Old Earth Creationists (OECs) interpret the "days" in Genesis 1 as representing long periods (e.g., millions of years) rather than literal 24-hour days, to align with scientific evidence for an ancient Earth. What scriptural passages and theological arguments do OECs use to support this non-literal interpretation?

There are several ways that Christians have tried to reconcile evolution with the Biblical narrative of creation. Theistic evolution is one option. Another is C.S. Lewis's way of how while the bodies undergo evolution, there was one historic couple Adam and Eve to whom God breathed "a new kind of consciousness" making the couple to be the one truly made in the "image of God" and that we all biologically descended from that couple thus sharing in their Fall consequences (see [this article](https://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/3/) referencing *The Problem of Pain*). Regardless, evolution over hundreds of thousands of years **necessitated many deaths** before the first species (or before 2 special members of a humanoid species) whom God stamped his image, and from whom we descended biologically, which young earth proponents adduce as one of the KEY theological obstacles if we take seriously Gen 1 where God pronounced his pre-Fall creation as "good". One Young Earth proponent said: > God can make use of death, but for it to be one of his primary creative tools paints the character of God in a very different light. with these as Biblical support: 1. Death itself is described as "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26): > The last enemy to be abolished is death. so how could God use death as a means of creation? 2. In the restoration (presumably to the condition before the Fall), there is no death per Isa 11:6-9: > The wolf will dwell with the lamb,and the leopard will lie down with the goat. ... An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit, and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den. ... **They will not harm or destroy each other on my entire holy mountain,** ... 3. In Rom 8:19-23 we read > ... For the creation was subjected to futility -- not willingly, but because of him who subjected it -- in the hope that the creation itself will also **be set free from the bondage to decay** into the glorious freedom of God's children. ... But groaning, suffering and decay is usually seen by YECs as referring to the consequences of the fall wrought by God's curse ("because of him who subjected it", see [answer to the question "Who subjected the creation to futility in Rom 8:20-21"](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/159/3849)) . If death is part of the creative process then it's not decay. Thus, my question is: **How do Christians holding some role of evolution defend against Young Earth proponents' charge that the many deaths required by evolution is adding blemish to God's character, or is counter to God's pronouncing creation as "good"?**

When asked "*If there is an omnipotent and good God, why is there suffering in the world?*", the most common response Christians give is something along the lines of "*Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.*". I think one of the most serious problems with that response is that suffering predates free will by hundreds of millions of years. Which all beings have free will? I don't think anybody would seriously argue that non-human animals have free will, in the sense that they should be held responsible for their actions. And human beings have existed for, let's say, two million years. But which all animals are capable of suffering, at least feeling physical pain? It's hard to tell, the general consensus seems to be that it is birds and mammals and perhaps octopuses. The latest common ancestors of birds and mammals existed 300 million years ago. Now, many people think that the ability to feel pain has evolved separately in birds and mammals, so that would push the number of years suffering has existed to lower, but we are still talking about hundreds of millions of years. So, for hundreds of millions of years, there was suffering in the world, but there was no free will. How do the proponents of the "free will" theodicy explain that?

This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/37198/is-creationism-falsifiable) - any edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome. To clarify the key term in use: > Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

Hugh Ross and others of the old-Earth creationist organization [Reasons to Believe](http://www.reasons.org/) , who claim to have a literal interpretation of Genesis, believe that Adam and Eve were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29), but that carnivorous animals of today were carnivorous then as well. They say that Genesis 1:30: >And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. is stating that all of Earth's major ecosystems are based on green plant life, and is not saying that all animals were herbivores. Is there any historical or linguistic precedent for this interpretation? In other words, did any Jewish or early Christian scholars interpret Genesis 1:30 as anything like this? If so, what linguistic subtleties do they point to that results in a carnivorous interpretation of 1:30, but a non-carnivorous interpretation of the preceding verse?

Creationists, if I understand it correctly, claim that the genes for Vitamin C production got corrupt in monkeys and humans independently after the Fall of Man (whenever the Fall of Man might be: Young-Earth Creationists believe that was thousands of years ago, Old-Earth Creationists believe it was hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of years ago). But there seems to be an easy way to prove that wrong: if that were true, we would expect there to be different mutations preventing the monkey's liver and the human's liver from producing Vitamin C. But, in reality, it's the same mutation in both monkeys and humans. So, what do creationists think, why is that reasoning faulty?

