How do we reconcile a 6,000 year old earth with all the data showing ancient bones, fossils and rocks at far older ages? I can’t say I ever really questioned it in years past, just assumed God created the earth in an already mature state. Adam, for example, was formed as an adult, and the trees in Eden were mature and fruit bearing. Why not rocks with inherent age? What is that to God?
Lately I’ve been looking into the research, however, and discovering some interesting perspectives. It’s good to question, to search for answers. God’s Word is truth, bottom line, but He doesn’t ask us to believe in a vacuum.
Scientific research relies on assumptions. It has to. There have to be parameters from which to begin hypothesizing. Gravity, for example. Any research on rockets has to assume gravity will continue to fight flight in a predictable and measurable manner. The developer of a new medication has to assume certain chemicals will continue to behave as they have in the past, raising blood pressure, inhibiting infections, etc. These assumptions are based on experimentation that can be observed and reproduced.
When it comes to estimating the age of something formed in the past, assumptions are essential. No one has a time machine. No one can go back and watch it actually occur. This is where the contradictions lie between scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old and those who believe it’s around 6,000 years old. The actual testing isn’t so much a question as are the assumptions the results are based on. Continue reading