There are creationist alternatives to the ICR crowd. The "framework hypothesis" simply argues that the word "yom" (day) is used in a variety of ways in the OT and that we simply have creation described in the broadest of terms: God created the
REALM Heavens and earth light and darkness on "day" One, and its
RULERS, sun moon and stars "day" four
REALM, separation of "firmaments" into sea and sky on "day" Two, and its
RULERS, Fish and fowl, "day" five
REALM, vegetation on the dry land on "day" Three, and its
RULERS, animals and man on "day" six
Plus, the genealogical lines in the Bible cannot be used to "date" the book of Genesis, or the creation, since there are numerous examples of "skipping" generations in the biblical lineage itself. For example, if you find parallel genealogies, one will say A>B>C>D>E>F and the other will simply say A>F. The most radical and absurd example of this is Jesus saying to his detractors "I know that you are sons of Abraham." I am skeptical of both naturalistic gradualism and naturalistic punctuated equibrilium. I am also skeptical of young earth creationism. One of the most interesting things about these positions is the willing self deception often practiced by both groups. They stake out a philosophical position and then bend all intellectual energies (sometimes prodigious) to "proving" it. The naturalistic science camp is especially guilty in that area, in trying to present the religionists as presenting a non-rationally based (and sometimes an irrationally based) construct. They, of course, dismiss all prejudice, all bias, and all selective data interpretation and simply stick to the "facts." Philip Johnson has done a great job of exposing this farcical approach to "science" in his little book
Reason in the Balance.
Buncombe is bumcombe, whether it comes from someone who has read a Duane Gish tract and thinks he has all the answers, or some equally obscurantist "scientist" who is so stupid he doesn't see that all he has done is dressed up his philosophical prejudices and bawled out to the world that it is "science."
For example, if you find parallel genealogies, one will say A>B>C>D>E>F and the other will simply say A>F. The most radical and absurd example of this is Jesus saying to his detractors "I know that you are sons of Abraham."Yes- the literary style is a recognition that God considers all future descendants the son of the forefather. He considers the traits of inheritance over a timespan of multiple generations. This is why we can claim promised positions which were originally given to earlier generations. He judged nations by this standard regularly in the Old Testament, particularly in the prophets.
It's important to note, however, that individuals could trump this 'group' position by their personal response to His invitations and overtures.
The New Testament example is the consideration of God that every believer is "In Christ", that is, He moves us to the front of the line, so to speak, and considers our position as parallel to the highest place in heaven, the one occupied by Jesus at the Father's right hand.
That's precisely why Christians are in charge, why we can crush empires and shape the planet in the will of God, as long as we pray according to His wishes. If only we would see it more clearly.
I am an old Earth ID believer.....it is obvious the Earth is old. Carbon dating can sometimes be wrong, but for the date of the Earth to be wrong, every single carbon dating would have to be off by millions of years.....and all be wrong by around the same time period.
Simply preposterous.
The idea that people can age the Earth based on Scripture is truly one for morons.