According to Young Earth Creationists, other beliefs (particularly in Evolutionism) harm Christianity in various ways such as: - Making Death something other than the direct consequence of Sin - Distorting the redemptive role of Death¹ - Denying the special value of man as distinct from all other creatures - Reducing God's power I don't want to belabor the point, as I'm merely trying to show the existence of claims that a denial of YEC is detrimental to Christian theology. I also don't want to get into debates of whether belief in, or rejection of, YEC is beneficial or harmful to one's ability to *remain* in the faith. For this question, I am placing that explicitly out of bounds. (Likewise for arguments dealing with science, whether or not a belief is scientifically supported or affects one's view of science.) Rather, given the above YEC arguments, it would seem that a case can be made that any attack on YEC is an attack on Christianity itself, and that all such attacks are thus ultimately opposed to Christianity. Indeed, such arguments *have* been made by various YECs. Now... if such arguments can be sustained, they would be a powerful argument in favor of YEC. Therefore, I would like to explore the opposite side. According to non-YECs, **what are the theological detriments to belief in YEC?** ---- (¹ Death is the wages/consequence of Sin. Adam sinned ⇒ God killed an animal. God's people sinned ⇒ they sacrificed animals. Humans sinned ⇒ God sacrificed His Son. YECs argue that death before sin distorts this relation and reduces the atoning "value" of death. [This answer](/a/41819/53502) on another question may be helpful.)

The James Webb telescope has produced images of galaxies at the limits of observation far beyond anything yet seen in the heavens. It was expected that galaxies in this region would be 'simple', 'undeveloped', unformed' and much smaller than those observed closer to us. The reason for this expectation was the theory that these galaxies would have been the first to be created if, indeed, all creation began from a single point, and if all creation flowed out from that point, developing (over a very long time) as the 'universe' (that is to say, space itself) 'expanded'. What is now observed, appears to contradict that theory. There, at the very limits of what can be observed, have been discovered mature, large, fully formed galaxies, apparently identical to all other galaxies. The more logical explanation of what is actually being now observed would be a creation that was created with an 'apparent age'. Just as Adam was created as a mature man, just as trees were created already with fruit within themselves, so the heavens were created (the James Webb seems to be telling us) as a complete apparatus, already fully formed. What is the response, thus far, from 'old earth creationists' ? --------------------------------------- "contradicts our current understanding of the universe." Phys.org Astronomy "their existence could upend current theories of cosmology." The Guardian "distant galaxies that should not exist" Space.com "conflict with 99% of models representing early galaxies in the universe," CNN ------------------------------------------------ Update 14/04/23 >The James Webb Space Telescope keeps finding galaxies that shouldn’t exist, a scientist has warned. >Six of the earliest and most massive galaxies that Nasa’s breakthrough telescope has seen so far appear to be bigger and more mature than they should be given where they are in the universe, researchers have warned. >The new findings build on previous research where scientists reported that **despite coming from the very beginnings of the universe, the galaxies were as mature as our own Milky Way.** MSN.com James Webb Telescope

The Genesis account of creation tells of YHWH creating the earth and heavens on the **first day**. Then **3 days later** He created the luminaries. ***From a literal interpretation, is there an alternative explanation besides a geocentric earth(dryland), which is also more RATIONAL?*** *Geocentrism* (noun) - the concept that the earth is the center of God's creation. *Rational* (adj) - Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible. **Premise** Genesis 1 KJV 10 And God called the dry land ***earth***; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, **Let there be *lights in the firmament of the heaven* to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:** 15 And let them be for *lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth*: and it was so. 16 And God made **two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also**. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the **fourth day**. -------------------------------------------- Edit: Please to not down vote this good question because you can't provide a good answer. We are all searching for Truth here. **Science is a method, not a body of knowledge.** Any science that is contrary to the words of God must be assumed to have been conducted from bias or without precision and therefore are subjective and wrong. A rational scientific concept is a logically true explanation. What are the logically true explanations of the OT verses in the premise? I can only think of one which spawned the question in my mind.

