Curious, do many believers in Christ also believe the earth is far younger than evolutionist claim it to be?

It's a fairly common belief.

Young, old, Einstein's relativistic frames of references, whatever.

I never have been able to get myself wound up over Earth age.

I do for sure, can't talk about it in GD though. You'll be labeled a kook...

What are your thoughts on radioactive decay and viewing celestial objects that are over 6000 light years away?

Let me ask you this,  when God created Adam on the sixth day, if you looked at him on day 7 how old would he look? If you looked at the earth a week after it was created, would you say " looks like the earth is 1 week old"? Or would it look older? Did God plant seeds or create trees?

Nonsense. I know no Christians that believe that bunk.

Exactly!
There are many other factors leaning toward a young earth too, like magnetic decline, population growth, distance from the earth to moon growing. But mainly because we understand this from studying the Word.

Troll thread from Site Staff alternate account for hunting bait?

Beware your account.

That's my view as well.  I guess I am a contradiction.  I believe in the Genesis creation story but I also believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 50 gazillion years ago.  I have no problem accepting both.

Not sure to be honest,but I don't trust carbon dating.It's shown several living things to be many thousands of years old.

Example?

I didn't know radiocarbon dating was used on living things.

Carbon dating is worthless for geological study. Geology age calculations use radioactive decay of certain minerals.

I think something like 40% of the US population does. So, your sample size must be limited.

Carbon dating can have errors if tested and analyzed incorrectly?

Welcome to every test method ever.

Magnetic decline? Nope. There are many instances of magnetic shifts in the geologic record so short term magnetic variations on earth don't imply that the earth is young or old by itself.

Population growth is absolutely known to be tied to improved agricultural techniques. Prior to that, human population was controlled by the carrying capacity of the land, just like all other animals. This is just a known fact.

The distance from the earth to the moon is growing. This is consistent impact scenario for the moon's creation. It does not in any way give more weight to the idea that the moon popped into existence in its current orbit.

I think I fall in the same boat

Gen 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The way I read this is,
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, verse 1, so the heavens and earth were created,

Then, turned His attention to earth and proceeded with the 6 days of creation.

How long went by between creating the heavens and earth and the first day?
Don't know, may very well have been a billion years.

Well said -- and that's kind of my point. Maybe it really was 7,000 years -- and all of our science is wrong.  Or maybe the earth is billions of years old.

Either way, it doesn't impact my belief that God created the Heavens and the Earth.  And, it doesn't impact my belief that Jesus Christ lived and died for my many sins.

Except verse 9 and 10 is where he actually created the Earth.

I don't see that, the earth was all water as the Spirit of God hovered over it.
God said let dry land appear, and just called the dry land earth. any water left was called the seas.

But if the earth was just water before there was land, which I agree with you on...the land was created on day 3.  So how does that play into a gap between v1 and v2 and beyond?

Because verse 1 is before verse's 2 and 3

That's the way I read it, God Himself has no beginning, but what we know of has a beginning. Creation.
From the way I see this is that God created the heavens and the earth. So the earth was around although was covered in water.
Then He started with the 6 day creation.

Was there a gap of time. I cannot say for sure. Because the Bible is not clear on this.
The Bible is not a science or history book, although there is science and history in it.
I believe and think you do also that God created it all, and sometimes I think that's all He wants us to know.

First, the tone of your comment is inappropriate for this forum.

Second, you probably don't know very many Christians.  I know plenty, in fact nearly every one I grew up with believes it.

I didn't for a second believe this statistic until I googled it. I would be interested what the results would be if it allowed for a common idea that each "day" of creation was hundreds of millions of years but Adam and Eve came about 6000-10,000 years ago. Regardless, I am very surprised that the 40% is accurate.

