The Bible does not say the Earth Is 7,000 Years Old

[BeyondET]

[Gen 1:14 KJV] 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:

The heaven spoken of here is the second heaven now? And are part of the cosmic clock. Science says it is only the Moon and Sun. God does not say that.

They are made on the same day. They are not extrapolated out of the celestial clock. They are part of it. We may be able to work the Days and years and seasons without them. Just like the weakest player on the team or the injured teammate is not playing. But they are still part of the team.

Peace and Blessings

Yes Sol is part of the milky way galaxy among many galaxies in the universe. Each in its own time bubble. The milky way galactic year is 250 million years on earth.

 

[BeyondET]

You are using science to explain. Scripture does it truthfully, accurately, and perfectly. 'Science' does not understand much about the 'world'.

Peace and Blessings

A telescope can explain alot, it's reality up close.

 

[BeyondET]

They aren't day "periods" - the word "yom" means "day" aka a "24 hour day" defined by a light portion and a dark portion.

The only symbolism associated with time is in prophetic passages of future events when a symbolic "day" is used as a symbol for a literal "year" as in the "70 Weeks" which all agree are not 490 days, but 490 years.

When it comes to declaring past events such as Creation Week in Genesis, there's no reason to interpret a "day" as anything more than just that.

Alrighty then, all of creation in one day hmm.

Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[JulieB67]

It's a easily seen pattern by anyone who isn't blinded by the enemy. All you have to do is read the Genesis story and you'd see God created the spaces in the first 3 days, filled them over the next 3 days, created one last space of time on day 7 and then filled it with Himself by resting in it.

Kind of reiterating some of the OP but Peter states that people are willingly ignorant that the heavens and earth are of "old" 6000/7000 years is not old. That's like 6/7 days in our Fathers time.

God states he did not create the earth in vain. He created it to be inhabited.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."


n Isaiah 45:18; "For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the Lord; and there is none else."

Void and vain are the same Greek word -
void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:

This tells us that since we know God did not create a ruined mess, we need to look at the word was in verse two and translate it back and we see that was should be translated- became, or come to pass.
was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.


Also why if you look at certain maps, it looks like a puzzle that use to fit together.

God takes us right to this moment in Jeremiah-

Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and, lo it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."

So we know we are definitely back at Genesis 1

Jeremiah 4:24; "I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

He caused all of the mountains to tremble and all of the hills moved lightly. Telling us everything shifted.

Jeremiah 4:25; "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Jeremiah 4:26; "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

Jeremiah 4:27; "For thus hath the Lord said, "The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

And he didn't. He started with the 7 day account.

But he shook the earth and will shake it again in the future-



And so the Genesis account is the current state of this age. That's what the 7 days are meant for. But God started at this point with a state of ruin. It wasn't always like this. That's why there's fossilized animals in the US that once had warmer climate, etc. Animals today that would likely live in Africa, etc.

But he started with the earth covered in water. God would not and stated he did not create it that way.

And we see that land is under that water-

Genesis 1:9 "And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:" and it was so


The bible does disagree with science on the age of the earth. Not talking about evolution but the age of the earth.

 

[Hawkins]

Our perception of age is based on the hugh assumption that planet is in its current position all the times, in terms of spacetime. The Bible clearly said that God ever (at least once recorded) 'froze' time to allow the Jews to win. We don't know how our dating methods shall work under that situation.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The problem is, your point is based on an interpretive fallacy. You could be right, but not with your argument. The idea that the Bible interprets "day" in only one way begs the question. If the Bible uses "day" in Genesis for periods of time, then your argument doesn't hold.

A word is determined by its use in context. The word "day" does not carry with it the necessity of being a 24 hour day, even though that is its normal use.

In English we use day freely as an "era," or as a distinct period of time. It can be used that way in Genesis too if we assume "day" can be used flexibly for an era.

Zech 14.6 On that day there will be neither sunlight nor cold, frosty darkness. 7 It will be a unique day—a day known only to the Lord—with no distinction between day and night. When evening comes, there will the be light.

What isn't a problem is the fact that the "day" is marked by "evening and morning" which even a blind man can see refers to a literal 24 hour day. God used 6 of them to make everything in our cosmic locale.

