Bible Christian Creation

The Earth is young but it just looks old: Why Genesis days are not 24-hour days – part 2


So the most common argument I have come across is that the earth is young but God made it look old. Just like Adam was not made as a baby but as an adult, so it would logically follow that the earth could have been made the same way. But did that really happen?

On the first glance even though I strongly disagree with this position, I can say, yeah sure it may have happened. God is certainly not off- limits to deception. The lord does work in mysterious ways. What if he really made the earth and the entire universe 6000 years ago but made it look like it was 14 billion years old? Can he do it, well if he can do anything yeah, sure.

It is a clever position because it can neither be supported from within the scriptures, nor outside of it. There is no way to really test this claim. I could be accused of holding a similar position, which can not be defended by scriptures, sure, I grant you this. But the fact is, my position is based on observation and science, the only difference is that I am not treating the Genesis account as literal. But on the other hand, the idea that Genesis account of creation should be taken literally, demands consistency from within the scriptures. You can not at one hand say, that you are being consistent and literal with scriptures and then on the hand say that God made the Earth look old. It just does not hold water. The scriptures never give an iota of the hint that God made the earth look old.

I understand why people believe this, of course, no one wants to look crazy or silly, they believe it to be right and therefore they believe it.  I for one, do not doubt their faith and their love for Christ, not for a single moment. I think they love the Lord and stand up to defend what they believe in, even when the modern world is taking all shots at religion, especially the 6000 years creationist movement.

The problem is, you can not account for a lot of geological and cosmological FACTS if you revert to the 6000 years age of earth. My observation is, even when I was a YEC myself that I would not take the scientific data available. Because somewhere I thought they could be wrong. I also thought even if they right, it is partially so. A better thing is to hold to the scriptures. I also believed, that things like evolution and others scientific theories are just guess works at their best. Their is nothing concrete to support it. My idea was that even if there is 1% of doubt, well then its good to assume its probably wrong.

The problem was, I never questioned my view. And instead of reading out of the text and understanding its limitations, I read into the text. Yes, Adam was made adult, scriptures say that. When you read, God made the world (and he made it look old), now this is the part where you are actually reading into the text to fit it to what you believe to be right. The scriptures never even hint at this. But this is important to back up the YEC point of view. Otherwise it can not stand any scrutiny at all. This method is not always wrong either but the problem with systematic theology is, that it can string verses together and make a case for itself while totally forgetting the historical, grammatical context. In the case of Genesis it is apparent enough.

One important thing to note is that the Hebrew stories are written in a poetic fashion. Genesis chapter is in fact poetry. It sounds like prose when it is translated but it is what is called parallel poetry. And the point is, the poetic expression is often not the accurate one. It sounds okay but in essence it is not. For example, “the heart wants what the heart wants”, or “you are my sweetheart”. Does that mean that the heart actually thinks and wants something? no. What in the world is sweetheart? In reality these things do not exists as they are portrayed in their respective expressions.

The question to ask is, what is the point of the story and what is it trying to say? If you take the Genesis account you will realize that it is not the age of the Earth which is being conveyed but the idea that God created everything. It is not the mechanism which is being told but the omnipotence of God. That is the point of the Genesis account. Go ask a rabbi, what he thinks about Genesis one and I can tell you he won’t be teaching you that the age of the Earth is the point of the story. The story expresses creation. It is us who actually read into it what we believe to be true. The context of the creation story is God’s omniscience and omnipotence, not how the world was made in six days.

Anyway, back to the point. Please realize that when you say that the Earth is 6000 years old but looks 13 billion years old, it in actuality means nothing. Because what you are saying directly defies the laws of time and space. What must be realized it that our calculation of time and such is based on physical evidence, not imaginary numbers.