I agree with you on most of what you post, but not on the gap theory. Every occurrence in the Bible of the Hebrew word yom(day) is a literal 24 hr period.
Gen. 1:1-6 is a picture of a mikveh(immersion or baptism).
When Peter says a day is as a thousand years, is a picture of the 7 millennia between creation, and the coming Kingdom.

I am not saying I am right and your wrong, I have no idea how old the earth is. Really not that obsessed with knowing either.
Another think to think about is, Man's years were only counted after the fall, because that is when death was brought into man's life.

At one point in the past, there was a rebellion in Heaven and satan was cast down to earth. So was the heavens and earth created before that happened?
Was satan cast down before or after God created Adam?
How long was Adam around before the fall?
I don't think anyone really has a exact answer to any of these questions. Because it is not clear in the Bible.

Lot of years could have passed between the time Adam was created and the Fall.
I think the 6000 year old earth thing comes from tracing back lineage to Adam. but that has nothing to do with how old the earth is.

I'll tack with St. Augustine on this one.

Plus, it doesn't really matter for your salvation one way or another.

Clues from creation (as in, current scientific evidence) seem to indicate an older earth, but who knows, new discoveries have radically changed our understandings of things in the past.  It doesn't matter to me how God created the earth or how long it took.  That He created it and loves us is enough for me.  

I do.

FPNI  SPNI  First post is from someone on my Ignore list.  <=== Edited

Some guy added up all the ages of people in the Bible and said that's how old the Earth is.  That guy was incorrect.

The Earth could be 15,000 years old, or 1.5 billion years old.  We just don't know.  I wasn't looking over the shoulder of the Almighty when He made this place, and neither was any other human being.

Just for the record I don't believe in Evolution.  OTOH all origin theories are matters of faith, not science.  Yes, that includes Evolution.  Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand the difference between science and history.

Job 1:6-12
So Satan still had access to God in Heaven during the time of the Patriarchs.

Also...

Luke 22:31-34
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” 34 And He said, “I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.”

In order to demand permission from God, Satan would have to have access to God in Heaven.

What you said is true, but satan is the prince of this world we are currently in. but yet can only do what God allows. As you pointed out in the Book of Job.
I was only pointing out that no one can be certain when satan had his rebellion against God. We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall.

I bet 95% of the Christians I know believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

I wanted to voice in on this discussion because I enjoy this topic.

1. Yes. Many Christians do indeed believe in a young earth.
2. If this is not believed by some, I would encourage looking at several MINISTRIES that are solely for the purpose of this very topic. There is: Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and my personal favorite, Institute for Creation Research. The last one has a magazine that you can get for free and it has a lot of great research and information there.

Now, I wish to also add something about the age of the earth itself. There has been a discussion in this thread about the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. While the gap theory has some seeming evidence for it, it is not supported in Scripture elsewhere. In fact, the idea starts to fall apart even within Genesis 1 when we dig into the Hebrew idioms and words themselves. 

The other thought that Billions and Millions of years and Creation work together or is reconcilable is another aspect that is important to handle because it isn't just facts. It is the very nature of God at stake. the notion of this is called Theistic Evolution. 

the reason this is important is based (If I may just give one verse) on Romans 5:12. The verse says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned". Now, if there were millions of years before mankind and the dinosaurs died off (as one example), then this verse is negated. If this verse is negated, then Genesis 2:17 is negated. If Genesis 2:17 is negated, God is a liar. If God is a liar, how can we trust anything else He says even regarding salvation? 

I enjoy the discussion and I am really enjoying hearing what everyone has to say. I know this is just a quick synopsis but I think that the concepts that are devolved in the deeper discussions pertaining to these brief observations are vital to our faith in God, Jesus, Salvation even the Word of God itself. 

OP, I guess I can safely say that I am a young earth, literal Creationist believer. 

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with picking what was in the Bible.  
Explain also how God lies about the age of light etc?  Did He say " this is how you measure it?" Or did man decide how to measure it and decided we knew the age of it, and therefore decided that God was lying?

