On Paul Lalonde’s ‘The Earth is Young, This I Know, For the Bible Tells Me So’

Paul Lalonde, owner of Cloud Ten Pictures recently wrote a post called: The Earth is Young, This I Know, For the Bible Tells Me So in which he wondered,

” What if the Bible didn’t mention the age of the earth, or even suggested the earth was already here for some unspecified period of time before God created Adam and Eve?  Would there still be a young earth movement? 

After all, the arguments that say carbon dating can’t be trusted, that men actually coexisted with dinosaurs, that the decay of the earth’s magnetic field makes an old earth impossible, well those arguments would still be exactly as strong as they are now.  But would anybody even be suggesting them?”

I’ll answer his questions in order:

  1. If the Bible didn’t mention the age of the Earth, it wouldn’t be an issue and there would be no need for a Young Earth movement to preserve and defend the truth of the Bible concerning the true age of the Earth. 
    Exodus 20:11
    The 4th Commandment is based on a Literal Creation Week

    Neither would there be a Sabbath day set aside to honor God once a week. The Bible’s stated reason for the 4th Commandment is that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and then rested on the seventh, so we should also rest on the seventh.

    Of course, the Bible DOES mention the age of the Earth, because God wanted us to know Earth’s true history.

    If we had only the data from natural theology available on the subject of the age of the Earth, we could never be sure of the Earth’s actual age: radiometric dating [flaws and assumptions notwithstanding] suggests an old earth but other dating methods suggest a much younger earth. It is unclear whether we would still come to the correct conclusions about the age of the earth.The dilemma we would face is something akin to one posed by an inherent presumption of radiometric dating.

    3 Big Problems with Old Earth Dating Methods
    3 Big Problems with Old Earth dating Methods

    Radiometric dating presumes the amount [ratio] of parent/daughter elements which must have existed in the beginning. We can’t know what this ratio was for sure. Did lead exist at the beginning alongside uranium or did all extant lead come from degradations of original uranium? Put simply: if we observe that someone is putting blocks in a bucket at a rate of 1 per 10 minutes, and find we have 6 blocks in said bucket, we would presume the process has been going on for an hour. But this assumes the count started at zero. What if there were already 3 blocks in the bucket at the beginning. We would presume this process had been going on for an hour when it had only been going on for half that time! Why? Because we were missing some key data [that the bucket was not originally empty but contained 3 blocks already] that caused us to err in our calculations. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions!  Likewise, we would be calculating the age of the earth without key data: That God created everything in 6 calendar days. 

    One could hope that we would ascertain the correct age of the Earth in other ways, but that seems unlikely given our faulty assumptions.  

    And without a Young earth, we scarcely know what to do with a worldwide Flood! We’d be forced to explain that away as local and leaving no geological imprint at all. I can safely say this because this is exactly what Old Earth Creationists do when they presume long ages are true and the Bible’s revelation of 6 days is not true.

    That leads to a further dilemma: fossils. A record of death, cancer, thorns, suffering, mass extinctions… all laid down before Adam sinned and brought death, suffering and thorns into the world! By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, the Scriptures affirm. The wages [deserved earnings] of sin is death. Yet here we would have death running rampant in the history of the world well before Adam. And if death is a natural part of the state of things, it can hardly be considered the Last Enemy which shall be destroyed.  More importantly, the entire reason that a literal Savior had to die a literal death upon the cross was to redeem a fallen race that literally fell in Adam.

    These things make nonsense of the Gospel message of redemption. It all makes not a lick of sense without the revelation of the earth’s true Young age. Which makes it fortunate that the Bible does in fact tell us that the earth is young.