All other speculation is purely subjective exercise in sensationalism, the most sensationalist of all being that satanic idea that God took millions and millions of years to do what Scripture plainly says He did in just 6 days.

"Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." - Revelation 14

 

[RandyPNW]

What isn't a problem is the fact that the "day" is marked by "evening and morning" which even a blind man can see refers to a literal 24 hour day. God used 6 of them to make everything in our cosmic locale.

A 24 hour day is being used as an obvious metaphor for a category of time. Any "blind man" can see that, if the times don't even come into play until the 4th day.

Gen 1.14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

The passage here uses "evening and morning" as bookends for a day as a fixed period of time so that it is clear, when using the word metaphorically that God distinguished between different phases in His creation. If God had not yet set the sun and the moon in the sky to "mark days," how on earth are we to see the 1st day as a literal 24 hour period of time? It has to be metaphorical. The "evenings and the mornings" are designed to show that each period of time, for God, had a beginning and an end without being a literal 24 hour day! Each phase of creation was distinct in itself. Requiring a clock to time 24 hours for each phase of creation seems ludicrous to me.

All other speculation is purely subjective exercise in sensationalism, the most sensationalist of all being that satanic idea that God took millions and millions of years to do what Scripture plainly says He did in just 6 days.

God created the universe in a set of what for Him were 6 days, and rested on the 7th day. Do you think He finished up His rest in just 24 hours?

If you disagree fine. But let's not get to the stage of calling beliefs not our own "satanic?" There are good Christians on both sides of this.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Kind of reiterating some of the OP but Peter states that people are willingly ignorant that the heavens and earth are of "old" 6000/7000 years is not old. That's like 6/7 days in our Fathers time.

God states he did not create the earth in vain. He created it to be inhabited.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."


n Isaiah 45:18; "For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the Lord; and there is none else."

Void and vain are the same Greek word -
void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:

This tells us that since we know God did not create a ruined mess, we need to look at the word was in verse two and translate it back and we see that was should be translated- became, or come to pass.
was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.


Also why if you look at certain maps, it looks like a puzzle that use to fit together.

God takes us right to this moment in Jeremiah-

Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and, lo it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."

So we know we are definitely back at Genesis 1

Jeremiah 4:24; "I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

He caused all of the mountains to tremble and all of the hills moved lightly. Telling us everything shifted.

Jeremiah 4:25; "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Jeremiah 4:26; "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

Jeremiah 4:27; "For thus hath the Lord said, "The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

And he didn't. He started with the 7 day account.

But he shook the earth and will shake it again in the future-



And so the Genesis account is the current state of this age. That's what the 7 days are meant for. But God started at this point with a state of ruin. It wasn't always like this. That's why there's fossilized animals in the US that once had warmer climate, etc. Animals today that would likely live in Africa, etc.

But he started with the earth covered in water. God would not and stated he did not create it that way.

And we see that land is under that water-

Genesis 1:9 "And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:" and it was so


The bible does disagree with science on the age of the earth. Not talking about evolution but the age of the earth.

Peter's correct, but his words are meant to convey to us an awesome aspect of God which is that He dwells outside the bounds of time and space, unlike His creatures which do - that's all his words mean. How do we know?

Time symbolism is reserved for future prophetic revelation - not historic recounting of the past.

• The 70 Weeks are not 490 days, but years.
• Jesus would continue to "cast out demons and do cures" not 3 more days, but years.
• Christians would not have tribulation only "10 days" but 10 years of Diocletian persecution.

However, we can be sure that God created:

• the space of light on day 1 and filled it with Sun, Moon, Stars on day 4
• the space of sky/sea on day 2 and filled it with birds and fish on day 5
• the space of land on day 3 and filled it with animals and man on day 6
• the space of time on day 7 and filled it with Himself and waits every Sabbath for you and me!

 

[Phoneman-777]

Alrighty then, all of creation in one day hmm.

Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

My grandpa used to tell me about "in his day" - I'm pretty sure he was talking about the years of his youth.

