Those who accept evolution and debate with creationists try to persuade us with the evidence, but fail to realize that our histories are different. Evolutionists come to their conclusions because they assume the past has operated (for the most part) exactly as it does today. Their assumption seems logical in their naturalistic worldview. Creationists do not share that assumption. We have a different assumption about the past that stems from the Biblical explanation of history. We see four very different ages that the earth has/will pass through. In each age, we see reason to believe that many things may have operated differently than they do today. That is one of the many reasons we have to reject extrapolated data such as radiometric dating methods. Let me explain the four ages, and why scripturally the world may have behaved differently than today.
THE 1st AGE: Creation to Corruption
Creation (approx. 6000 years ago) to the Fall (first sin, probably very soon after the creation week).
God creates everything in six literal 24-hour periods. The created world simply pops into existence mid-life cycle. Trees are full grown, vegetation is ready to eat, animals and the humans are adults able to sustain their life. Think about the implications of things created mid-life cycle versus slow evolution would have on dating methods alone! The creation is perfect (“very good”). There is no death, disease, or decay. The world works much differently than today. A mist came up from the ground (Gen.2:6) to water the plants versus the current evaporation/rain model. All creatures were vegetarian (Gen.1:29-30) – no death, no carnivory. Humans were designed to live forever (the tree of life kept them alive until removed later). The pre-fall world was designed to operate much differently than the world we live in today, and therefore it is incorrect to judge that age by today’s processes.
THE 2nd AGE: Corruption to Catastrophe
From the curse following the fall (probably very soon after creation week) to the Flood (approx.. 4300BC).
After man disobeyed God, he put a curse on the earth (Gen.3:17). Many things changed: death entered the world, thorns came up out of the ground (but yet evolutionists say they are in the fossil record millions of years before man’s sin – a big issue for those who believe in a God-directed evolution), pain in childbirth, carnivory, etc. More than likely, many process started to resemble the decay we see in the world today. Many creationists believe that rain did not begin until the flood citing “the vault” of Gen.1:7 that separated the “water under the vault from the water above it” (there are issues with this model, but we will discuss that in a future post). Therefore the post-curse / pre-flood world introduced the concept of decay for first time.
THE 3rd AGE: Catastrophe to Consummation
From the flood (approx. 2300BC) to the return of Christ (end of time).
This is the age we are currently in. The world was drastically altered by the flood. Mountains raised, valleys lowered, scars of sedimentary rock layers preserving the dead all over the world. In this age we know for certain that radiocarbon decays at a given rate, starlight travels at a given rate, tectonic plates move at a given rate, etc. Evolutionists use the data they collect in this age to draw incorrect conclusions about the first two ages. This is why we disconnect.
THE 4th AGE: Consummation through Eternity
From the return of Christ (end of time) to all of eternity.
When Christ returns at the end of time he will restore a “new heavens and a new earth” (Rev.21:1). Christ will restore us all to the original design: perfection. No more death, suffering, or decay of anyway. This is the good news.
_____________________
When one properly understands that the way the world works today is not necessarily the way it has always worked, we can understand why creationists and evolutionists have such wildly differing perspectives on earth’s history. These perspectives are not rectified by comparing evidences. It takes faith on BOTH ends. They must have faith that their extrapolations reach into all of history, and we must have faith that the history recorded in the Bible is trustworthy.
Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the laws of the universe wildly change at any whim. I am saying that according to the historical record recorded in the Bible there has been times in the past where God intervened in the world – and that will always affect the natural world. Faith is necessary, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence. The evidence (rocks, trees, fossils, etc) all align with a young-earth view when interpreted through the above model versus uniformitarian assumptions about the past.
Grace with Salt 
https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-4-ages-of-earth/
“Evolutionists use the data they collect in this age to draw incorrect conclusions about the first two ages.” You have NO material evidence to suggest their conclusions are incorrect. Do you?
“The evidence (rocks, trees, fossils, etc) all align with a young-earth view when interpreted through the above model versus uniformitarian assumptions about the past.” Utter garbage I’m afraid.
