Old Earth or Young Earth?

One of the most apparent conflicts between a traditional reading of the Bible and the scientific consensus is in the area of estimating the age of the earth. If we take literally the Bible’s account of creation, Adam was created 6 days later. There is an unbroken genealogy from Adam to Jesus, and there is information on the age of each Patriarch when their son was born. Adding up the figures gives approxmately 4000 years up to the time of Christ, hence the age of the earth is now just over 6000 years.

In contrast with this estimate, the scientific consensus is that the earth is approximately 4.54 Billion years old. This is calculated with radiometric dating and checked against calculations of the age of meteorites and the Sun. Before this consensus, many attempts were made to date the age of the earth – from observation of the geological stratas and from calculation of the cooling of the earths crust. All of these estimates came up with ages in the many millions of years.


Even allowing for some error in estimates on both sides, there is a huge discrepancy between the two estimates. How do we account for this?

Margot posted this article by Dr Albert Mohler “Why does the Universe Look so Old?”
In this article, Mohler claims there is a theological cost in interpreting the creation account loosely in order to seek compatibility with the scientific view. His answer is to use the 6000 year dating and to say that the earth was created looking old, and also looks old due to the fall.

What are you thoughts? Is it important to seek some kind of agreement between the two accounts, eg. by interpreting the original creation days as ages? Do you believe that the scientists are much more uncertain about the age of the earth than they let on, and further investigation will show that the earth is comparatively very young?

Or, is the Bible meant to be used as a source of scientific information at all when it comes to events before history? Do the stories have allegorical meaning, but not necessarily scientific precision?

How do you approach this issue?

— wazza2

43 thoughts on “Old Earth or Young Earth?

  1. I speak to a lot of atheists and this seems to be the starting point for a lot of them. How can the Bible maintain that the world was created in 6 days when the scientific evidence tells us its millions or billions of years? From there it’s well if the Bible is wrong about that then it must be wrong about everything else eg life of Jesus, resurrection, salvation, even the disciples.

    I don’t read Genesis 1 as a literal 6 24 hour days mailny because the Hebrew “yom” can be interpreted a 12 hour period of time, 24 hours or a long era of time.

  2. An excellent article on the Hebrew elements of the creation narrative in Genesis.


    I’ve also heard some pretty ridiculous arguments from Christians which are blatantly wrong or even dishonest to try and justify the Biblical accounts.

    I posted this quote previously from Augustine on this issue. I use this quote with atheists as well.

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

    Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writer held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

    If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

    Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.”

  3. I don’t see any reason for God to make the earth look old.

    Evolution has so many flaws it is not only unworkable, it is incredibly short on evidence, especially in the way divergent species developed, and in the origin of origins.

    Creation is far more compelling. But it is not easily demonstrated to the unbelieving mind.

    The Genesis account, in my opinion, is not a scientific piece, and shouldn’t be treated so, but often is.

    Hugh Ross suggests we spend too much time looking at the problem of origins from an earthbound perspective. Learning to see it from God’s perspective would help.

  4. The irrefutable evidence for creation is DNA. Information can only be produced by a mind and not by natural process. DNA contains information that is digitally encoded using a specific language system. It is algorithmic and contains embedded and overlapping code, and is self replicating with error correction. The information is read by biochemical machines which are also specified within the genome. These things can only be the product of a mind, not blind chance and natural process.

    Common information shared between species proves a common designer, not common ancestor. Just like computer programs can have common programmers and shared knowledge.

  5. http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/reasons_for_believing_in_a_young_earth.html


    BlueBar gif


    Earth’s rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart. The spin of the Earth is gradually slowing down and shows that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.


    How can it be that if man stopped evolving 100,000 years ago, he only learned how to form civilizations and write within the last 5-10,000 years? Also, the oldest civilizations appear around the world about the same time, and all were already very advanced, building marvelous structures (like the pyramids). There is no indication of a general evolution of civilization.


    Realistic population growth formulas, accounting for wars, etc., give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not millions of years). The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.


    The rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth (due to tidal friction) places a limit on the age of the Moon of a few thousand years. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned everything on land twice a day.


    Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years.


    Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere implies a maximum age of no more than 10,000 years. Buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would produce all of the world’s radiocarbon in only several thousand years.


    Calculations based on the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms indicate that life forms cannot be more than several thousand years old and still be as free from defects as they are today.


    Earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the Earth were as old as evolutionists believe. The measured decay rate of the Earth’s magnetic field indicates that life would have been impossible on Earth more than about 20,000 years ago (due to the heat that would have been generated).