For example, why does distant moving away objects in space display the red shift? Why does start luminosity say about space time. Has God hidden some artificial lights out there which just makes these objects display such light shifts?

from wikipedia

Consider, the meter is defined  to be the distance traveled by light in 0.000000003335640952 of a second. And that is because we know the speed of light to be the same wherever we go in space. It may appear quickly or slowly depending on our relativity to the source but in essence its speed does not change. It is the same principle with which we travel in space or even in air. These are some of the most basics of our understanding of space and time. And if you think that this is just wrong because even though we see it old but it is young, then you are calling all of these findings as wrong because they are same principles with which we also calculate the age of the galaxy. Do you know if it would be wrong, then a lot of things in our experience would never work. We could have never landed on the moon, let one Mars. Consider using the same light measurements, scientists here predicted the landing of the new Mars rover and get this, it actually went as they had predicted. Now that is observational science not imaginary time stamps we are wrongly attributing to the heavenly bodies. the diagram to the left is based on observation and by the same principle we observe when our jets scramble the sound barrier or a swan swims in a lake. The same effect is caused by moving objects in space and we can observe it.

People like Ken ham had made almost conspiracy theories against science, because they read in the biblical text, which is not even written there. But because there English bible can not be wrong, oh, no sir, they would go on even neglecting the evidence that directly flies in the face of their beliefs. Ending it with “do you God’s word or man’s?”

What they do not realize that God’s word is creation and it speaks for itself if we carefully observe. We are not deceived into thinking an old universe is just because it looks old, no. If that happens then planes should not fly, because the measurements in appearance would be different than in reality. But then reason we fly is because the real is what we also calculate, the puzzle completes.

I would humble ask you to not only rely on your English Bibles but also science, common sense, physical evidence and proper context of scriptures to understand these things.

Original discussion links:

Why Genesis days are not 24-hours days Part 1

David’s Theology

Creation argument 

By John A. David

A student of theology, a bible teacher and a graphics designer. I ramble a lot about Christian faith, apologetics and atheism.

23 replies on “The Earth is young but it just looks old: Why Genesis days are not 24-hour days – part 2”

Go to YouTube type in. Earth is 6000 years old. Its 26 minutes long. Its how scientific studies on the age of the earth… well you will see. let me know what u think after u watch it!

I am sorry but because of the anti-muslim film, youtube has been banned in Pakistan temporarily so I can not watch it.

However I have seen lots of debates on both sides including those who try to disapprove scientific evidence as just bogus. Not sure if this is different, if you can post a link I may well be able to watch it when I have youtube.

Thanks for suggesting it. 🙂

@”I would humble ask you to not only rely on your English Bibles but also science, common sense, physical evidence and proper context of scriptures to understand these things.”

unless God gives the measurement, we can only measure as far as that.

in other words, man’s greatest telescope can only see as far as the light from the sun has travelled.

our finite mind, can only understand what is has been made to contain. it can reach its full capacity, but no more.

and yes, i agree with you. most christians read the bible and treat it like a ‘sacred’ appliance. they take one verse and makes a doctrine out of it. forgetting common sense and rejecting context.

definitely! “all things were created and made for Jesus and by Jesus” – Colossians 1:16
so all things -> including common sense and science. was made for Jesus.

– grace and peace

Thanks Rollie for reading. I am saying nothing else than what you have written only that to make science and Bible as opponents we are just widening the gap of intellectualism.

I believe God made our universe and others too if they are present. I just do not agree that it was done in 6000 years when there is heaps of evidence to suggest otherwise.

God bless you bro.

It just occurred to me that you are the one visiting my site from Pakistan, that should have been obvious to me but it was not. I am praying for your safety in these crazy times my brother.

I just want to make a comment about relying on science and observation, remember that “science” also says that we came from Monkeys, so how do you decide what is good science and what is not?

If God created Adam as an Adult, He would HAVE to create the earth old as well, otherwise what would Adam eat?

By the way, I am not advocating for a creation without God. I am simply saying that I find the YEC model highly unlikely.

Or, God made Adam, at a time when the earth had matured to a point where Man could live and eat 😉

On a side note, science does not say we came from monkeys. They say that apes and humans had a common ancestor. That ancestor was not a monkey or ape 🙂

I find it unlikely that we had a common ancestor with apes. Just like you have said that people read genesis and read things that aren’t there to fit into their world view, does science not do the same thing? There is no evidence of a common ancestor, this is just considered to be fact because science is right because the bible must be wrong. It’s the same as how some say the bible is right because science must be wrong.