There are arguments which I have observed which would seek to assert different occasions, or times or phases (depending on how the argument is worded) regarding Genesis 1:1 : >In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [KJV] and John 1:1 : >In the beginning was the word ... [KJV]. From my childhood, I have accepted these two as synonymous. At school, I vocally resisted the attempts of my Chemistry teacher to teach me of previous ages not spoken of in scripture and I vocally resisted the attempts of my biology teacher to teach me Darwinian evolution. I made my own inclinations quite clear. Rather I read, as a schoolboy, in 1969, and accepted almost fully, Morris and Whitcomb's book '*The Genesis Flood*, in which is set forth, in considerable scientific detail, what is now termed 'young earth creationism'. In adulthood, I have continued to make myself clear, now as a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and now also as one with further training in Molecular Biochemistry, within the Pharmaceutical Industry. To me, there is no valid need or reason to see the Genesis statement 'in the beginning' and John's statement 'in the beginning' as being anything other than synonymous. And I am led to suspect (though nobody is actually admitting to it, thus far) that the unspoken need and reason for these two statements to be parted one from another in logic is that there might be inserted, between the two, a period of time - possibly a period of 'geological ages' - in order to satisfy the requirements of those who do not accept 'young earth creationism'. In fact, I do not assert any age for the earth, for the first three 'days' (when no sun, moon or stars existed and when there was no intelligent being ***on the earth*** to observe, record or document any events) cannot, in my own view, be asserted to be any period of 'time' as we know it. And I am aware, having studied radioactivity and worked with many isotopes, that the age of the earth cannot be asserted by 'backward extrapolation' of current 'relative abundances'. What I do assert, most strongly, is the fact of seventy generations from Adam to Christ (as made clear by Luke) ; the fact that evolution is not the reason for the existence of distinct species ; and the fact that the Flood was global and catastrophic, as is evidenced in contemporary geology, in unbiased archaeology and in many aspects of human history. But I am curious as to the motivation of those who see 'two different beginnings'. Am I correct in my suspicion or is there other valid reason or motivation for this ? My question relates to the two major divisions of 'young earth creationism' and 'old earth creationism' and is not a matter of denominations. I am interested in answers from both of those factions, for I, fundamentally, belong to neither. --------------------------------------------------- EDIT (in response to answers regarding 'Ruin Reconstruction Theory' or 'Re-creation Theory') : In answer to re-creation or re-construction theories, please see my own studies of 'waste and void' in pp 18-29 of the following link. This is a complex study and cannot be abbreviated. (Requires sign-in to Google Docs.) The Gates of Pearl

This question is made from the perspective of Old Earth Creationism (OEC), especially that espoused by Hugh Ross at reasons.org. I have also created a website at big.bible to explore these questions more fully. Many of the books of Hugh Ross (e.g., Navigating Genesis) make the point that the sequence of events described in Genesis 1 follows very closely to the sequence of events that scientists have discovered about the evolution of the earth and earth's forms of plant and animal life over the last 4.5 billion years. If this is really true, it would mean that the writer of Genesis 1 would almost certainly have received this knowledge from the Creator since Genesis 1 was written over 3000 years ago when there would have been no natural way to know the exact sequence of events over the last 4.5 billion years. That 4.5 billion year sequence has only been put together by scientists in the last several hundred years. Put in another way, if this description of the scientific sequence of events of the last 4.5 billion years was accurately portrayed in Genesis over 3000 years ago, would this more or less prove that the Bible was divinely inspired, meaning that it was written by inspiration from the Creator of the universe? As a note to those who might say that Genesis is a literary or inspirational document and not a scientific document, I would share the following thoughts. Since the Creator of of the universe is also the Creator of language, then it would seem straightforward for this Creator to make a narrative that could be both scientifically accurate as well as inspiring from a literary perspective. And in so doing, Genesis could then be used for inspiration and guidance for the last several millennia. And now when we can understand the Scriptures from a scientific perspective as well, then that could show even more the Creator's unfathomable intelligence and wisdom. We could then see this correlation between science and Genesis 1 as a new gift that the Creator has given us to marvel even more at His power, wisdom, and majesty. Finally, although this may sound like an opinion-based question since it supposes an OEC viewpoint, what I am really looking for here is feedback on the logic of this question. It would seem very profound if we could make these claims of an almost scientific proof for the Bible, so on a logical basis I am asking if anyone can see any fallacies in this logic before I begin making such a claim to others.