    Dr. Robert Gentry Makes Amazing Discovery!!! Polonium halos (ring patterns formed by radioactive decay) found in granite, the thick bedrock underlying all continents, shows that the granite came into existence in solid form in less than three minutes. What is interesting about this is that the isotope Polonium 218 has a half-life of 3 minutes!! So if you find a radiohalo of Polonium 218 within any sample of granite, that granite HAD to form within less than 21 minutes!!

    Now this is really interesting!! The isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds, This means that the granites ABSOLUTELY HAD to form in less than .001148 of ONE SECOND!!! It also means that in order for the granites, the basement or foundation rocks of the planet Earth, to have formed in less than one second, that the entire Earth had to come into existence in less than one second!

    This leaves us with only ONE conclusion, which is, that when the Bible says that Jesus spoke and the universe came into existence, (“ex-nihilo” means from nothing), the Bible is telling the Truth! The radiohalos within the granites give irrefutable, physical evidence of this!

    (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    (Heb 11:3) …the worlds were framed by the word of God.


    The planets are losing heat. If they had been formed millions of years ago, they would have no internal heat left given the present rate of heat loss. If a hot cup of coffee were left standing for 400 years, it would have no internal heat left.


    The planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.


    As comets travel through space they continually shed some of their material. Any comet more than 10,000 years old would have long since disintegrated into nothing.


    Petroleum in the ground is under tremendous pressure. The rocks that contain it are porous. If the oil had been there for millions of years the pressure would have dissipated long ago.

    Studies show that any pressure built should be dissipated, bled off into surrounding rocks, within a few thousand years. The excessive pressures found in oil beds, therefore, refute the notion that their age is millions of years old. This gives evidence for the youthful age (less than 10,000 years) of the rock formations and the entrapped oil.


    The oldest living plants, the bristle-cone pine tree and the coral reefs only go back about 4500 years. If earth had existed for millions of years, why aren’t there older plants still alive?


    Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.


    Evolutionists point to stalactites in caves as proof of an old earth, but there are stalactites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial several feet long that have grown in less than 100 years.


    Evidence that the earth-sun system was designed by God far outweighs any possibility that it all just happened to come together by mere chance. We will now consider a few features of the earth-sun system which appear to be specially and very carefully designed for the unique purpose of supporting life:


    The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun (too hot) or else too far (too cold) to sustain life.


    Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. For example, if the earth were to rotate at one-tenth its present rate, all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.


    Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.


    Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that produce a greenhouse effect.


    The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240,000 miles causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5th of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!


    The thickness of the earth’s crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life could not exist.


    The earth’s axis is tilted 23 1/2 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth’s revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.


    The earth’s atmosphere (ozone layer) serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.


    The earth’s atmosphere also serves to protect the earth from approximately 20 million meteors that enter it each day at speeds of about 30 miles per second! Without this crucial protection the danger to life would be immense.


    The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitational forces (essential for holding water in an atmosphere) and atmospheric pressure.


    The two primary constituents of the earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (20 percent). This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.


    The earth’s magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation.


    The earth is uniquely blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is the key substance of life due to its remarkable and essential physical properties.

    Surely, the honest and objective observer has no other recourse than to conclude that the earth-sun system has been carefully and intelligently designed by God for man. As it is written:

    “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men”
    (Ps. 115:16).


  6. Greg, God Himself testifies in Exodus 20 that He made the heavens and the earth in six days. Are you going to call God a liar? And don’t anybody tell me some nonsense that the Hebrew word for day can mean a long period of time. It can mean nothing of the sort. It means a twenty-four hour day. The church has slid off its foundations over the past fifty years and more. There were Christians trying to correct this even fifteen years ago and the church mocked them.

    “And God spoke all these words, saying;”
    Exodus 20:1

    “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

    For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
    Exodus 20:8-11

  7. @ Greg – we can all lob back and forth on this topic. Present belief in virgin birth, Christ’s diety before immaculate conception, literal heaven and hell etc etc, and scientists who hold to a young earth creation.

    Why is it so important to you to, in a sense, make a “god” of God? He can create everything in 6 seconds if He chose to.

    I’m fascinated by what appears to be a lack of faith in a God who can do just that……this is a no-win discussion.

  8. Science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. I was annoyed the other day at church when a parent was haranguing his teenage son for believing in evolution. I had to say to him that there are Christians who have no problem with evolution.

    I was a fervent 6 day creationist. I have to say now that a lot of the “science” I believed in like man’s footprints with dinosaurs were extremely dodgy.