  2. If the Bible suggested that the earth had existed awhile before Adam & Eve, we would still have to contend with the fossil record. The horns of the dilemma are thus: it was either laid down successively as each ecosystem succumbed to a worldwide Flood as recorded in Genesis OR it was laid down over long ages.If the fossil record of death, thorns, cancer, mass extinctions and thorns [for the fossil record evidences all of these] was laid down over long ages before man, then these things, logically speaking, cannot be the result of man’s sin, punishment decreed by God for disobeying His Word, as the Bible records in Genesis 3. In other words, it all becomes nonsense.If the fossil record of death, thorns, cancer, mass extinctions and thorns were laid down after man’s sin, we must find a mechanism for such a phenomenon. We find our most likely candidate in the Noachim Flood and, upon further examination, we find it more than probable.
  3. Would anyone be suggesting that we can’t trust radiometric dating methods, that man co-existed with dinos or that the earth’s magnetic field shows that it must be young IF they Bible didn’t tell us to look for evidence of a Young Earth to begin with? Probably not. Mind you, the cryptozoologists would still suggest the Flintstones didn’t have it all wrong exactly. Relict dinosaurs are an intriguing possibility.Of course, to complete this mental exercise, the answer for the first and last condition is, well, no, probably not. We take many things by pure assumption every day. This is so in science as well, so we might simply presume that old earth dating methods were valid. Consquentially, our theology would be compromised. The death issue alone makes for a sticky end to the veracity of God’s revealed Word. And young age indicators like the magnetic field would be explained away as anamolies or misunderstanding of science that didn’t take into account other factors.HOWEVER

    The Bible does state that the Earth is young; therefore, it is logical and natural to expect evidence of this revealed truth. Which is why we find it noteworthy that the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field alludes to a young age. Which is why we find the possibility of relict dinosaurs so intriguing.And since we wisely take the revealed Word of a perfect, infallible God who was there over the graspings of finite, error-prone men who were not – even if those men make their claims in the name of science – we note that it is not unreasonable, since the Bible does claim the Earth and everything else was created in just 6 calendat days, to question the assumptions behind old earth dating methods and to point out that faulty assumptions do lead to faulty conclusions. [I just think it’s hilarious that radiometric dating gives outrageous old ages to volcanic rocks that were formed only a century or less ago; how can we trust these methods for the ages of rocks we don’t know when we can’t even trust them to give the correct ages of rocks whose age we certainly know?]

Now, let me say this: There are lots of things we would not know were it not for the Bible. In fact, Lalonde takes his title from a well-known children’s hymn, which notes, “Jesus loves me. This I know for the Bible tell me so.” The Bible is our primary source for information on Christ Jesus. We can verify that He lived, died and was believed by his folowers to have risen again through various historical sources, but the details of his life, teachings, death, burial, ressurection, identity, ascension anf fulfillment of prophetic Scripture are gleaned from the Bible. We know these things because, well, the Bible tells us so.

So then, this has been an interesting exercise, but altogether hypothetical. The Bible does give the age of the Earth and it is only within the context of a young Earth that the Bible’s teachings on Genesis 3 make sense, given the existence of a fossil record of death, cancer, suffering, mass extinctions and thorns.

In conclusion, Lalonde is correct:

“The Earth IS Young. This I know, For the Bible Tells Me So.”

-Sirius Knott

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Upson Downes says:

    “The Bible does give the age of the Earth and it is only within the context of a young Earth that the Bible’s teachings on Genesis 3 make sense, given the existence of a fossil record of death, cancer, suffering, mass extinctions and thorns.”

    Or, we could ask the question the other way round: Given the existence of a fossil record of death, cancer, suffering, mass extinctions and thorns, Do the Bible’s teachings in Genesis 3 make sense?

    1. Sirius says:

      Sock Puppet!

      Am I to presume, like your buddy Forknowledge, that you’re under the misapprehension that the existence of the fossil record only supports evolutionism? That we Creationists get by on faith while evos have facts? Burn that poorly thatched straw man and step up to the Table of Truth, my friend! Let me set your misconceptions aright.

      Here’s the problem with trying to make hay with the the old faith versus fact straw man: It’s not about facts. Creationists and evos have the same facts: the same physics, math, universe, world, fossils, rocks, etc. Facts have to be interpreted; they are not self-explanatory. Guess what? Creationists and Darbots have different interpretations of the SAME EVIDENCE.

