Seven Theses on the Age of the Earth | Doug Wilson

I recently came to the conclusion that it was time to set down in one place my reasons for approaching Genesis the way I do. I have noticed that the topic has become a matter of increased debate in classical Christian circles — and because schools cannot honestly stay out of it — it matters a great deal what we teach and why. So here are seven theses on the age of the earth.

Doug Wilson's Blog & Mablog video is presented by Canon Press.

[banemaler]

On the way home from the Creation Museum today. What a slice of heaven on earth. Good people, thoughtful conversation, and hope for the future in word and deed. It all starts with the authority of the scriptures and uncompromised proclaiming of the truth. Highly recommended for any family weary of all the places the world would have you go on a family trip.

[darthbigred]

I'm from a family of charismatics turned Southern Baptists back when they were the sing song types. Anyways my parents erroneously thought smart = rich so as a kid I was forced into the sciences. Naturally as a little boy the only thing of appeal is dinosaurs and Jurassic Park came out soon afterwards. That being said I got really into paleontology but realized it didn't pay many bills and instead became a chemist but remained an enthusiast. STAY with me please.

SO while chemistry kept me on the team because we can't bail out the origin of life through biochemistry I had never dove into how carbon dating worked. I never thought to ask myself why certain layers would be missing in some parts of the world (meaning millions of years were eroded away), and I never noticed almost all fossils come from flash floods. Even the more I studied evolution the more you realize for it to work as Darwin said you needed near supernatural interference or you get punctuated equilibrium (which is the atheists way to explain why a Allosaur exists say 10 million years and then just disappears without finding the in-between species and then poof the next descendant just appears perhaps even a continent away). The more I dug into genetics the more I realized for evolution to work you need changes to be quickly, in a certain specific area, and for them to change across multiple animals all at once - again supernatural even if true.

Oh and of course we have to ignore where almost every version of humanity believed in some sort of dragon like creatures and again we ignore that no matter how odd it is that from Romans to Native Americans you can find dragon like creatures in all cultures.

OH and then paleontologist Jack Horner (the guy Alan Grant from Jurassic Park is based on) finds soft cells in dinosaur bones meaning our theories on fossilization are wrong and dinosaurs are likely much younger than ever imagined (the scientists now are blaming chemistry as being wrong but good luck with that one nothing organic like a cell should survive millions of years much less mineralization).

It was at that point I was heavily leaning YE and then I saw Walter Veith's defense of YE and I am sold. The earth is 6000 years old give or take and dinosaurs likely never existed long and were likely what inspired our ancestors to speak of dragons. This would also explain the beliefs in sea monsters as well and how some of them lived on to the modern day like giant squid which we all assumed was silly nonsense from the Middle Ages.

[rescuetheweak]

Millions of years guys would be comedy relief if their misdirection wasn’t so tragic, and false. God could’ve done everything he said in Genesis in a microsecond. The days were for our benefit.

[evphex]

I just want to say, I think Blog & Mablog may be the best YouTube channel name I’ve ever seen. The double entendre and the pun in one vicious line. Absolutely love it man.

[therealkillerb]

Once again, Mr. Wilson has "hit the nail on the head." Fundamentally, this is an issue of, "which presuppositions do we use to interpret the data around us." Thank you.

[fatalheart]

"They have Moses and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they will not believe even if someone raises from the dead."

[MapleBar]

I've never understood people who can believe God created stars, but then find it impossible that He could also create the light. HE CREATED STARS! Let that sink in.

[Ephesians-ynux]

Protect Doug Wilson at all costs, he’s our most intelligent Christian.

[YesYou-zykp]

They can't even predict the weather 2 weeks in advance, and they expect us to believe they know what happened 6 billion years ago.

[ralfbo]

I would push back that ANIMAL death isnt inheritantly bad since God has given us dominion over the animals to consume their bodies. If death of animals was morally wrong, then all Christians today should be vegetarians, upholding God's "original design".

I believe death entering the world because of the fall is talking strictly about humanity's spiritual and bodily death, not animals.