Genesis *seems* to say that God created the Earth in six literal days ~4,000 B.C., and that there was a *global* flood ~2,000 years later that destroyed (almost) all life. It also claims that Earth was created before the stars, birds before land animals, and that all animals were vegetarian before The Fall. It "seems" to say this so plainly that for ~4,000 years, this was the prevailing belief among Jews and, later, Christians. Moreover, Christ Himself made statements such as "From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female". Many today believe however that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, humans are some hundreds of thousands of years old (some tiny fraction of a percent the age of the universe), and death and suffering reigned for millions of years before any humans existed. Clearly this is at odds with a "plain" reading of Genesis; at least the first nine chapters must be pure fantasy, and none of the genealogies can be trusted. Someone made the claim that God's revelation is progressive. That may be, but that puts Genesis firmly in the "lies told to children" category. It also puts Christ in the same boat; why, for example, would He not choose a phrasing that *isn't* factually wrong (e.g. "from the start of history" or some such)? If God lied to his people for thousands of years (and Christ perpetuated the lie), or if Genesis is simply not inspired, how can we trust *anything* about the Bible or Christ? If the origin of Sin and its consequences is a lie, and if death, disease and suffering are Very Good, how do we make sense of Christian theology? Okay, that's a lot of questions, but the one I really want to ask is this: **according to Trinitarians that *deny* a historical reading of Genesis**, what is the purpose of this misleading narrative? Even if "we weren't ready", why include elements that are *factually* wrong but appear to make no difference, such as the wrong order of creation? ---- Some evidence that Christians prior to ~1800 AD believed predominantly that the Earth was created < 10,000ya: - [This article](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html) on talk.origins (note the first sentence). - [This paper](http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/6795/1/How_old_is_the_Earth_really.pdf) . - [This article](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/how-an-archbishop-calculated-the-creation-1.378556) . - There are various YEC resources floating around that give much more comprehensive lists of age-of-the-earth calculations done by Christians which mostly give a Creation date of ~3,500 BC - ~7,000 BC (with a few outliers, but all much less than 100,000 years). - Wikipedia also [discusses the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) , and asserts that "an Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800)". There were other beliefs prior to ~1800 AD, both [Christian](/a/25872/53502) and otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge, belief in a "young" Earth prior to ~1800 AD was *predominant*, at least among Christians and Jews. Moreover, *the Scriptures themselves* (and even Christ, as noted above) generally refer to the Creation and Flood accounts as plain history.

It seems that a popular argument for Old Earth Creationists (OECs) is that 2 Peter 3:8 shows the Genesis days could be longer periods of time and not literal 24 hour days: > **2 Peter 3:8 ESV** But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Super-duper bible scholars will add Psalm 90:4 to the mix: > **Psalm 90:4 ESV** For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. ...therefore, billions of years, day-age theory, etc. **How do OECs use 2 Peter 3:8 to support a "day-age" theory especially when faced against these popular counter arguments?*** == 1. The latter half of the verse says "...and a thousand years are as one day" somewhat negating the OEC's intent of the verse. 1. The verse isn't *meant* to be (and shouldn't be) taken and applied to various previous passages at will. Otherwise it would be equally valid to say that Jonah spent three thousand years in the belly of a fish, that Methuselah was 353,685,000 years old when he died (or 11 months old if you apply the latter portion of the verse), and that the Mosaic Law commanded Jews to work 6000 years and then rest for 1000 years. Using 2 Peter 3:8 to say that Genesis 1-3 days were longer but the other days were not is exegetically dishonest. 1. A complete exegesis of 2 Peter 3 shows that Peter was actually *condemning* those that would distort a historically accurate interpretation of Genesis: > **2 Peter 3:1-6 ESV** This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that **scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires**. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and **the earth was formed out of water and through water** by the word of God, and that by means of these the **world that then existed was deluged with water and perished**. 1. A complete exegesis of 2 Peter 3 is that Peter was not trying to establish the time translation rules for God but was trying to warn his church(es) that the Lord will return and that it will be a time no one is expecting because human concepts of time have no bearing over God: > **2 Peter 3:7-10 ESV** But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. **The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness**, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. **But the day of the Lord will come like a thief**, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 1. A complete exegesis of Psalm 90:4 shows that David was simply pontificating on the hugeness and timelessness of God--not trying to apply new meaning to previous passages involving days. > **Psalm 90:1-6 ESV** Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You return man to dust and say, “Return, O children of man!” **For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday** when it is past, or as a watch in the night. You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. --- ***NOTE*** - I am not discussing the validity of OEC but merely how 2 Peter 3:8 is used to support day-age theory especially in light of the counter-arguments shown above. - Of course not *every* OEC supporter uses 2 Peter 3:8 to give credence to their views, but this question is for those that do. - An ideal answer would be one that reasonably shows why 2 Peter 3:8 is a credible argument for OEC (addressing the popular counter points made above) **or** an answer that exhaustively shows why 2 Peter 3:8 cannot be a reasonable support.

Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham. These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens" Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

I came across an article on the existence of Pre-Adamite beings. The article refutes their existence but claims it is a belief held by "many evangelicals". As far as I can find, no major denomination endorses this teaching. Nor could I find any official statements addressing/rejecting it at all. Do any mainstream denominations have a stance on this issue?

I heard the other day that the literalist interpretation of biblical creation (A literal 7 day creation of the universe) isn't the classical historical interpretation that past Christians held. I was told that YEC was a relatively recent interpretation. Meaning, has genesis historically been interpreted as figurative/metaphorical (and to what degree if so?) by past Christians? If so, was YEC the default view? Were there "Old earth creationists" (or anyone who would be analogous to them) in the deep historic past? On a side note, when did alternative non-literal interpretations of Genesis come about? To be clear, this question is not the same as: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1420/where-does-the-belief-that-the-earth-is-relatively-young-6000-years-come-from Because I am asking about the origins of the doctrine itself, not seeking debate of the particularities of the doctrine and whether or not they are true.

>In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God. And the Logos was God ... All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.[John 1:1-3 KJV] What arguments are there that life on earth was made by any other means than through Him who, from the beginning, is Logos (who is now named Jesus Christ) ? I mean this question in the context of arguments made by so-called 'old earth' theorists who argue for an evolutionary 'creation' - which is impossible (see below) - rather than an immediate creative act in producing life on earth. All life on earth is cellular, whether animal or vegetable. Life on earth is a matter of cells, even viruses. The organic molecules within the cell do not occur in nature, nor do they survive in nature (except, interestingly, DNA). These - the most complex molecules found on earth, only occur in living cells, not otherwise. Experiments with electric discharges (to simulate lightning) in vessels containing inorganic molecules have, arguably, produced only a few of the most simple amino acids. Calculations (see YouTube video produced by eminent scientists) show that the chance occurrence of a single protein (of the more simple kind of structure) would take immeasurably longer than the supposed age of the universe. The chance occurrence of a single cell is simply impossible, requiring the juxtaposition of a vast array of heterocyclic sugars; all twenty two of the essential amino acids; at least three hundred proteins all folded into exactly the correct three dimensional form to facilitate their own, specific, catalytic task; ribosomes, DNA and RNA. The DNA would need to be already coded (C,G,A and T) to form a living organism, something that is chemically impossible without the active presence of both ribosomes and messenger RNA. The energy of the cell is produced by the reaction of ADP (adenodiphosphate) to ATP (adenotriphosphate) which reaction (called the Krebs cycle or the Citric Acid Cycle) requires an array of sugars and other organic molecules to be successful. ------------------ How do evolutionists explain the impossibility of a single cell ever forming by chance, of its own accord - and not by the immediate oversight and the focused attention of the Intelligent and Eternal Creator of all things ?

Prior to modern scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the chronology in Genesis 1-11 could not be used to calculate the date of Adam's creation?

I some times wonder when God made the garden, to beautify it, the trees for example must have been differing height and width.  Therefore, assuming a literal 7 day creation, if Adam were to cut a tree, the day after he was created, would he have found thick trees with several rings?  Would Adam really be able to determine how old the world was studying rocks, trees, etc.? Was science prevented from ever understanding creation by virtue of its incomprehensible design on day one? Would a rock's radioactive print seem like a billions years old, when only one day old? How would a fully created universe seem like a day old? Would not some things appear to have started motion long ago to reach the place where they were created? That is a lot of questions but it is really one: 'Could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?'