Progressive creation suggests that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That creation took place in Genesis 1:2, possibly millions or billions of years after the first creation in Genesis 1:1. This is where too, the present fossil record came about and not through Noah’s flood.
The texts that are used to explain this is Genesis 1:2 which should be translated:
“And the earth became without form and void”, and Genesis 1:28 which states: “God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it”; meaning to refill the earth with habitants that were lost during the first creation.
But what about God’s own words in Genesis 2:2 which states:
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.”
Neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can provide empirical proof for an old or young earth, at least not from a scientific point of view. The Genesis account suggests a young earth, although there are some who interpret the first few verses to suggest that the earth could be older to try and fit in the evolution theory. But if it is proven that the earth is indeed young, then this will have a great impact on the evolutionist.
One of the things that suggests a young earth is the population growth. If the human race has been in existence for millions of years, then the human population should be approximately 2×1043 people judging by a growth rate of 0.01% annually. At least we should see evidence of this by millions of skeletal remains.
Christians should be careful and not be influenced by atheistic scientists trying to prove the earth as millions or billions of years old.
January 15th, 2011 - 10:31 pm
“Neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can provide empirical proof for an old or young earth, at least not from a scientific point of view. ”
I’m sorry, but that statement is simply unequivocably wrong.
The age of the earth has been quite accurately empirically determined as 4.55 billion years +/- a relatively small error margin. Pb/Pb isochron ages (a completely empirical test) give us that result, which is backed up by multiple other radiometric dating results.
January 17th, 2011 - 1:50 pm
Thank you very much Grant for your response. I will do some more research on this and place an appropriate post on the topic.
January 23rd, 2011 - 9:14 pm
brilliant writing, exciting and right to the point
December 10th, 2011 - 11:37 am
Extremely enlightening post. Although, other perspectives may be needed to be opened for further discussion.