[davidsutter]

We just visited the Creation Museum and Ark Fabulous! Thanks Doug! keep up the great/faithful

[not_milk]

Bruh, those last lines got me. Only Doug Wilson.
Never would I imagine that I’d hear of Gabriel surfing event horizons, much less that it would be tied in sensibly to a larger point

[troysgt]

This is so important, and also surprising to me that it is as controversial among Christian’s as it is.

[Richardcontramundum]

Amen. So clear and needed. Thanks Doug

[crassoverload]

I don't think it's charitable to say that any theodicy that tries to reckon with millions of years of [non-image-bearing] lifeforms suffering and dieing before Adam has an "insurmountable cliff" to climb; the height of the Young Earth cliff is nothing to be scoffed at. Doesn't Paul allow for _the possibility_ that God is quite comfortable with things being "prepared for destruction"? "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" If it's possible... it's not "insurmountable". It also lacks charity to say that those who defend pre-fall death are committed to the idea that God allowed all that suffering "without any reason". "What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..?" The old Earth view allows for the application of science to try and discover [some of] "the riches of his glory" pertaining to how God brought about the universe and life within it... which, [if correct] is a pretty awesome gift from God! Belief in the orderliness of creation facilitated the scientific revolution in the first place... which I would say is also an amazing gift. Meanwhile the Young Earth view is forced to re-interpret the orderliness of creation and the natural laws (denying a Big Bang timeline for example) in order to accommodate a rigid definition of the word "death". But who are you, oh man, to call a carnivorous food chain not good? If animal death is so bad as to render the creation "not-good"... doesn't it seem odd that God declared that eating them now is permissible? Does the incredible smell of bacon testify to my fallen nature, God's common grace, or God's design? Anyway, love your content, that's just my 2c as a lay-scientist/philosopher and Christian✌

[scottypeep]

As an Old Earth Creationist I appreciate Doug’s arguments and his desire to get the text right. He should really debate someone from Reasons To Believe. It would be a great conversation!

[masonmcelroy]

I realize this is something of a deflection and doesn't get to the heart of the issue, but I think it is very important to follow the through line where the materialist, "rational", and "science based" world views have taken us. We have come full circle to the point where academics are rejecting the idea of biological sex. Where people say things like "some men menstruate", and "That man is going to give birth." etc.
Some academics have pushed back against this and said that it's not "real science". They are desperately trying to hold the tide back from their sand castles, but it is futile.
Sometimes a false world view can seem fairly convincing when it has only strayed a "little" from the truth. Give it a little time and it will become apparent how weak the foundation really is.

[joshhigdon]

I want a reaction video to Willie Lane Craig's crazy ideas of a millions years old earth and neanderthals being our first ancestors (before adam in some talks, and adam was one in others). And he believes wholly in macro evolution. Would like to get a biblical christian, like Doug, in a Doug Reacts/ Responds video! Thank you brother Doug, and all at Canon Press

[joelebert]

Thesis 1: Excellent.
Thesis 2: Also correct, but since it's so easy to claim to believe in biblical inerrancy, this is somewhat meaningless. The proof is in the pudding—can a person show that his interpretation of Scripture is consistent?
Thesis 3: Absolutely excellent.
Thesis 4: Another way of saying this is that it isn't only Genesis that teaches a young earth, it's the consistent message of Scripture. The authors of Scripture assume the basic narrative of: perfect world, fall, redemption. So you can't have your old earth evidence and have a consistent view of Scripture. This is also why old earthers hold to a local rather than global flood.
Thesis 5: Brilliant. If death and suffering precede Adam, then "good" becomes meaningless, and the implications are lethal for any belief system that holds to that.
Thesis 6: Another argument for biblical consistency.
Thesis 7: Excellent.

[EyeToob]

Excellent point bringing up Matthew 19 : 4 “Haven’t you read, ” he replied, “that *at the beginning* the Creator ‘made them male and female, ’

Another verse saying the same thing is Mark 10 : 6 “But *at the beginning of creation* God ‘made them male and female.’