Throwing out the really old furniture

‘Deep time’ is so ingrained in people’s thinking today that it has become a part of their ‘mental furniture’—their way of thinking. The only way around it is the ‘renewing of our minds’ that only God’s Word can bring (Romans 12:1–2), which helps highlight how faulty the assumptions on which the whole ‘deep time’ concept rests really are. Dr Don Batten brings biblically consistent answers to one Christian struggling with ‘deep time’.

Anthony C. from Australia writes:

Dear CMI

My situation is I am a 100% serious Christian, converted from atheism 6 years ago.

I love the Bible and read and study it every day. At the moment I am writing a book, two books actually, on the subject.

I would dearly love it if the creation account in Genesis 1–2 was proven or even if I came across some more good evidence to back it up and refute the old-agers’ dating process. I’d especially love it if I got it in time to include reference to it in my book/s. The idea that the earth is 6 millennia old appeals to me on a number of fronts.

But the facts are:

Atheist scientists seem to believe unreservedly in the old earth and that the fossil evidence completely rules out the possibility of a young earth.

I’m not all that worried about that. But I also read of Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists) who also believe firmly in the fossil evidence of an old earth and who utterly refute the young-earthers’ position as unscientific.

Here’s one that I read recently-John Clayton: [Weblink deleted as per feedback rules—Ed.]

This guy actually supports the Genesis evidence but believes the billions of years happened in verses 1–3 of chapter 1.


The point is that he does not question the dating methods used by scientists to date fossils. And he sees no confounding evidence in the placement of tree fossils and all the other things that Walter Veith [a South African creationist prof.] alludes to in his defence of the Genesis account.

Now, that’s not the end of the story by any means. I’m quite happy to be convinced by you that there are YE explanations for the findings he talks about, which mean that a young earth is possible.

But it needs to be a thoughtful, exhaustive explanation on the part of the young earth proponent , not a few flippant, even a lot of flippant, remarks such as I hear in Kent Hovind’s videos (hugely entertaining tho’ they are).

BTW I have to say I no longer find Prof. Veith’s assertions on this topic credible, even tho I love his testimony and him as a person, simply because he is too dismissive of the evidence.

If he’s going to portray the serious beliefs of people who aren’t ridiculous, as ridiculous then I can’t accept that.

Their arguments should be treated seriously and methodically, one by one.

I know atheists treat us as idiots but that’s their problem. It’s bad science to appeal to —what did Shakespeare say—to split the ears of the groundlings?

Kent tends to do that too I have to say.

I’m not a scientist and I’ve never seen a fossil. Well I might’ve seen one or two but they didn’t help me on this question. I have to rely on sources like you.

I recently read a blog posting. It was Don Batten responding to a post by a woman named Nicole rejecting the Scientists choke on frogs article. Dawkins and the origin of genetic information.

Don’s answer was all I could have asked for. He addressed all her points, one at a time, respectfully and, it seemed to layman-me, exhaustively. I came away satisfied that Nicole’s points had been very satisfactorily answered.

That’s the sort of treatment I’d like to see given to fossils and the geological column etc.

For all I know you have done that somewhere already and I apologise profusely if that’s the case.

If so (or even if not) please tell me if you can: Why do most, or if not most, many, scientists believe 100% (it seems) that their dating methods are very reliable (not carbon dating, the other ones) and they show indisputably that fossils exist which are at least a million years old and a young earth is impossible?

Are they bluffing? Are they mistaken? Are they right? If they are mistaken, how so? What are they missing?

As it stands for now, I would not dispute an atheist’s claim that the earth is billions of years old, that dinosaurs lived and became extinct before man was created, etc.

I’d LIKE to be able to dispute it but right now I don’t have the grounds for it. I’m sitting on the fence, although leaning towards Young-Earth purely in hope.

I feel pretty safe in arguing against the theory that man evolved from protozoa and I’m happy to go in to bat on that one. But young age of the earth? The jury’s still out for me.

Hope this is not too long and you have time to respond. If not, I understand.

In our Creator’s boundless love for all of us.

Anthony C.

Radiometric dating is not objective science but sophisticated-sounding story-telling, essentially no different to microbes-to-man story-telling.

CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds:…

Continue Reading on