In fact, what the fossil record shows is that species come out of nowhere and then disappear into thin air. Science says that there must be links that cause one species to become another even though this is impossible and has never been observed. Life forms exist with a limited amount of genes, they cannot make new genes and become something else. They can switch genes on and off in order to adapt to their environment, but a bird that grows a longer beak or more feathers is still a bird. It will never be a fish or a lizard or an elephant and I find it curious that we have found millions of fossils, yet we have not found a single one of these missing links. People just say “well, we’ll find them eventually, they must be there”, but how likely is it that we haven’t found a single one out of millions? The reason none have been found is because they don’t exist and this disproves Darwin’s theory right away. Even he said that if these missing links were never found, his theory would fall apart at the seams.

Fact is, people treat things like evolution as fact even though there is no evidence, only that it must be true because creationism is false. This is not good science, it’s biased. Furthermore, we did not know the carbon levels in the atmosphere more than 10 thousand or so years ago, so how can accurate figures be discovered if you don’t have a base level of carbon for that time period? It’s all guess work. It’s hard to know what is true and what isn’t, there is bias everywhere even in science and especially in any area that could disprove God. None of it can be proven or disproven.

Furthermore, there is also some evidence to the theory that the universe is holographic and not infinite at all, but just an illusion. There is also a theory that we are all living in a computer simulation. A scientist discovered computer code hidden in superstring equations; in other words, in space. It is the same exact computer code used in web browsers. Just something to think about. I personally believe there is validity to both.


I’m curious how do you account for the substantial amount of Biblical evidence that would stand contradictory to your view of the length of creation. Scripture seems to be a lot less vague on this issue then people assume.

For instance. Out of all the Hebrew words that could have been used to describe a day as an age of time, the author used the only Hebrew word that could be used to mean a literal 24 hour day.

If the days are really ages, the n how long was God’s age of “rest” is He still resting now?

How would you handle other Scriptures that speak of a literal seven day creation? Exodus 20″9-12, 31;15-7

If the universe was created and left to go on for a long time, and God later made Adam and Eve then how does mark 10:6 fit in? “”But from the beginning of the creation ‘God made them male and female.’”” (Granted it could be argued what would mean “beginning”)

Honestly my biggest concern with sciences view on the earth being old is that much of the evidence is claimed out of fossils that supposedly were around for far longer than we could even explain for Adam and Eve to be on the scene. Sciences views on the age of the earth would require us to then believe there was death before the fall in the garden.

I hope my comment doesn’t come off to strong. Honestly I usually don;t go into these kinds of discussion, and I certainly do not lose sleep over it, but I do enjoy hearing where others come from on this issue. I personally hold to a young earth view even though I realize I don;t have all the answers.

I hope you are doing well!

Thank you for reading Fletcher. I welcome your feedback. please see my latest post as I wrote it keeping your points in mind.

I appreciate the positive vibes, bro :p

I realize that even I may not have all the answers, I hope to learn more. This topic is trivial when compared to the fact that we one in Christ. In apologetics however this changes somewhat. Anyway, good to have your thoughts on the subject :).

Good post. I totally think a lot of people from both sides of the argument miss the key point you made.

GOD DID IT! Regardless of how he did it. He did it. His time frame means nothing to us. If it was a literal week or billions of years. He did it. That is where I rest my faith and hope.

Also look at the Sabbath and references to the Sabbath stating If God can do all this in a 6 day time frame and the 7 the day rest. Why do we need to work 7 days a week? Why does God command us to work 6 six days but keep the 7th holy?

just a though I had now. we know God is not bound by time, and God created time.


was there a concept of a 24hr time before the Fall of Adam? were they enjoying God’s different time format? or their time was based on 24hr interval?


the 24hr time came after they were kick out of the garden?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s