\uff08\u9019\u662f\u4e00\u7bc7\u7531\u300c\u6975\u5149\uff0f\u5275\u6e90\u300d\u7684\u5275\u8fa6\u4eba\u9673\u4f2f\u502b\u7267\u5e2b\u6240\u5beb\u7684\u8056\u7d93\u5275\u9020\u8ad6\u82f1\u6587\u6587\u7ae0\u3002\uff09 <\/p>
Neville Chamberlain, B. Elec Eng. (Hons)<\/strong><\/p> Hong Kong Creation Resources Ministry<\/p> September 2020<\/p> \u201cI believe the\nearth is old\u2026 very old\u2026 6,000 years old in fact!\u201d So began Dr John Hartnett,\nretired Australian physicist and cosmologist, as he began a lecture on the\ntopic of the age of the earth that I attended a few years ago.<\/p> Why would\nanyone risk their reputation in this scientific age by making such an\nassertion? And on what basis do educated laymen like me dare to question the\noverwhelming consensus of scientists, educational institutes, politicians,\nmedia producers and even theologians when it comes to the age of the earth?\nAfter all, most \u201cBible believing\u201d scientists from Yale, MTI, Harvard, Oxford\nand Cambridge hold to an \u201cold\u201d earth position and very few top scientists hold\na \u201cyoung\u201d earth one. They can\u2019t all be wrong? Surely to believe otherwise is to\nhide one\u2019s head in the sands of ignorance.<\/p> For those of\nus who are Christians, does it matter anyway? After all, we believe that the\none thing essential for anyone\u2019s salvation is to believe in Jesus, who He is,\nwhat He did on the cross for us, His historical resurrection form the dead and\nthe hope of everlasting life in a new heavens and earth.<\/p> What you believe\nabout the early chapters of Genesis doesn\u2019t seem to have anything to do with\nthat, surely?<\/p> Let\u2019s unpack these questions. This will of necessity be a very brief look at only some of the factors in this very important issue. Much more material is available at https:\/\/creation.com<\/a><\/p> Firstly, \u201cyoung\u201d\nand \u201cold\u201d are relative terms. Our grandson is 4 years old; his 70-something\nNana and Grandpa must seem \u201cold\u201d to him! But compared to the ages of the\nBiblical patriarchs, even up to the time of Moses, we are spring chickens! They\nwere truly \u201cold\u201d when they finally expired\u2026 the average lifespan of pre-Flood\npeople recorded in Genesis was about 900 years. Even for these oldies, however,\na 6,000 year old earth would seem \u201cold\u201d, just as it does to me.<\/p> That is why I\nprefer the term \u201cBiblical Creation\u201d rather than \u201cYoung Earth Creation\u201d. The\nroughly 6,000 years since Creation Week is based on a straightforward reading\nof Genesis as history.<\/p> Looking at the\nchronologies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, the age of each patriarch is given\nwhen his next of kin was born. Simple maths enables us to calculate roughly when\nAdam was created, since archaeological evidence gives us an approximate date\nfor Abraham, Adam\u2019s great16<\/sup>-grandson. The careful historian Luke\nincluded these patriarchs in Jesus\u2019s genealogy (Luke 3:23ff), indicating that\nhe believed these were real people, right back to Adam.<\/p> Calling this\nposition \u201cYoung Earth\u201d creationism gives credence to the Deep Time assumption\nthat underlies the alternative position. 6,000 years is only \u201cyoung\u201d when\ncompared to the 13-15 billion years since the supposed big bang. It is just a\npaper-thin layer on top of the aeons of time since nothing became everything,\naccording to the commonly accepted consensus.<\/p> Which brings us\nto the next question: why do most university professors, main-stream scientists\nand beautifully crafted nature shows assert that the earth is 4.5 billion years\nold? Good question. Not too many Christians think to ask this question it\nseems. It is assumed that since those making the assertion are highly qualified\nauthorities and are in the majority, then their consensus view must be right. But if we\nwere to ask the majority of scientists why they believe in evolution and\nmillions of years, their answer most often is \u201cbecause the majority of\nscientists believe this.\u201d<\/p> Let\u2019s think about this for a moment. Dr Jerry Bergman, who has 9 degrees including 2 PhDs, (https:\/\/creation.com\/dr-jerry-bergman<\/a>) has this to say:<\/p> \u201cOne\nof the major methods employed to oppose critics of Darwinian theory is the\nconsensus science argument. Consensus science is the claim that evolution is\ntrue because it is agreed by the proper authorities, meaning that most all\nscientists accept evolution; and, therefore, opposition to Darwinism is \u2018obviously\u2019\nas foolish as claiming that the earth is flat. A typical example of the\nconsensus claim is a statement by the National Academy of Science that \u201cThe\nscientific consensus around [Darwinian] evolution is overwhelming\u201d, and,\ntherefore, ideas that oppose it are properly censored.