Thank you for taking the time to bring these points out. You do bring out some good questions that have been asked. Please indulge me a little as I seek to answer. I am going off the assumption that you are generally interested in knowing. This would then help you to fulfill 1 Peter 3:15.

In regards to the Bible being Infallible. It is still standing solid even after the hundreds of years of attack that has been leveled against it. You are correct in part that it is a collection of writings. Over 40 some odd authors and that being over 1400 years about. However, some of these authors never knew each other, they would not have been able to compile their stories or discussions to match and they would have not had the ability to do so. Yet, in the entire Bible, it is one story. One thread runs through it. The very nature of that aspect gives us some glimpses that there is more going on. In regard to the council of Nicea was actually used for two other purposes. The first was to come together and bring all "Christianity" together in one place. The first ecumenical movement per se. The second was to condemn what was called the Iconoclast of the 700's  A good resource concerning the first council (four parts). There are several disagreements from Catholics to Protesants, but from what I have seen (Maybe there is a better place out there) this is pretty much just with the facts and not leaning one way or the other.

I second see your counter and really appreciate the discussion. Question, If the universe was indeed a chance that happened by accident, how can you know for sure your mathematical calculations can and will be accurate to test the speed of light? How does it run in unifomity? Why does our universe operate off of a systematic operation that can be observed, tested and studied by mankind and brought to us in mathematical equations? Outside of God, this is impossible. But let us look at your questions one at a time.

Q: God lying about the light that we see?
A: First, the assumption immediately is that of Uniformatarianism. That is the beginning assumption of all who enter this aspect of discussion. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. One light year is how far light travels at that speed in one year. Uniformitarinism says that light started out form the stars we see and has traveled that far since time. Hence the belief is that we should not be able to see some of the farthest things that we can. Yet we do. But that is not a question about Uniformatariansim. This is a question about God. My question is this, Is God over all of His creation? If the answer is no, then He could not be the source of all we see. If the answer is yes then He can put things as He wishes. The second answer is what we find in Genesis. The reason the light is here with us is because He created the light to be on earth before anything else was created. Notice that Light was first (Day 1: and it isn't sunlight or star light). It is only when we get to day four we see the sun, moon, stars being put in place. Light was already here. I will say this without going into a deep Hebrew study of the word for light, in the first 16 verses of Genesis 1 you find there are three different Hebrew words for light (not including the variences for the plural forms). Interesting study in that. So the reason we see light now is because this was how God created it. We can be assured of that as being more evidence for His control over creation. 

Q: Why does God Lie about the geology of the earth?
A: I am not sure if this part is connected to the fossils themselves. I am going off the assumption that they are two different points, so I can make sure to answer both. In regards to Geology and the Bible, one of the things that we need to do is to look at what is being said. Not on a black and white paper as we have, but in their actual place. There are several places in the N.T. that Jesus is said to be going down or going up. Yet on a flat map the opposite would be true. The view is not necessarily North and South, but instead an elevation view. Maybe this is what you are talking about here. The idea of geology (earth's layers and structures) is very easy to be see repeated and duplicated even in a glass jar in your back yard. The geology of the earth (the rock layers if I am assuming correctly in your question) does not speak to time. Instead it speaks to catastrophe. Did you know that the only place you find a COMPLETE (capped for emphasis) geological time column is in 'science' textbooks? In the world you do not find this. It is like looking at a book in the earth. Each layer tells a story or a page of the history of earth. In our earth, there are the columns, but they are missing "pages"! A good starting point to study this would be here. I would also recommend (from ICR as well) the DVD series "Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis". It will give you good starting points and basis to go deeper with (*disclaimer, I do not work for them or have any other affiliation with them. I just have really been helped in my own ministry by their ministry). So what does the column show us? A sedimentary layering of the earth during a flood (The Grand Canyon is a great example of this!)