However, if he'd said, "in the evening and morning of..." everyone would immediately understand he was referring to a specific 24 hour day.

Funny thing is that if not for the lie of evolution and the false Sunday "sacredness" of catholicism which Protestantism has swallowed hook, line, and sinker, not a single one of us would be questioning what a "day" in Genesis was referring to.

 

[Phoneman-777]

A 24 hour day is being used as an obvious metaphor for a category of time. Any "blind man" can see that, if the times don't even come into play until the 4th day.

Gen 1.14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

The passage here uses "evening and morning" as bookends for a day as a fixed period of time so that it is clear, when using the word metaphorically that God distinguished between different phases in His creation. If God had not yet set the sun and the moon in the sky to "mark days," how on earth are we to see the 1st day as a literal 24 hour period of time? It has to be metaphorical. The "evenings and the mornings" are designed to show that each period of time, for God, had a beginning and an end without being a literal 24 hour day! Each phase of creation was distinct in itself. Requiring a clock to time 24 hours for each phase of creation seems ludicrous to me.

God created the universe in a set of what for Him were 6 days, and rested on the 7th day. Do you think He finished up His rest in just 24 hours?

If you disagree fine. But let's not get to the stage of calling beliefs not our own "satanic?" There are good Christians on both sides of this.

There's nothing metaphoric in Genesis. Everything God built in the earth and sky is literal, hard, substantive reality...there's no need for us to go around "spiritualizing away" that which God plainly and literally stated.

I think the best evidence for the 7th day Sabbath is that we'll be keeping it every 7th day in heaven just like we're supposed to be keeping it every 7th day down here on Earth right now, according to Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta:

"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath."

 

[BeyondET]

My grandpa used to tell me about "in his day" - I'm pretty sure he was talking about the years of his youth.

However, if he'd said, "in the evening and morning of..." everyone would immediately understand he was referring to a specific 24 hour day.

Funny thing is that if not for the lie of evolution and the false Sunday "sacredness" of catholicism which Protestantism has swallowed hook, line, and sinker, not a single one of us would be questioning what a "day" in Genesis was referring to.

Yeah that's modern day slang, Yo back in the day.

I can make my meals in the evening and morning doesn't mean I am making meals for 24 hours a day.

 

[Diamond7]

To say the first days were literal 24 hour days

The Hebrew word of "day", "Yom" can be singular or plural. Just like people talk about the end of the world, when the world is not going to end, it is just the end of one age and the beginning of another. Science talks about six ages from the beginning of time.

 

[Strong in Him]

2 Peter 3:8

A thousand years is LIKE a day - LIKE.
The words AS or LIKE are a simile.

If God said he made the earth in seven days,

He didn't. He finished creating on the 6th day and rested on the 7th.

 

[Diamond7]

Moses was not a scientist.

Moses like Abraham had the best education you could receive in their day.

 

[RandyPNW]

Moses like Abraham had the best education you could receive in their day.

Yes, but that education Abraham had was not a science degree. Of course we'd all rather be prophets than scientists. But there is a place for both.

My point is not that Moses is exposed by Science as fraudulent. Rather, it is that his language befits communicating to a society not yet interested in scientific evidence.

And so, the story God gave Moses to give Israel indicates that Israel needed to know about God's word, that God had a perfect plan, and that even though Man blew it, God inserted into His word the cure for any possible ailment.

Christ preexisted the Creation, and was that Word. And as the Word he had the fix built into His creation, which in the case of human failure would result in Christ taking humanity on and bearing our sins.

None of this requires science. Neither do we need to know about the earth being a globe to understand that God judged the Cradle of Noah's Civilization, covering all land within sight with a Flood that destroyed the Civilization around him. It certainly did not require the destruction of the entire planet and all plant and animal life to accomplish this. God brought universal judgment to Noah's Civilization--period.

 

[I's2C]

Kind of reiterating some of the OP but Peter states that people are willingly ignorant that the heavens and earth are of "old" 6000/7000 years is not old. That's like 6/7 days in our Fathers time.

God states he did not create the earth in vain. He created it to be inhabited.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."


n Isaiah 45:18; "For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the Lord; and there is none else."