\u201d<\/em><\/p> In a talk given\nat California Institute of Technology, Harvard-trained physician Michael<\/em><\/p> Crichton,\n\u2026 argued against the belief that a view was most always correct when a\n\u201cconsensus of a very large group of scientists\u201d existed. The reason he condemns\nconsensus science is because \u201c\u2026 (the task) of science has nothing whatever to\ndo with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the\ncontrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that\nhe or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world\u2026. in\nscience, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.\u201d<\/em><\/p> In\nsupport of this claim, Crichton noted that the \u201cgreatest scientists in history\nare great precisely because they broke with the consensus\u2026 (there) is no such\nthing as consensus science. If it\u2019s consensus, it isn\u2019t science \u2026 the claim of\nconsensus is invoked \u2026 only in situations where the science is not solid enough\n\u2026 Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away [because\nit is a verifiable fact].\u201d<\/em><\/p> Bergman\u2019s whole article is well worth reading and reflecting on. https:\/\/creation.com\/why-consensus-science-is-anti-science <\/a>as is this article by physicist Dr Russel Humphries https:\/\/creation.com\/why-most-scientists-believe-the-world-is-old<\/a><\/p> Scientific\nprogress has often been hindered by insisting on the consensus view. The\nmajority of scientists once believed the earth was the centre of the universe,\nfor example. The church followed them by insisting on that view. Copernicus and\nhis student Galileo were denounced for not believing what science taught. But\nthey were later proved right: the earth does indeed rotate around the sun.<\/p> Things\nhaven\u2019t changed much since Galileo\u2019s time. Ask any independent thinking staff\nmember of most universities today what happens if they question the tenets of\nevolution. Some have been threatened with termination, others with grants being\ncut off; yet others have their academic papers refused for publication. It is\nsimply not worth aborting one\u2019s career by questioning the status quo!<\/p> Given this\nenvironment, it is not surprising that even Christians who work and study in\nuniversities which are known to be bastions of atheism and progressive\nliberalism quite naturally believe that evolution and millions of years is the\ntruth, and that a 6,000 year \u201cyoung\u201d world is a religious fantasy.<\/p> But there are\nsome \u201cscientific\u201d reasons that seem to show that the earth is very old. Doesn\u2019t\nradiometric dating, for example show that the rocks in the earth are millions\nof years old?<\/p> The simple\nanswer is that the methods used in radiometric \u201cdating\u201d are not actually measuring\n<\/em><\/strong>time or age. They are simply measuring, with greater and greater\naccuracy as technology advances, the ratio between radioactive decaying parent\nelements and their stable daughter elements in a rock. The rate of such\ndecay is usually exceedingly slow. Using these ratios and rates, the age of the\nrock is then calculated <\/em><\/strong>(not measured), with that calculation based on some\nimportant assumptions.<\/p> It is assumed,\nfor example, that originally only the parent element and no daughter element\nwere present in the rock. It is also assumed that no parent or daughter\nelements were washed in or washed out of the rock during the millions of years\n(i.e. it was a closed system); and it is further assumed that the rate of decay\nhas never changed over this long period.<\/p> One doesn\u2019t have to be a scientist to realize\nthat these assumptions are unprovable. No scientist was ever there to make the\nobservations and measurements that are the staple of the \u201cscientific method\u201d.\nOne has to ask, are these assumptions reasonable?