Q: Why did God lie about the fossils?
A: This is very broad here so I am going to tackle it very broadly. Please post for specifics in an area that you wish. If you are going by C14, or by radioisotopic dating, there are assumptions that are built into the mathematical formulas to get their answers. Even in that, there are things that are happening that change the answer as well. First, using the Carbon 14, the first is the assumption again of Uniformatarianism. That means that the carbon that is seen to be escaping from the bones is what it has always been. However, even for 50 years, can we guarantee that nothing has affected those bones at all? No. So it is an assumption. Second, they look at the carbon of animals, take the escape rate of the fossils, back it up till it is returned to normal and that is how they come to an answer. But again, there are assumptions. Radioisotopic dating varies with much assumption as well. I would encourage reading these ideas out here. But now, I would like to ask some questions. 1) How are fossils formed? 2) Why do we find aquatic fossils on mountains? 3) What would keep a fossil from forming to begin with? 

Dealing with the Geological layers, I think I answered that above inadvertently. If you have another idea or thought on this, I would love to hear from you about it. Dealing now with the continental drift, the only reference that I am aware of in Scripture that deals with the drifting is found in 1 Chronicles 1:19. In the days of Peleg the earth was divided. There is some discussion on whether that division deals with the earth itself (I am hinting at an idea of Pangea [although I think there are other plausible answers]) or with the division at the tower of Babel. Without knowing for sure, since I wasn't there and can only go by the History that is recorded, I will try to answer to both at once. The Bible is not a "Science Book". Many fail to understand that. However, when the Bible talks about Science, it is accurate. The assumption then on the tectonic plates movement, based on the assumption of most, is again uniformitarianism. The plates movements we see today is what they have always been. Is that the case? Where I am limited to, so is everyone else. We don't know what happened during the flood of Noah. However, I am sure of one thing...Genesis 7:11 "All the fountains of the great deep were broken up..." That would be catastrophic! So, going back to your question. Did God really lie? How much do we know? When the fountains of the deep broke up (and we have the technology to go explore some of these fissures now) what happened to the contenents? What happened to the landscape? I would propose that the earth was a little flatter on this sphere (mountains may not have been as high as they are now) before this. Also, the splitting. If it was because the contenents divided (the plates broke apart) or was it because when that extra water came from below and above it covered the contenintal shelf. If we were to drain the water a few hundred feet, you could walk around the world. Another question, why is there evidence that there was a tropical environment even in places such as Antartica (Please take this link for the scientific info that is there). I will suffice it to say, again the assumption is that there is a uniform pattern that has never deviated or changed.  Even in our natural world today this is not highly common. Things are given to change. 

I am very interested in your statement about using this as a club. Granted there are those who do this on both sides. But then you turn and say that the evidence for the debunking of young earth is more. Based on Math and Science but then it goes back to God lying. So I think we can safely agree that both views (evolution as well as Creation) require faith. My question is this...How does science test something that is not physical? How does science observe something that is not physical but we can see the effects? How can math be so precise that we can land satalites and rovers on planets hundreds of millions of light years away? How can the math be so precise that we can actually put one of these machines on an asteroid? If the answer is found in Millions of years of chance, it cannot be done. Chaos does not produce order (against the laws of thermodynamics). Evolutionary thought requires there to be a closed system. As a closed system, nothing can be worked on from the outside. However, they would have us believe that in this closed system we have the order and the structure through chance. That is taking a HUGE step of faith. If it is Theistic Evolution, I go back to the point that if God allowed death before He said death entered, then He is a liar and I cannot trust Him even for salvation. If He allowed time and chance, then why do we even think He is wanting to be part of our lives in the first place? He left us here on our own to figure it out. 

About the Bible again, the assumption is that mankind did what they did and wrote what they did on their own. Please see 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1-3. They wrote as they were inspired by God (2 Peter 1:21). If the Bible is fallable and was written only by fallible mankind, I do have a question. How was it able to warn believers about Uniformitarianism before it came about? In the early 1800's, Charles Lyell came up with the idea of this theory. Yet in 2 Peter 3:3-4 (written before the first century) nails this exactly. 

