning Pasteur), is rather recent.

Rob

 

[Salty]

I find Hugh Ross fascinating. I don't think I agree with all his conclusions, but if I had to choose, I would prefer his beliefs to theistic evolution.

Nothing wrong with that. Just goes to show you are thinking for yourself.
In fact, I had a church member tell me he agreed with whatever I said. Not Good - What does the Bible say.
(sometimes, I wonder if I agree with everything I say )

 

[Salty]

So stop using the term “literal” 24 hour day”
You’re talking about a “literal” solar day.
And peculiarly, a solar day before Genesis records the creation of Sol. An observation confounding interpreters of Genesis long ago.

Snip

Admitting to alternative theories about creation is not denying the inspiration of Genesis.

Truly, most of those posting here do not understand how science works. Theory is not established fact . A theory is an explanation using observations known at a particular point in time.
As more observations are discerned, better explanations are developed.

The history of modern science, (touched on by Martin’s post mentioning Pasteur), is rather recent.

Rob

Interesting, thanks for the input.

 

[Ben1445]

So stop using the term “literal” 24 hour day”
You’re talking about a “literal” solar day.
And peculiarly, a solar day before Genesis records the creation of Sol. An observation confounding interpreters of Genesis long ago.

So we are literally discussing milliseconds?!?!

When I say a literal 24 hours, I say it to differentiate between some kind of age that is represented by the word day.
I will continue to talk about literal days as literal 24 hour periods give or take a second. I think that is an acceptable margin of error.

Snip

Admitting to alternative theories about creation is not denying the inspiration of Genesis.

I admit they exist.
But if the alternate theory is contrary to the Genesis account, one of them is wrong.
I don’t believe Genesis is a fairy tale.

Truly, most of those posting here do not understand how science works. Theory is not established fact .

I am not in the habit of discussing Scripture as a theory. If theories don’t line up with Scripture no matter which way you slice them, they are not worth much. I can give you names of scientists who disagree with me. But when I stand in front of my Maker, I won’t be concerned with their theories. Consequently, I am not very interested in the theories that are not compatible with Scripture. And I mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

A theory is an explanation using observations known at a particular point in time.
As more observations are discerned, better explanations are developed.

The history of modern science, (touched on by Martin’s post mentioning Pasteur), is rather recent.

Rob

But these histories don’t change science and science doesn’t change history.
God said He spoke the world into existence. That is a good enough explanation.

 

[easternstar]

Nothing wrong with that. Just goes to show you are thinking for yourself.
In fact, I had a church member tell me he agreed with whatever I said. Not Good - What does the Bible say.
(sometimes, I wonder if I agree with everything I say )

I probably disagree with what I say about half the time.

 

[easternstar]

This is one subject on which I have not come to a conclusion. However, I do have some firm beliefs in some aspects of this topic. For instance, Hugh Ross believes that suffering and death were occurring before Adam and Eve. I do not. Gap creationism is compatible with my view in this one aspect.

 

[Scarlett O.]

How do you account for red-shift in physics?
How do you account for radioactive decay?

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.