<\/p> The answer to\nthis question can be found by some quite simple tests. For example, creationist\nscientists have applied radiometric dating to rocks from recent volcanic\neruptions. Since the radiometric \u201cclock\u201d is set to zero at the time of the\neruption, the true age <\/em><\/strong>of the rocks is known from historical records. But in\nmany cases the calculated age <\/em><\/strong>is hundreds of thousands or even millions of\nyears! Furthermore, different radiometric dating methods often produce different\n\u201cages\u201d for the same rocks. The calculated ages and the actual ages are vastly\ndifferent.<\/p> The question\nthen becomes, if the radiometric \u201cages\u201d of rocks of known <\/em><\/strong>age is so wrong,\nwhy do scientists trust the \u201cages\u201d calculated for rocks of unknown <\/em><\/strong>ages? The answer\nis quite revealing. They simply devise a way to explain away the calculated\nanomaly.<\/p> Australian geologist Dr Tas Walker says, \u201cCreationist scientists have uncovered dozens of anomalies and conflicts like this. Surprisingly, these conflicting results do not unsettle mainstream geologists. They genuinely believe the world is billions of years old, and the conflicting results do not cause them to question their belief. In their minds, these conflicts are a little mystery that will be resolved with creative thinking and more research.\u201d <\/em>(https:\/\/creation.com\/radioactive-dating-anomalies<\/a>)<\/p> Another supposed\nindicator of millions of years for the age of the earth are the layers of\nsedimentary rocks, which are rocks and sand that was laid down by water and\nthen solidified, by processes supposedly occurring at the same rates as\nobserved today. Such layers are found all over the world, sometimes thousands\nof feet thick, and are said to represent different epochs separated by millions\nof years.<\/p> But each layer\nlies perfectly flat on top of the preceding layer, with no sign of the erosion\nfrom weathering that should have occurred before the next layer was laid down.\nThe year-long global flood described in Genesis better explains sedimentary\nrock layers than does the story of millions of years of gradual deposition\nduring the so-called \u201cgeological ages\u201d.<\/p> Inside\nsedimentary rocks we find millions of once living creatures that have been\nburied and now fossilized. Most people don\u2019t realize that these creatures had\nto have been buried rapidly and deeply to become fossils; dead creatures do not\nfossilize if simply left lying on the ground or the sea floor to be slowly\ncovered by sediment. Furthermore, it takes a lot of sediment to completely bury\nand fossilize something as big as a dinosaur for example! No flood or tsunami\noccurring today would be large enough to do the job. Some major catastrophe\nmust have happened in the past to explain their death by drowning and burial in\nmass graves in so many parts of the globe. Genesis records just such a global watery\nevent.<\/p> But if Noah\u2019s\nflood is true history, then the geological evidence for the supposed millions\nof years of earth history disappears. Those rock layers were laid down over the\ncourse of a year or so. This highlights\none of the main limitations of science; science can only observe and measure\nthings and events that exist in the present. The past cannot be observed and\nexperimented on. So science cannot be used to prove the earth is millions of years\nold; nor can it be used to prove only 6,000 years. Information about events\nthat are unrepeatable can only be obtained by historical means, and in\nparticular, from the written records of eyewitnesses.<\/p> This is where we\nget to the key question Christians of all persuasions need to answer: is\nGenesis a true and accurate historical record about the ancient past? Or is it\nsimply a religious fable written to tell us that there is a Creator, but not\nhow or when he created? Is it legitimate to dismiss the global flood narrative\nas nothing more than a made-up story, or perhaps only a description of a local\nflood, given to tell us that God judges sin?<\/p> The tendency today is for\ntheologians to impose mainstream secular ideas about the past (millions of\nyears) onto the text of Genesis. The plain meaning of the text, however, does\nnot in itself support millions of years. As Dr. James Barr, Professor of\nHebrew, Vanderbilt University and former Regis Professor of Hebrew at Oxford\nuniversity says, \u201cProbably, so far as I\nknow, there is no professor of Hebrew of Old Testament at any world-class\nuniversity who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to\nconvey to their readers the idea that creation took place in a series of six\ndays which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; the figures\ncontained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology\nfrom the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story; Noah\u2019s\nflood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life\nexcept for those in the ark.