Void and vain are the same Greek word -
void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:

This tells us that since we know God did not create a ruined mess, we need to look at the word was in verse two and translate it back and we see that was should be translated- became, or come to pass.
was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.


Also why if you look at certain maps, it looks like a puzzle that use to fit together.

God takes us right to this moment in Jeremiah-

Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and, lo it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."

So we know we are definitely back at Genesis 1

Jeremiah 4:24; "I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

He caused all of the mountains to tremble and all of the hills moved lightly. Telling us everything shifted.

Jeremiah 4:25; "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Jeremiah 4:26; "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

Jeremiah 4:27; "For thus hath the Lord said, "The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

And he didn't. He started with the 7 day account.

But he shook the earth and will shake it again in the future-



And so the Genesis account is the current state of this age. That's what the 7 days are meant for. But God started at this point with a state of ruin. It wasn't always like this. That's why there's fossilized animals in the US that once had warmer climate, etc. Animals today that would likely live in Africa, etc.

But he started with the earth covered in water. God would not and stated he did not create it that way.

And we see that land is under that water-

Genesis 1:9 "And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:" and it was so


The bible does disagree with science on the age of the earth. Not talking about evolution but the age of the earth.

Exactly right and there is so much more but I only outlaid the basic to go through it all would have to mean going through the whole Bible, cant on a small platform as this. Glad to see some have eyes to see!

 

[TPop]

Yes, but that education Abraham had was not a science degree. Of course we'd all rather be prophets than scientists. But there is a place for both.

How do you know this? Because there were no universities and scholarships and diplomas?
Classes on Diversity, volunteer hours, internships, and BA's, Masters, and PHD's?'

You do not know if Noah, Moses, or anyone was as smart as Steven Hawkings. Certainly, they had more wisdom, common sense, and practical knowledge.

I think you are doing them a grave disservice.

Peace and Blessings

 

[RandyPNW]

How do you know this? Because there were no universities and scholarships and diplomas?
Classes on Diversity, volunteer hours, internships, and BA's, Masters, and PHD's?'

You do not know if Noah, Moses, or anyone was as smart as Steven Hawkings. Certainly, they had more wisdom, common sense, and practical knowledge.

I think you are doing them a grave disservice.

Peace and Blessings

I know there was little Western-brand scientific development in Noah's day. It doesn't take a Humanities Degree to know that. So no, I'm not doing any disservice to Noah. He doesn't need a Science Degree from a modern university to be respected for his version of the truth.

This has nothing to do with IQ. It has only to do with how the *language* is to be interpreted. If the language was not designed for a geography class, to depict the earth as a globe, then the word "earth" largely referred to *dirt,* to the *land* underneath their feet and perhaps as far as one could see with their eyes.

There was no effort to quantify how much soil there was, or to decide whether the earth was round or not. It all has to do with the language used in order to determine the intent of the author.

If you'll notice in the Creation account there was a simple depiction of a vertical relationship between the earth, the seas, and the heavens above, with the vapor in the clouds. There is zero effort at examining whether there was a curvature of the earth in this vertical depiction.

Despite the lack of scientific explanation the account is perfectly true. I'm simply stating the obvious, that the language was designed based on common observation in primitive times. This does not have to indicate error.

 

[TPop]

I know there was little Western-brand scientific development in Noah's day. It doesn't take a Humanities Degree to know that. So no, I'm not doing any disservice to Noah. He doesn't need a Science Degree from a modern university to be respected for his version of the truth.

Science is the art of testing. It can be done well. Bad science. It can be done by cheating, like the recent Harvard associated Cancer clinic research program, or it can be done as well as man can account for and perform. This renders Science beneficial and somewhat trustworthy, but not an authority. The Word and the application of it to the product is the authority.

So I back up to scripture before science. You provided a minus check in the capabilities column for Noah because of his 'science' ability. Did you not?

This has nothing to do with IQ. It has only to do with how the *language* is to be interpreted. If the language was not designed for a geography class, to depict the earth as a globe, then the word "earth" largely referred to *dirt,* to the *land* underneath their feet and perhaps as far as one could see with their eyes.

