[xzins]

What I fail to see is why you believe in the antiquity of the earth yet claim you do not believe in evolution. If you are going to buy into the science which suggests that it would have been impossible for God to create the universe as suggested by the literal reading of Genesis, then why on earth don't you buy into the theistic evolutionary position that God used evolution as the process for making life on the earth? You are putting science on an equal footing with scripture anyway, so why not just accept what scientists say about evolution?

P-M, it is possible that OEC's believe that God did create instantaneously, but in between those "days" there were vast periods of time. They would believe in "ex nihilo" but they would not believe in gradual evolution over time.

In that case, the only difference between their view and the traditional one week view would be the amount of time between each day. We would have the days immediately succeeding one another. They might not.

I imagine that truthfinder9 can correct me if I'm wrong about OECs.

[P-Marlowe]

P-M, it is possible that OEC's believe that God did create instantaneously, but in between those "days" there were vast periods of time.

Well they are still stuck with the fact that the plants were all created before God turned on the sun. So if each intervening space was 1/2 billion years, that is a long time to keep the plants out of the sunlight. You theoretically keep a plant in darkness for a few literal days, but beyond that you start running into problems.

God created the plants and vegetation on the third day. The sun didn't come out till the forth. If you have a consistent day/age theory, then that position is ludicrous. Now if God said he created all the vegetation 1/2 billion years before he turned on the sunlight, then I would believe him. But if we try to reconcile science and scripture by using a day/age theory, then we will take a most inconsistent position. The only way to reconcile it would be to have the forth day occur before the third. But why do we need to reconclie scripture to anything? We should be reconciling our thinking about everything else to scripture.

[truthfinder9]

You see, P-Marlowe has bought into the myth that old age = evolution. In reality, the universe isn't old enough for chance based evolution to occur. In fact, the age of the universe is a very strong evidence, perhaps the most strong, in intelligent design theory.

From Is The Truth Out There?:

Earth exists at the right time in which the right conditions and materials for life exist. Earlier in the history of the universe and the Sun’s properties would not be so friendly to life, especially human. A little later in time and similar problems would exist. The universe is structured in such a way that life is constrained to exist in a particular narrow time frame. We are now living in that time frame. In fact, it seems that each era on Earth has had “just the right” type of life for the conditions of the day. Chance cannot produce such precision, not even in 14 billion years.

The point being that God uses age, like other constraints, to reveal undeniable design.

Biomechanical scientist Neil Broom further explains the fallacy of evolutionists that old age = evolution:

Almost all the origin-of-life hypotheses exploit the notion that, because vast periods of time were available for the evolution of life to occur, any apparent weakness or inadequacy in a particular naturalistic scenario, is more than compensated for by the potential for creative innovation provided by the enormous scale of time...[megatime] appears to have relieved many of the obligation to provide rigorously argued scientific explanations...[this]characteristic explanatory sloppiness...is used as a kind of magic wand...in order to accomplish remarkable feats of materialistic magic.

Ironiclly many YECs have based their theory on the evolutionist's megatime fallacy.