\u201d<\/em><\/p> One common\nmisunderstanding is that the millions of years conclusion is the result of\nscientific data. In actual fact, millions of years is an interpretation <\/em><\/strong>of that\ndata based on certain assumptions. The primary assumption undergirding\nmainstream science today is that the origin of the universe and life must be\nexplained by purely natural means. Invoking a supernatural Creator is not\nconsidered scientific or factual but is simply a non-factual religious idea.\nScience today has in effect been kidnapped by atheism, with its assertion that\nonly matter and energy exist and that there is no actual supernatural realm.\nEverything, therefore, must have come about as a result of chance, time, and\nnatural processes.<\/p> But that\nassertion is itself a position taken by faith, a choice to exclude the\nalternative explanation no matter how clear the evidence is that points in that\ndirection. As Dr Francis Crick, co-discover of the amazing DNA helix and an\nardent atheist famously said, \u201cBiologists must constantly keep in mind that\nwhat they see was not designed, but evolved.\u201d<\/p> This being the\ncase, it seems odd that Christians try to impose an atheistic explanation of\nearth history on the Bible, which claims to be inspired by God the Creator who\nknows everything and never lies, who was there at the beginning and who seems\nto be telling us in plain language what he did and the order in which He did\nthings. When the atheistic bias is removed, the data of science (the things we\nactually observe in the natural world) support the Biblical history of a recent\ncreation followed by a global flood much better than they do the millions of\nyears scenario.<\/p> This question of\nthe age of the earth has become such a controversial issue. Does it really\nmatter what we believe about this? Surely it is a secondary issue that is best\nput aside in order to maintain unity. While our\nunderstanding of the origin of everything is not essential for our personal\nsalvation, it is important for two key reasons.<\/p> Firstly, what we believe\nabout the creation account and the timeline of the early world affects our\nperception of the reliability and authority of the Bible. Charles Templeton, a\ncolleague of Billy Graham and co-founder of Youth For Christ, was a powerful\npreacher of the Gospel\u2026 until he went to a seminary that taught that millions of\nyears could be added to Genesis. Intellectual honesty led him to abandon his\nbelief in God, a sad outcome he tells about in his autobiography, \u201cFarewell to\nGod \u2013 My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian faith.\u201d In it he wrote, \u201c\u2026it\u2019s simply not possible any longer to\nbelieve, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world wasn\u2019t\ncreated over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over\nmillions of years. It\u2019s not a matter of speculation; it\u2019s demonstrable fact.\u201d<\/em><\/p> Sadly, more and\nmore young people are following in Templeton\u2019s footsteps, who reasoned that if\nthe miraculous events in Genesis didn\u2019t really happen, then the amazing things\nrecorded in the rest of the Bible couldn\u2019t have happened either. Jesus turning\nwater instantly into the best of wine (which by natural processes would\nnormally take several decades) is different only in degree to him creating a\nfully grown adult man instantly from the dust of the ground. If mainstream\nscience is to be believed, neither event could possibly have happened… such\nfantastic stories are no more than fairy tales.<\/p> Resurrection from\nthe dead? \u201cCome on! You don\u2019t really believe that do you?!\u201d<\/p> So ultimately,\nto believe in a millions-of-years ancient earth when the Biblical account\nplainly tells a different story, erodes the foundation of faith for this\npresent generation. Believing in a 6000-year- old earth may not be essential\nfor salvation; but the belief in millions of years is keeping many from\nsalvation who would believe if they could be convinced the Bible is true.\nStories abound of people who now believe in Jesus after becoming aware of how\nthe evidence of science supports the Biblical account.