Avoiding a Dangerous Trap

1/1/1999
by Dr. Hugh Ross

Have you ever wondered why most Christian astronomers reject a young-universe interpretation of Genesis? The answer has to do with Scripture and theology, as well as with science. In my book Creation and Time (not to be confused with the book by the same title subsequently produced by Van Bebber and Taylor), I state that the rules of biblical exegesis support long creation days, an old earth, and an even older universe.' If the creation periods are interpreted as six consecutive 24-hour days, other books of the Bible and other chapters of Genesis become contradictory.

Continental Landmass Growth And The Genesis 1 Chronology

10/8/2007
by Dr. Hugh Ross

Thanks to a spectacular new discovery concerning the geophysical history of the earth, one more detail in biblical author Moses’ chronology of Earth’s creation history has been scientifically verified. The breakthrough yields yet more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible’s words and message. First, let me offer some personal background for this discovery.

Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 1

4/1/1995
by Ronald L. Numbers

Despite a few helpful attempts to trace the development of vocabulary in the public discourse about Darwinism, no one has yet looked closely at the deployment of the terms "creationism" and "creationist" in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 2

4/1/1995
by Ronald L. Numbers

To compound the confusion about special creation [Was it a recent, six-day phenomenon, an ancient day-age phenomenon, or a dual phenomenon with a gap between "the beginning" and Eden?], its most vocal scientific proponents disagreed markedly over the number of supernatural interventions required.

Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 3

4/1/1995
by Ronald L. Numbers

Such efforts (as "flood geologist" Dudley Joseph Whitney's) to co-opt the creationist label did not go uncontested for long, in part because evangelical scientists who did not subscribe to flood geology could ill afford to have their constituencies view them as non-creationists.

Deep Core Tests For The Age Of The Earth

7/1/2005
by Dr. Hugh Ross

The clash between young-earth and old-earth creationists can seem bewilderingly technical at times. Is there any easy-to-understand scientific data for determining whether Earth is young or old?

Exploring The Extent Of The Flood: Part One

1/1/2009
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

In my years of speaking and writing on science-faith issues, I've discovered only one topic that stirs more heated debate than the age of the universe or the days of creation, and that's the Flood of Noah's lifetime. Often this event is called the Genesis Flood, and yet multiple biblical passages, in addition to the initial narrative (Genesis 6-9), shed light on what occurred and why.

Exploring The Extent Of The Flood: Part Three

September 1, 2009
Dr. Hugh Ross

Exploring The Extent Of The Flood: What The Bible Says: Part Two

4/1/2009
Dr. Hugh Ross

The previous issue of New Reasons to Believe addressed the extent of the Genesis Flood as indicated by references to the entire “world.” In both its linguistic and historical context, world in the Genesis passages refers not to the entire planet but rather to the “world” of people. So the Flood could have been worldwide without being global.

Historic Age Debate: Beginning Of Time

7/14/2008
by Dr. Millam

Previously, we noted that the church has unanimously taught the doctrine of creation ex nihilo throughout its history (parts 1-4). This was considered fundamental doctrine and was even included in key creedal statements. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo does, however, have one curious implication: a beginning of time. In other words, if matter has a beginning (i.e., is not eternal) then shouldn’t time have a beginning as well?

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 1 (of 4)

June 16, 2008
by Dr. Millam

On October 2007, I began a TNRTB series discussing my research into how the church has understood Genesis 1 and the age of the earth throughout its history. The first two articles gave a quick overview of this topic (see “Overview,” part 1 and part 2). From here on, this series will focus on how earlier theologians interpreted specific Bible verses or wrestled with issues pertaining to the age of the earth.

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 2 (of 4)

6/23/2008
by Dr. Millam

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) has been firmly and uniformly taught throughout church history and was declared in important creedal statements (detailed in part 1). To understand why this was such a vital doctrine, we need to first consider the contrasting view prevalent throughout the Greco-Roman world at the time of Christ.

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 3 (of 4)

6/30/2008
by Dr. Millam

The most important biblical doctrine related to creation is creation ex nihilo, which means “creation out of nothing.” This theologically fundamental belief was taught in important creedal statements [part 1]. It represents a clear line of demarcation between Christianity and Greek philosophy, which held that matter was eternal [part 2].

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 4 (of 4)

7/7/2008
by Dr. Millam

Parts 1-3 of this series have documented the vital theological importance of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”). Now it is time to consider its impact on science. Three specific examples will be considered here.

Introduction To The Creation-date Debate

2/17/2009
by Lane Coffee and Darrick Dean

There are a wide variety of types of creationists in Christianity. By types we mean different interpretations of the days in Genesis. Two overarching views are young-earth and old-earth creationism. Reasons to Believe and others have shown (see links within this article) that it and others believe young-earthism is not the literal interpretation of Genesis and is wrought with interpretational and scientific problems. This article will attempt to introduce readers to this position and why we believe it is valid.

Noah’s Flood: A Bird’s-eye View

7/1/2002
by Steve Sarigianis

Ms. Johnson smiles and settles her class for the week’s lesson. She opens the Bible on her lap and begins to read the story of Noah's flood. Her first-graders sit cross-legged on the floor, wiggling a little but listening quietly.

Rapid Post-flood Speciation: A Critique Of The Young-earth Model

8/25/2004
by Greg Moore

Creationists disagree on the extent of Noah’s Flood. The main reason young-earth creationists insist the Flood was a global event is their model demands it. The Flood is the mechanism they use to explain the earth’s geological features. Rather than forming over millions or billions of years as most scientists believe, young-earth creationists maintain the earth’s features are the result of global floodwaters and processes that accompanied the Flood, like erosion, volcanism and tectonics.

Responses To Young Universe "answers"

1/1/1999
by Dr. Hugh Ross

Those who hold the young universe view have offered the following statements to answer questions about this theory. After each statement is a response.

Testing Flood Geology

7/14/2010
by Dr. Jeff Zweerink

Did the bulk of geological features (canyons, mountains, valleys, etc.) form as the result of a single catastrophic flood a few thousand years ago? Were they formed solely by much slower gradual processes? Or were they formed by a combination of catastrophic and gradual processes? A 2002 flood in Texas provides a tool to evaluate the method by which individual canyons formed.