I would be interested in such a study. It’s an interest of mine.
While I think the universe is much older than GGG does, it must be said that what we are trying to do is look at a shoe and try to figure out what shape of foot went into it.
Some shapes and sizes will fit better than others but until we see the foot we don’t know for certain and arrogant assertions that imperfect models based upon very incomplete information are “fact” is folly.
The YEC have a point in that Darwinism has required very long times for evolution to work so any age of the universe has to allow for at least that much time in their view.
But where I fault the YEC is in saying the time of the “days” of Genesis must incorporate “In the Beginning..” and hence the creation of the whole universe or “world” as the article says.
==But where I fault the YEC is in saying the time of the “days” of Genesis must incorporate “In the Beginning..” and hence the creation of the whole universe or “world” as the article says.
A straightforward reading of the Genesis 1 is obviously what the context calls for. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (along with light, and the separation of the same) all within the space of what the Bible describes as an evening and a morning.
I really don’t see any wiggle room here. Is it your position that God began before the beginning?
Where I fault the OEC is in failing to acknowledge that they must accept 2 more assumptions than the YECs to hold the OEC position. First, OECs must assume that the first verse does not include the 6 days of creation but covers a vast expanse of undetermined time. YECs assume that it does include the 6 days of creation and there is no expanse of undetermined time. So both positions have 1 assumption each.
Then the OECs must add the assumption that the sun, moon, stars, galaxies and other celestial bodies were created in the first verse before they are named as being created on the 4th Day but were somehow hidden. Otherwise, OECs just have the earth sitting in empty space for assumed vast periods of time for no apparent reason. This is the second assumption OECs must make and this is where the OEC argument begins to weaken.
The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.
Basically, OECs must add 2 additional assumptions than the YECs, one of which requires that they depart from a literal reading of Genesis wrt the creation of celestial bodies on the 4th Day, in order to reconcile the Biblical account to the OEC account.
This is where the OECs compromise and place the word of men wrt long-ages above the Word of God. This is an inferior position from a Christian perspective. It is also inferior from a purely logical perspective as you must hold that 3 assumptions are correct for the OEC position vs 1 for the YEC position.
Make sense?