As you stated, science is not needed to discern what the earth is or means in scripture. We use scripture to interpret scripture.

There was no effort to quantify how much soil there was, or to decide whether the earth was round or not. It all has to do with the language used in order to determine the intent of the author.

And the Author, Jesus, created a man's head as a sphere. Fire has depth, breadth, size. A mountain can be climbed up and over. An apple is round. A lake is round with depth. The other side of an applied I cannot see is still there and spherical. A waterfall is falling water. Throwing a stone in water makes circles and ripples. The Garden was not 1 or 2-dimensional. Even before Adam, evidence, if looked upon, pointed to a 3-dimensional space and objects.

God did not then make the earth a sphere post-day 7. Creation mirrors itself All throughout Creation. Adam and Eve were not uneducated. Adam named everything. He had an amazing mind, vocabulary, and thought. Do not limit Adam's ability to not consider the other side of an apple that he cannot see and apply it to the 'earth'.

Adam did not need 7k years, 70k years, 700k years, etc. to explain his world. Neither did Noah. Abraham, Neither did Moses, Paul, etc. Old Earth is an argument to fill questions that never needed to be answered. Satan's accusations come in many forms. Satan accuses Jesus, in our minds, through supposed 'good' questions and concerns.

Only recently has secular man dragged Christians into believing in a trillion-year-old earth to explain what no one was ever concerned about before. It is a trap that breeds distrust in Jesus because of the answer science believes it is needed to explain. And Jesus Could NOT have done this in less because....because....because.....

It is because of science that Satan can use these questions.

Old Earth is at fault from the beginning to the end of its needs. And is a trap for unsuspecting believers.

If you'll notice in the Creation account there there was a simple depiction of a vertical relationship between the earth, the seas, and the heavens above, with the vapor in the clouds. There is zero effort at examining whether there was a curvature of the earth in this vertical depiction.

Agreed. But it was unformed land with unformed water above and Heaven where God is above that.

Despite the lack of scientific explanation the account is perfectly true. I'm simply stating the obvious, that the language was designed based on common observation in primitive times. This does not have to indicate error.

Language in scripture and physical evidence starting from the Garden with Adam is sufficient to come to the understanding that the earth is young. It is from Creation.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[RandyPNW]

Science is the art of testing. It can be done well. Bad science. It can be done by cheating, like the recent Harvard associated Cancer clinic research program, or it can be done as well as man can account for and perform. This renders Science beneficial and somewhat trustworthy, but not an authority. The Word and the application of it to the product is the authority.

So I back up to scripture before science. You provided a minus check in the capabilities column for Noah because of his 'science' ability. Did you not?

No, that unfortunately was your prejudgment. I checked off that he did not use the language of Western Science. I said it had nothing to do with either intellectual capability or the ability to speak the truth.

God did not then make the earth a sphere post-day 7.

Nobody said that. I was speaking about the language used and what its intent was.

Only recently has secular man dragged Christians into believing in a trillion-year-old earth to explain what no one was ever concerned about before. It is a trap that breeds distrust in Jesus because of the answer science believes it is needed to explain. And Jesus Could NOT have done this in less because....because....because.....

That's a bit judgmental. I'm sure some people wish to use Science to disprove the Bible. But many of us do not see a big divide between scientific inquiry and biblical truth. In fact, much scientific thought confirms the biblical account.

There are limitations to Science. How can Science explain the origin of matter and energy, of the very rudimentary particles that constitute matter? It can't. It can't explain Intelligent Design. Science just verifies history, which is, as you suggest, exploratory and sometimes wrong.

Old Earth is at fault from the beginning to the end of its needs. And is a trap for unsuspecting believers.

Okay, that's your opinion. Just not mine. I feel bad that you think scientific findings are a threat to your Christian faith, or to the Bible. I do not find the idea of an Old Earth to be a satanic conspiracy to get people to disbelieve the Bible. Some people may wish that or be motivated by that. But there are real Christians who use this Science, who see positive connections between scientific findings and biblical truth.

To study rocks and the transition from one form to another over time is simple science, and has nothing to do with one's religious presuppositions. Why would you dismiss radiometric dating?