<\/p> More importantly,\nthough, if the world is millions of years old, and not 6,000 as the plain\nmeaning suggests, the very Gospel we preach is destroyed.<\/p> The big-picture\nmessage of the whole Bible is that God created a perfect world which was then\nmarred by sin resulting in death and decay which affected the whole natural\nworld. Jesus died to pay for our sins and rose again to give us the hope of\nresurrection into a new creation restored to its former beauty, with no more\nsin and death.<\/p> But if millions\nof years preceded the appearance of Adam & Eve, this means that death\nexisted long before they sinned. The supposed evidence for the millions of\nyears is the layers and layers of fossils that must have been buried under\ntheir feet in the Garden of Eden; and remember, fossils are creatures that have\ndied\n<\/em><\/strong>in their millions, some with signs of diseases such as cancer. God\ndeclares all this \u201cvery good\u201d! In an \u201cold earth\u201d universe, death has no\nconnection with sin; and God is an evil ogre who used millions of years of\ndeath and suffering to create mankind.<\/p> Richard Dawkins is one of the most strident antitheists around. Some church leaders think they can appease him by compromising the Bible with evolution. But what does Dawkins think of this? In a TV diatribe against theistic religion (2006) he said: \u201cOh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn\u2019t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!\u201d https:\/\/creation.com\/dawkins-on-compromising-churchians<\/a><\/em><\/p> The Bible states\ncategorically that \u201c\u2026sin entered the world through one man, and death through\nsin\u2026\u201d (Rom 5:12). Jesus came to reverse this most serious of problems that\nstarted with Adam & Eve: \u201c\u2026death came through a man, the resurrection of\nthe dead comes also through a man\u2026\u201d and \u201c\u2026as in Adam all\ndie, so also in Christ all will be made alive.\u201d (1 Cor 15:21f). THIS is the\nGospel, and it starts with the historical events of Genesis. Millions of years\nof death supposedly evidenced by the fossils wipes out the need for a saviour\ndying in our place.<\/p> Paul had some\nstrong words to say to people in his day who tampered with the Gospel truths.\n\u201cEvidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to\npervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should\npreach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally\ncondemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching\nto you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!\nAm I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please\nmen? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.\u201d\n(Gal 1:8-10)<\/p> The attempt to\nwin the approval of men, to please men, may be one reason the majority of\nChristian scientists who graduate from prestigious universities believe in an\nearth billions of years old rather than in a world about 6,000 years old as the\nBible plainly states.<\/p> But the\nminority who have stopped to think for themselves and question the \u201cscientific\nconsensus\u201d, and who have examined the scientific evidence without the atheistic\nbias of naturalism, have been pleasantly surprised to discover overwhelming\nmulti-disciplinary confirmation of the Bible\u2019s account of earth history. This\nhas greatly strengthened their confidence in the Bible and in the truth of the\nGospel and the need for all mankind to know this truth.<\/p> I am proud to be numbered among this\nminority.<\/p> I am in good company with men far more qualified than I am, like those listed here: <\/p> https:\/\/creation.com\/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation.<\/a><\/p> Some of these scientists appear in videos we have translated or will translate, such as these: <\/p> https:\/\/creation.com\/evolutions-achilles-heels<\/a><\/p> https:\/\/isgenesishistory.com\/a-brief-overview\/<\/a><\/p>HOW\nOLD IS OLD?<\/h2>
THE MAJORITY MUST BE RIGHT!<\/h2>
<\/p>SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR AN OLD EARTH\n\u2013 RADIOMETRIC DATING<\/h2>
<\/p>SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR AN OLD EARTH \u2013 ROCKS &\nFOSSILS<\/h2>
<\/p>HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST?<\/h2>
MODERN MAINSTREAM SCIENCE HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED<\/h2>
ISN\u2019T THE AGE OF THE EARTH MERELY A SECONDARY ISSUE?<\/h2>
<\/p>PREACHING\nANOTHER GOSPEL<\/h2>
<\/p>MAYBE THE MINORITY ARE RIGHT<\/h2>