    For a scientific comparison of Genesis 1 see


    “…be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.”
    –Saint Augustine

  9. ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’

    Strange how so many perceived ‘links’ are still missing, forged or imagined.

  10. Why do so many Christians revere science as though it is the Holy Grail of knowledge? Science is simply mankind’s stumbling attempts to understand the reality in which mankind finds itself.

  11. Chirpy Why do so many Christians revere science as though it is the Holy Grail of knowledge?

    Of course. We should still be living in the dark ages without antibiotics, modern psychology and psychiatry, advanced medical procedures, technology, genetics. Life was so much better back then.

    Or do we say certain sciences are good and others aren’t? eg can you be a Bible believing Christian and an astronomer or astrophysicist or biologist…….

    Why do so many Christians want to read the Bible as a science text book?

  12. I like what you’re saying on this thread, Bones.

    By the way, Greg, I have already said Genesis 1 to 4 should never be taken as a scientific treatise. That is a mistake made by both the scientific community and some creationists.

    I said it should be taken at its scriptural value in establishing doctrine, in conformity with the entire canon. That is standard practice.

    You have made a mockery of the first two chapters of the Bible on the basis if your scientific bias. A great error.

    So, do you think we’re descended from apes, Greg?

  13. Genesis 5 affirms Adam and Noah as a real, historical people in the same genealogy. There is no escaping the Bible’s insistence that Adam was a real, historical person.

  14. If you look at Genesis 1:1 you will see it is a declaration on its own, and verse two could have a time span of ages to where the earth already exists and is without form and void. Anything could have happened between verse one and two.

    Ussher’s chronology is aggregated from generations of people, when the earth almost certainly pre-existed human creation. It is also refuted by Jewish scholars who date the Exodus to 5,700 years ago.

    I think there are presumptions being made on both sides which do not collate with facts.

  15. Agreed with Kipling.


    God invented the theory of evolution. It was His idea.

    Thus says the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, says the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word. He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; he that offers a grain offering, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burns incense, as if he blessed an idol.

    Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations.

    I also will choose their delusions,

    [create a delusion and cause them to believe it, like evolution ]

    and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear: but they did evil before my eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
    (Isa 66:1-4)


  16. As Kipling alluded to, there are people who don’t believe in macro-evolution, who think that the bible allows room for an old earth.

    I think Jack Hayford (pentecostal) is in that camp.

    I’d like to see a debate covering all the points. Usually you only hear the one side saying that their position is obvious and the opposing view is totally absurd.

    Difficult for those without a high science education. e.g I really don’t know enough about POLONIUM HALOS, isotopes, helium etc that Ian talked about to comment. I’d like to see how most scientists respond to those points.

  17. Evolution is a belief system and pseudo-science based on the asumption that there is no God the Creator.

    It is a philiosophy that says the created universe, and ultimately, mankind, has no meaning and no reason for its existence. It was purely causeless.

    Therefore it is a philosophy that has no moral absolutes, since morality is seen simply as an evolutionary function, therefore even basic morality is evolving…..

    Hence the evolution of the moral fool.


  18. Greg, if you have time, could you address the points listed by Ian as evidence of a young earth.

    And have you studied the creation science literature?

  19. So let me get this right. Evolution is an evil hypothesis designed by Satan to deceive, using his satanic disciples (evolutionary theorists).

    6 day creationism on the other hand makes so much sense. I was walking in the bush the other day when a snake told me that God was a liar. He was very persuasive and I nearly believed him. Very persuasive creatures snakes are.

    I noticed at Australia Zoo how hard it must be for tigers to eat grass ala Gen 1.

    But hang on when I read Genesis 2 it doesn’t even agree with Genesis 1. Plants were made on the third day, humans on the sixth day. In chapter 2 however Adam and Eve are created before any plants!!!

    Let’s not get started with the dinosaurs. Yeah I know God/Satan (someone) planted the fossils there to confuse us.

    Do I have to leave my brain at the door to believe the Bible? Our God is amazing. If He wanted to create the Universe in 6 days, 6 milliseconds or 6 trillion years, he could.
    Could it be that God, the Author of Genesis had more important things to say to us then communicating the mechanics of creation which would be unfathomable to a modern astrophysicist let alone some devoted sheep herders in the Ancient Middle East. Maybe God wants us to know WHY we are here, WHY we do the things we do like sin and evil, WHY we need redemption and a saviour.

