I have been a young earth creationist, but have been recently convinced that the universe and earth is billions of years old. Two things convinced me: first, the scientific evidence--radiometric dating, astronomy, seem pretty clear and mathematical. Second, the YEC responses. They theorize things like God speeding up radiometric decay a billion times during the flood, and God creating starlight in transit. Both of these theories, I think, would make God a liar, specifically, lying to scientists. For example, for God to create Adam as an adult would give him a superficial appearance of age but would not be dishonest, but if God created Adam with scars already on his body, and signs of aging like mutations or damage in his cells, that would be lying on God's part, or would give reason to believe he had not just been created. That is the position the universe is in.
Some believe in biblical inerrancy and an old earth, but hardly anyone doubts the Bible but believes in a young earth. That made me wary of YEC.
YECs often talk like its God's word against man's, but in reality, both general and special revelation (nature and scripture) are equally from God, and both are interpreted by human reason with possibility of error, so to pit one against the other is no different from pitting one part of the Bible against another (like, say, rejecting Romans if it seems to disagree with James). Rather, we should always seek to harmonize the two. I find natural revelation to favor an old earth more clearly than special revelation seems to favor a young one, so I believe in an old earth.
Hi Percivale. I'm not sure what what extent you were a YEC. You seem to have falling into it initially, but then got ahold of some OEC arguments, namely that natural revelation is equal to special revelation.
My journey was initially YEC, but then believing man was a latecomer into creation, moved to the Gap Theory. From the Gap Theory, I moved to Day-Age, noticing that the Gap Theory didn't deal so well with Ex. 20:11. Then I finally was shown the biblical arguments for young earth creationism and never looked back. So you could say I went full circle, but I originally adopted those OEC models for many of the reasons you described above. I just figured man's ideas about the universe were proven and we simply had to adapt the Bible to it.
Now you say you're interpreting natural revelation, but usually that's not the case. Most of the time, we're allowing others to explain the universe to us, and looking to men like Hawking, and Dawkins. Most of us aren't doing the actual research ourselves, but rather trusting the research of others. But we can research the Bible ourselves, and looking at the Genesis account, I can't think of a better way to express 6 literal days and a relatively young creation then Moses did in the Torah. It's about as explicit as it can be.
Now you say that if God created Adam with scars, that would be deceptive and I agree. And that's really where the debate lies. Young Earth creationists are in essence pointing out the lack of scars in creation, where OEC put forth what they believe to be analogous to scars. In my view, young earth creationists are doing more than an ample job in taking the scientific arguments off the table, and removing the stumbling blocks.
But ultimately, I think the debate starts and ends with the Text. Did death and suffering come from Adam's sin? or did God create a world in which cancer and predation and cannibalism and every other aspect of torment reigned for millions of years before Adam? For we find all these things in the fossil record. Yet after the six days of creation, God said, "
behold it was very good." (v. 31) If fossils were formed by the flood, then it makes perfect sense. But if they formed millions of years before Adam, we have a very significant theological problem. Does cancer, and cannibalism sound very good to you?
I also think about the restoration Isaiah and other prophets spoke about, where lions, wolves and vipers would one day live in harmony with the animals they once preyed upon. What a wonderful picture! But if God originally called this predation "very good" what is there to restore? Furthermore, in Genesis 1 we're also told that God created certain plants to be food for man and all the animals. Thus in the beginning, it was not intended they should prey on one another, but all be vegetarian. And this makes perfect sense in regard to the coming restoration, where predators will go back to eating plants.
Is. 11:7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
I often marvel about how much sense the Bible makes, when Genesis is understood properly. It all just comes together perfectly.
And then you have Christ's statement that Adam and Eve were made from the beginning of creation.
Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’
Yet according to the teachings of deep time, men came into existence at the very end of creation. In fact, were are just a small blip at the end of any visible time scale. So who do we believe? Men, or Christ? Who is more reliable?
I could go on and on, but like you, I believed in millions of years and sought to fit the Bible within them. But once I determined that men can be very wrong in their interpretations of the universe, and once I was free to rely on the text alone, there's just no other way for me to go.
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them
, your local Bible literalist. 