      Take homology: You see similarity of form and say that’s evidence for molecules-to-Mensa evolution. Creationists see homology as an example of design efficiencies [You don’t re-invent the wheel if a wheel works perfectly well for your needs].

      Or the fossil record: You darbots see the fossil record as evidence of fish-to-philosopher evolution. Creationists look at the fossil record and note, as the late arch-evo guru Gould did, that the fossil record doesn’t really evidence gradualism [traditional evo], but rather stasis and sudden appearance, concepts that line of with the Creationist concept of variation within fixed created kinds. Oddly, when evos like Gould do acknowledge that the fossil record doesn’t seem to support evolution, they don’t abandon the theory in light of observable fact; no, they adapt the theory to explain away the lack of evidence so that now evo happens by saltations. That’s faith based on the bald assertion that evo is true even if the evidence doesn’t seem to support it.

      Good little darbots will inevitably regurgitate the faithful assertion that there are numerous transitional fossils, and then blithely go on to make excuses for why they actually only have a handful of disputale candidates when the fossil record should be, by Darwin’s own admission, simply replete with them. [“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous” – Origins]. Darwin blamed the “extreme imperfection” of the geological and fossil record and was confident that if we found more fossils they would form a more perfect picture that would confirm his theory. And here we are with a handful of disputable candidates that could as well be mosaics like the red panda, the platypus or the pronghorn. Gould refered to Archaeopteryx as a “curious mosaic.” The thing about mosaics, which we acknowledge in observable biology, is that they do not possess partially-formed transitional structures or traits; the structures and traits they share of several different creatures are fully formed. Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, archaeocetes and mammal-like reptiles are all likely mosaics. Incidentally, evolutionists use mosaics in a rather ala cart fashion, choosing ones they think would make good links and ignoring ones like the red panda and the pronghorn that make the wrong links according to their theory. Alternately, some have taken a page from Gould’s playbook and proposed “modular evolution” to explain away the lack of partially-formed transitional traits an evo would intuitively expect to find. Lo, I have not seen such faith, not in all Christendom!

      But faithful evos connect the dots anyway, despite all evidence to the contrary in the fossil record and observable biology. They never ask themselves whether the dots should be connected at all, even though the evidence equally supports [maybe even better supports] special creation with variation within created kinds.

      Why? Cause ya gotta have faith, a-faith, a-faith! Evo happened, this I know, cause Dick Dawkins tells me so!

      But to answer your question: If there really was a worldwide Flood, what would the evidence be? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. The Bible’s teachings in Genesis 3 do make sense, even in light of the fossil record, IF that fossil record was the result of the Biblical Flood mentioned in the next few chapters of Genesis!

      -Sirius Knott

      1. therivernilejordan says:

        It’s about unraveling the circle, Upson Downes.

        Evolutionists, big-bang theorists, Intelligent Design proponents and old-earth believers are, to some degree or another, caught up in a great orgy of circular and secular reasoning in which (contrary to popular belief) there is no way to “prove” any of their beliefs; there is only a way to interpret evidence.

        Young-earth creationists have taken in the same evidence and have asked a devastatingly simple question: “Could secular science’s a priori choice to dismiss the possibility of God’s existence (or Genesis’ validity) have done something to skew our understanding of the past?”

        The argument has to be allowed because this question and it’s answer, whatever it is, would have profound implications and far-reaching consequences on everything. Including people’s understanding of purpose and eternity. If you will allow me the luxury of exaggeration: a clear understanding of the past is of infinite importance if it leads us to a correct understanding of the future. If we rule out the possibility of God’s existence and it turns out we’re wrong, our society could commit metaphysical suicide – we’d see the “eclipse of God”, to borrow Martin Buber’s phrase – and we would be powerless to stop it.

        So while I personally don’t have a CLUE what happened in the past (I was only born in 1987) I do entertain creationists by listening to their attempts to unravel the orgy of circular reasoning that secularism threw us all into. And it’s a Herculean task, I don’t envy them. But I do ask you to humor them. Who knows. You might just learn something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s