  20. This was part of a longer post which is lost in the moderation process.

    And for those who use the genealogies to date the earth is this interesting study on genealogies in the Bible

    The (Biblical) evidence supports the view that the Bible does not give us in Genesis 5 and 11 a closed chronology but an outline genealogy. This is supported by both internal biblical evidence of missing generation(s), even in Genesis 11, but also by external evidence that humankind dates to long before 4000 B.C. This being the case, there is no real conflict on this matter between the Bible and science nor between the Bible and itself.

    For a full treatment of genealogies in Genesis read below


  21. Bones said at 6:18pm above:

    “But hang on when I read Genesis 2 it doesn’t even agree with Genesis 1. Plants were made on the third day, humans on the sixth day. In chapter 2 however Adam and Eve are created before any plants!!!”

    But the Bible says in Genesis 2:4-6:

    “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.”

    There is no conflict, Bones, between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, on the third day, God created the capacity of the earth to yield plants but the plants hadn’t grown yet.

    Also, to answer your point about Genesis 5, Genesis 5 clearly affirms the historical existence of Adam and Noah. It is impossible to argue that the Bible does not present Adam as a real, historical person.

    Also, to answer your point about the age of humanity, there is no evidence that mankind existed on the earth long before 4,000 B.C..

    Lastly, if you are going to post in such a bombastic manner, at least post truth rather than falsehood. And if you’re going to be argumentatitve, you should argue for truth rather than falsehood. Otherwise the blog groans under the weight of your arrogance.

  22. Ouch that hurt. Sorry, I shall stop being bombastic in the light of your humility.

    Silly me I actually read this literally

    Gen 1:12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

    I wasn’t aware it was symbolic. That’s OK. You can read the Bible to suit your interpretation if you want. I’m just trying to make sense of it.

    So Chirpy, can you explain the talking snake, carnivorous animals only eating plants (despite their biology eg teeth) and the obvious 2 creation accounts, Genesis 1 and 2.

    Just on Genesis 5. It definitely refers to the man Adam (the man). However without the article Adam (man) is translated humanity as in chapter 1.


  23. Chirpy – Lastly, if you are going to post in such a bombastic manner, at least post truth rather than falsehood.

    Sorry Chirpy your admonition for truth and my alleged falsity if based on your posts on gassing Jews and Phil Pringle leaves me with three words “Pot…kettle…black”.

  24. Please elaborate, Bones.

    There was no industrial killing programme targetting Jews and involving gas chambers during WWII. There were no gas chambers used to execute Jews during WWII. About 300,000 Jews died during WWII of hunger, disease, execution by firearm and other causes.

  25. Please don’t elaborate, Bones. It will only encourage a pointless debate with Chirpy on the holocaust. We’ve had that already. Let’s stay close to the post, or ask Bull to moderate out anti-Semitic vanities.

    My understanding of the serpent in the garden was that it was entered by the devil. This gave the creature a voice. Demons are also recorded as having entered pigs and rushed headlong into a river. It seems that the devil or demons need to enter a body, human or animal, to be able to communicate to humans in some circumstances.

  26. The “Expelled” clip has been removed, I particulat\rly liked that clip cos it explained why no new genetic information is passed on.

    Here is the trailer:

  27. Hi Greg
    If the earth is billions of years old, then why does the earth still have a magnetic field if it decayed 10% in the last 150 years?

    Evolutionists have the presupposition that the present is the key to the past. Why don’t they apply the same principle to the earth’s magnetic field? Instead they cherry pick the evidence that supports evolution

  28. Boris, are you cherry picking? Could we have your theory on how the dinosaurs fit in with scripture?

    Is the earth’s magnetic field decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young.

    1.The earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth’s history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth’s interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field’s polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

    2.Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

    3.T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth’s interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth’s core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser’s dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the “current” caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling’s theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

    4.Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.


  29. Chirpy,

    will you please stop posting complete lies about the Final Solution?

    I reiterate … 6 million jews were exterminated by the Nazis. About half of all European Jewry were murdered. They used gas. They have extensive archeological evidence and documentary evidence. They have eye witness testimony from camp guards and survivors.

    Have you heard of Corrie Ten Boom?

    You have bought the lies of some crazy jew-hating neo-nazis.

  30. All right … I have already said we should not commit intellectual suicide over this issue.

    Microevolution has been proved. End of story.

    However, macro-evolution has not been proved.

    These are two distinct mechanisms. Creating new genetic data is not going to be an easy thing to do. It is non-trivial.

    I want to point something out, before talking about how long Homo Sapiens has been around.

    Humanity was still using stone tools till around 6000 years ago.

    Suddenly, technological innovation takes off. The wheel, discovery of metal, writing, mathematics, bronze age quickly becoming the iron age.