To answer your final question, no, a billion years is no time to God who is outside of time. In fact, in regards to His prophecy this is stated (2 Peter 3:10-13). But if you take Evolution at any of its core, it is the reason we have the messed up ideas that we do today. If you were a chance happeneing (no matter how that chance started) then there is no absolute. Anyone who says so is loony because God doesn't care or He doesn't exist. therefore the Bible has nothing to do for us today. it has no bearing on us today and the laws and the guidance inside of it has no meaning. Words mean nothing. Moral absolutes is subjective not objective and who cares what we do. However, if God is true and He created it as His word says...that means there is a bedrock of truth. That means that there is a finality to why we as mankind do what we do. That means that we are accountable...and I have seen enough to know that mankind does not want to be accountable. It is always someone or something else's fault. But because we could not redeem ourselves, God showed His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ DIED for us (Romans 5:8). If there was no order. If there is no standard, there was no need for Jesus. 

As far as our technology goes, God has blessed us with the ability to test and observe. There are some things that need to be considered when looking at the data. 

1) Many who use it come to the conclusions before they come to the facts. They know that the earth HAS to be millions of years. So, the tests that are done are done in that light.
2) Science is limited in its scope of testing. We all know what the scientific method requires. You can't test something that isn't duplicatable. I cannot duplicate Creation. Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists cannot duplicate chance. Even with all of our technology. 
3) Your statement assumes that God subjected Himself to our laws of observation and science. He created those laws. He did come to earth (Jesus) and lived under them but, at times He still could defy those laws. We see this in the miricles and the actions that He did while here. 
4) Evolutionary science is, if they are honest, founded in as much faith as Creationism.
5) I think a couple of quotes are useful. William Occum had formulated what was called Occum's Razor. There are several modern renderings, but I think this will suffice: ""The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."". Also, Isaac Newton said, ""We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.". So, Evolutionists and even Theistic Evolutionists must make several assumptions to arrive to where we are today. Creationists say that what we see, what we have, what we know, what we do, what we observe all is possible because God created it. It is sin then that changes what was good to what is bad. It is mankind that is sinful and we turn what was intended for good into what is bad. But the source has one place. God. 

I know that I have been a little long winded here. I am sorry for that and I appreciate your questions and thoughts. Please take what I say, not as an attack but in a heart of wanting to answer and have the evidence that can help you grow in your faith and knowledge of God and be assured of our bedrock and the writing that we have called the Bible. God bless as you seek Him. 

I know that I just got done a lot and I hope that it answers some of your things that you mentioned. I am sorry that I did not see it when I was typing. One thing that I wanted to say is that Creationists are not putting God in a box. We are looking at the box around us to try and know more about the God who created the box we are in. Yet when God does work on earth. When he does something on earth, He puts Himself in our box for our benefit. However, He can come and go as He pleases. We can only study what He has put here. This is why in Romans 1:19 we find that our nature tells us about God. 

As a Christian, I want to be as close and as accurate as I can dealing with Him. I will also sympathize with you because of one of your statements, it sounds like you have had an issue with a "religion". Please rest assured that not all Christians are seeking to build a religion but are wanting to introduce people to a Relationship to their Creator. I don't know where you are on that, but just your statement spoke to me on it. 

I also appreciate the sympathy. I wish that we could all have conversations like this and let the evidence speak for itself. I am a firm believer in letting the evidence lead to the natural conclusion. So far, I have been led to a Young Earth, 6 day, no more than 10,00 year old earth Creationism. 

A better question is: why does the world push evolution and a billion-year old universe so hard?

So-called "scientists" can't even make up their mind if eggs are good for you, and I am supposed to believe them about what this planet was like a few millions years ago?  I don't think so.

