What Is the Age of the Earth: Does it Matter? An Open Letter to GC Delegates

:point_up: :point_up: :point_up:

The love affair between professed Christians and infidel scientists seems to be getting stronger, doesn’t it? (Excessive. - website editor) It’s amazing. They don’t seem to understand that all of Scripture stands or falls on Genesis. It is foundational. If it can be shown that it is wrong, then what confidence can we have in the rest of Scripture? I’m on the side of Scripture, now matter how many scientists or theologians ridicule its truths.


Your opinion, nothing more.


Yes, all we have is our own opinion.

It is really easy

The Bible is a collection of oral and written traditions and books, edited by humans, selected by humans, translated by humans, interpreted by humans. Given this origin, it is silly to expect one simple set of rules will be able to determine literal v. symbolic, infallible v fallible.

We KNOW this is how it was made, because Luke himself tells us how he wrote his stuff.

The books have all the mistakes and biases one would expect given this process.

Depending on ones religious preferences, God may have directed this process to keep the most egregious mistakes out, but it is very clear that not all mistakes have been kept out.

It is a religious book, with morals and messages and histories of varying accuracy about the plan of salvation. It is not a quantum chromodynamics or algebraic topology or even medicine text book.

The idea that ANY of it is infallible is unnecessary for it to be suitable for its purpose - bringing people to Jesus and giving them examples of how to think and how the people who came before them thought.


Some are only interested in confirming their biases.

However, those interest in inquirying with an open mind may be interested in one specific slice of data pointing to ancient life.

For this, I would recommend the book “God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments” by Dan Wonderly who is a geologist. It is a little dated, but was cited approvingly by another recently published geological study, so I would assume that in the main it is still on track. In general it illustrates the logical hurdles confronting young-life creationists when looking at the data.

In it, one will find a review of the history of the oceans recorded in the ancient sediments. The sediments are the remains of microscopic calcareous organisms that end up on the ocean floor, eventually cementing in place to form limestone, etc. By having knowledge of sedimentation rates under differing conditions, including ideal conditions, as well as the laws of biological growth, it is possible to calculate timelines for sea life.

Coral growth rates also provide timelines. Add to this the coral beds found buried nearly a mile deep in some oil fields. For some the Flood solves all problems, but the author explains why that won’t fly. By using conservative method it is difficult to reach any other conclusion but what sea life has been around for millions of years.

With 1 foot of sediment having a time range of 10,000-25,000 years, it is apparent that it takes some time to accumulate 1/2 mile of sediment.

In short, it is a good informative read.


I find this to be a nonsensical statement. Death before creation? From a Creationist (I assume)?

In any case, God knows the end from the beginning. I take as a crude way to say that God is not bound by time the way we are, but he is always and is in all time all at once, and so time doesn’t really matter to God.

We, on the other hand are like impetulant children demanding, “Are we there yet?”

Creation may well have actually been 14 billion years ago, and all that has happened since is blessed by God. The formation of the universe and the evolution of this planet for about 5 billion of those years may all be part of a beautiful creation process, driven by a divine being.

This is just speculation and not at all science, but it’s a version of creation that could actually be possible based on scientific knowledge.


I don’t understand that because it’s not the case, at least not for me.

If a literal interpenetration of the entire Genesis creation account is required for your faith, then IMO you should pack it in because you really don’t believe what the author wrote. No modern human does. Read this book (by Adventist authors so you’re safe) if you think I’m wrong: http://adventistforum.org/store/quotgod-sky-amp-land-genesis-1-ancient-hebrews-heard-itquot-brian-bull-and-fritz-guy


And it could be just as the Bible says.
Exo 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.

But we know that the scientific world can’t accept this because they know better then anything we read in the Bible.

1 Like

The “other” creation account must be overlooked. Yet the first people who observed Sabbath were the Israelites when God first commanded that they should observe Sabbath as their delivery from Egypt and because God rested on the seventh day. Previously, there were none who who were recorded having observed it.

With the one most essential pillar of proving Sabbath is questioned it becomes a very fragile foundation for an essential doctrine of Adventism.

1 Like

Adam and Eve. Unless you believe while God was resting they were working.

Either way, it does not matter. SdAs see it in that light, so my point, I believe, is a valid one.

They certainly know more about science and the creation of our physical world because it is a scientific question. How it applies spiritually is another thing.


I couldn’t agree more, and your contribution to these discussions is proof of that.

But as I have argued before, the bias towards God as a Creator of young life is superior to theistic evolution because it is the basis for the great pillars of the Christian faith. Remove it and very little is left.

Hey Greame,

I dont follow. Are you referring to me? Because I did not say anything about the sciences. Simply to say that (and correct me if I’m wrong), for the church to do away with a literal 6 day creation would be like expecting Catholics to do away with the Pope or Baptists to do away with baptism. It really is ingrained into our DNA as a church. We can either ignore this or deal with, yes?

When Christians stop conflating belief with evidence, they might be convincing. Some seen not to know the difference: " If I believe it, that’s all the evidence needed,"

Noah ----Genesis 8:10 & 12

The tools of science are still the tools of man and are finite. God is infinite. He revealed Himself in Christ. As the Man Who is God, spake and called forth life from corruption. So we know the Who of creation and the how. we don’t know the When. Nor do we know what without form and void entails except void of life forms. God who made us, knows our frame and gave us rest as well as work. We in awe of His Creative power and redemptive love worship Him in the totality of our living. we fellowship at times of mutual understanding based upon our understanding of note in His Creative and Redemptive roles. Some find that one one day of the week and others on another day. Both in recognition of His mighty works and boundless love. Both bow to a risen Savior. Who dwells in the Most Holy Place, let us seek Him there–until He returns to takes us to His home. The basic issue is clear as it was to Paul. salvation is not in time but in Christ. Tom Z


Sorry, it was not meant to attach to your post. I will delete until I can fix.

1 Like

It’s a matter of faith. Science can’t save your soul.

1 Like

No need to be sorry Graeme. Thanks for the clarification.

Fair enough. Science is not in the business of soul saving.