    Metallurgy quickly developing steel. 4000BC to 1000BC is bronze, 1000BC to 1000AD is iron. Steel producing more potent weapons, arrow tips etc. 1000AD to 1500AD slowly developing the age of gunpowder. 1500AD to 1750AD refining newer and better muskets and cannon. 1750AD to 1850AD pre-industrial to the age of steam. 1850AD to 1920AD the industrial revolution. 1920AD to 1955AD the age of oil followed by the atomic age. Oil is now beginning to wane in our day, paving the way for electric cars in the internet age. We are seeing the beginning of the Google Tablet age. (the iPad age if you like.)

    The pace of technological change is rapid and accelerating rapidly. The prototypes of electrical energy transference wifi-style are already with us and indeed, you can recharge your wiimotes without needing explicit electrical contacts by placing them on a suitable charger that uses basic properties of electro-magnetism. The recharge is created through induction.

    Soon, there will be wall size inducers that will power your appliances without the need for costly batteries. (You wont be able to use them outside though!)

    While it is obvious that the rate of technological change has sped up because of innovations like writing, the fact that it is estimated that at least 150,000 years sped past between the production of fire to that of the wheel seems like a very long time.

    Given the rate of change 4000 or so years ago, why did it take this long to get to where we are today? Particularly where we were only 70 years ago? Hey, 150 years ago the American Civil War broke out, and there had smooth bore muskets at teh start and managed to get rifle bore muskets by the end of it. Trench warfare for 9 months around Petersburg and Richmond and the beginnings of mechanised warfare based on train time-tables. And yet, are they so different from us today? And were they so different from those who came 150 years before them?

    While we can argue back and fore about how long the earth was here before about 4000BC, the truth of the matter is that it is about 4000BC that human beings really start to innovate and develop technology. We are clearly much more than mere animals (at this point).

    If we treat the Bible as a Historical record of God’s dealings with Humanity, that is where it all starts … 6000 years ago.

    Science has shown us that all human beings everywhere on Earth can trace their ancestry back to one woman. This woman is known as Mitochondrial Eve. In every cell in your body, there are things floating between the cell wall and the nucleus (which contains your DNA). These are the mitochondria. They have their own DNA. They have been genetically traced back, and all human beings have the same mitochondria. They are transferred through the female line (obviously) and so we can all trace back to our ultimate grandmother. A woman who has been called Mitochondrial Eve.

    It doesn’t take a great leap of faith to believe that she had a husband called Adam.

    (I know about the theological argument about original sin and the fall of Man and also creation … however, I am not going to go there right now!)


  31. Bones – I am not cherry picking evidence. I just prefer to consider everything, not just the evidence that supports my view. I accept there are things that cannot be explained from a creationist world view.

    I don’t even insist the world has to be young. Genesis doesn’t say earth was created in the 7 day creation account. Verse 1 could have taken place long before verse 2 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty”

    I also agree microevolution is real and can be observed. Macroevolution however is absurd since you would have to believe that digitally encoded information can occur naturally. Information is always the product of a mind. It would make more sense to believe that aliens created life than believe it occurred naturally

  32. ok … so there were thousands of individuals … where did they come from?

    DId they all spring spontaneously and independently from an earlier type of human?

    Go back far enough and even if you believe in Evolution, you end up considering a single family.

    Added to all the genetic information gathered, White Europeans are part Neanderthal. What does that mean?

    It probably means that Neanderthal and Modern Man are not that different to each other. They could breed and produce fertile offspring. Different species do that today, lions and tigers for example. However, the offspring is always infertile. Lions and Tigers are just too different these days.

    Let’s face it, we have all met individual males that could be throw-backs to an earlier form of brutish male that have difficulty in basic cognitive tasks but seem to delight in picking on ‘weaker’ but much more intelligent kids, steel their dinner money and flush their heads down the toilet.

    You can spot them a mile off. It’s the heavy brow-ridges that give them away.

    Were these the nephilim?

    In any event, while we can argue about 6000 years etc, what is undeniably true is that technological innovation took off about 6000 years ago and human beings found ever more inventive ways of killing each other.

  33. So how do we account for all the different races from either a creationist or evolutionist viewpoint? Was Adam white?

  34. Hi Bull

    I made a comment earlier today on the following thread:


    This comment is currently in moderation since it contains links to serveral photos which are actually already hosted on this site as a result of a previous thread on this site.

    I would be very grateful if you could please take this comment out of moderation and post it at your earliest convenience.

    Thanks alot!

Comments are closed.