I especially like the circular logic of the geologists.  "How do you know those fossils are millions of years old?"  "Because they were found in rocks we know to be millions of years old".  "So how do you know the rocks are millions of years old?"  "Because they have fossils that are millions of years old".

Human origins and the history of our planet are very deep topics that are only touched lightly by the Bible.  They are many good resources out there, but from a Christian perspective, I suggest Steve Quayle's work.  "Earth's Earliest Ages" by Pember is another good resource (written over 100 years ago).

People get too caught up on numbers in regards to the age of the Earth.

God created time. He is not subject to it. Nobody knows how He created the Universe exactly or the process He used.

Evolution is a ridiculous theory by the way.

Late night thinking and reading so my thinker may not be thinking fully...is this a rhetorical question or a question being seriously asked?

Sorry,  late night thinking 

I don't know any Christian's who believe the young earth stuff.

I personally don't think the 6 day creation story of the bible refers to 6 literal 24 hour periods

If we can assume it's not literal, can we assume other things aren't literal? If Adam didn't really exist and sin, then we aren't fallen and have no need for Jesus to redeem us.  The whole Bible hinges on Adams fall. That is the reason we need a Savior.  Oh, and Paul believed it was true.

To me, belief in Adam's fall doesn't hinge on whether the earth is young or old.  I believe the creation story but also believe that it is likely that the earth is much older than 6-7000 years.

Fair enough.  I probably read to much into that post. I was thinking he said the creation story as written in the Bible. I think he just refered to the literal days.  My bad.

IMO much in Genesis, especially regarding Creation, is allegorical.  St. Thomas Aquinas refers to the days of creation as being an allegory for the levels of creation, rather than referring to a literal timeline of events and I think his argument has merit.  The Bible does use stories that are not necessarily or not at all literally true to convey truths about our nature and our relationship with God, which is what the Bible is largely about (as opposed to being a textbook in natural philosophy).  I don't subscribe to the Young Earth stuff and its certainly not by any means inherent in Christian orthodoxy, to which I subscribe.

If not literal, how do we explain the Hebrew word for day? How do we explain God's own clarification on that day by saying, "evening and morning? How do we justify in Exodus, Moses also interprets creation as six literal days? How about Paul? 

Jesus Himself puts Adam and Eve near the beginning of creation (better reading, look Here). To inject millions of years requires over looking the significance of these questions and answers.

First, I would hesitate on using Aquinas as a good source. While he did have a powerful influence and not all was bad, he did hold to Aristotle philosophy. He also was a close follower of Augustine who gave much allegorical reading to Genesis 1. In honor of him, Aquinas held a split view and a multi fascited aspects of Creation. 

But my biggest thought is, who was there to see Creation? Outside of God no one. Yet, God gave us implications through the Scripture, including His own Son, what consists of Creation including time.

If it was meant to be taken allegorically, we would get that from the reading. You are correct in that there are allegorical statements in the Scriptures that relate to God and our relationship, but they have the literary "markers" to show us as such.

I guess I still take it back to God's Character. He tells us that death did not come into the world TILL Adam fell. Yet if there were millions of years of Evolution (including Theistic evolution) then death existed. How can we trust God anywhere else?
Again, you are right about some parts being allegorical. But we need to also see the literal readings when it there. The Bible is NOT a textbook. You again are absolutely correct. Yet, when it speaks on Science, geology, geography, anthropology, astronomically, History, etc. It is absolutely correct.

Answers in genesis? Ken Ham's a fraud dude, I wouldn't use him as a reference for anything.

I've always looked at the creation story as allegorical, and regardless it's not a salvation issue.

I believe God gave man the gift of intellect and reason, so that we could observe his majesty through nature itself by studying it. We can date the earths age, we can pull fossils out of the ground that prove animals have evolved over time. None of this contradicts God. God exists outside of time the way experience it, I wouldn't presume to hold him to our idea of a week.