I have already flagged my comments here (note the blatant censorship of scientific reality by the anti-science Answers in Genesis, who seem to think they can defeat the ‘Science Guy’ in a forthcoming debate about origins models) to you and other young Earth creationists in a recent email. Please see my posts here between 0.08 and 1.27 am GMT on 5.1.14:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=48233#p48233
Oh I forgot – YECs simply IGNORE or CENSOR facts when those facts come from any people who reject YEC dogma.
If you fail to attempt to refute the arguments in the BCSE community forum thread regarding tree rings, ice cores, and the like then others reading your blog post should I suggest simply dismiss your claims for the pseudo-science that they are, Tim.
I predict that on 4 February we will discover that Ken Ham does NOT have a viable SCIENTIFIC model, just doctrine and dogma that demand science REJECTION (because science refutes the opening chapters of Genesis if taken as literal, complete and accurate ‘history’).
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 10, 2014, 3:58 amAshley, I love talking with you – but normally at least half your comments have very little to do about my posts and more about promoting your own website activity. Perhaps no one here cares about the BCSE. If you would have read and contemplated my post here you would see why studying ice cores and tree rings from this third age tells me nothing about the first two ages. This post had nothing to do with Ken Ham or Bill Nye.
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 4:30 amYou mentioned trees. My recent posts mentioned tree rings.
You have no material evidence for your ‘model’ so try to focus on trivialities instead. Real science models are BASED on evidence.
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 10, 2014, 5:17 amWhy would a rational God create a complex system like the universe, with it’s intricate physical laws, only to ignore them all and pop everything into existence? That idea alone is patently irrational – and further, there is no scientific or BIBLICAL justification for it.
The ludicrous idea of ‘new earth creation’ isn’t at odds with evolution, it’s at odds with BASIC LOGIC and THE BIBLE ITSELF, by assuming the bible is a LITERAL HISTORY BOOK. Further, this kind of nonsense is embarrassing. Whenever ID supporters and old Earth creationists present a solid scientific case against evolution, new earth creationists have to come out of the woodwork and stab them in the back, by destroying the credibility of evolution skeptics with low-grade junk ideas about a 6000 year old earth.
It’s an endless frustration for those of us who realize that science and the bible DON’T conflict – to have people like yourself create an IMAGINARY conflict – simply because you either WANT it to exist, haven’t read anything else in the bible besides the first chapter of Genesis.
Do you know how many young believers and seeking ones this new earth creationism nonsense has turned away from the Lord by creating a fake conflict between science and the bible? Countless multitudes.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.” – Mark 9:24
How many spiritually new – little ones – have you caused to stumble on this blind crusade to present the bible as irrational and in conflict with science? There will be an accounting at the end of the age, and all those you’ve turned away from Christ will be remembered.
Posted by Steve H | January 10, 2014, 11:02 am“Why would a rational God create a complex system like the universe, with it’s intricate physical laws, only to ignore them all and pop everything into existence?”
It doesn’t matter if it’s irrational to you – it is what the revealed word of God states, and I see no reason to deny that scientifically and certainly not biblically.
“assuming the bible is a LITERAL HISTORY BOOK” – why wouldn’t I? Everyone in the Bible itself treats it as literal history. In fact if Genesis didn’t happen literally as written – then Jesus’s salvation message makes no sense. The good news is contradictory is God himself created the world full of death already. Death is the result of MAN’s sin.
“those of us who realize that science and the bible DON’T conflict” – please explain how thorns are a result of the curse + found in the fossil record millions of years before man appeared on the sin? Is the Bible wrong, did God lie, or would you rather wave a magic hand – call that verse metaphor and continue to believe the way you want vs. what the bible actually says.
“How many spiritually new – little ones – have you caused to stumble on this blind crusade to present the bible as irrational and in conflict with science?” – people are turning away from God and his church in DROVES because of this issue. My crusade is to show them that they don’t have to. I too believe the Bible is in accord with science – I just define science differently. I see a BIG difference between operational science (testable/repeatable/observable) and historical science (assumptions about the past outside of observation). Most do not admit that difference.
I approved this comment, but it was borderline disrespectful. If you watch your tone in future comments I would LOVE to discuss this more with you.
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 2:34 pm“I just define science differently”. YECs CERTAINLY do that..
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 10, 2014, 4:28 pmSo, by that literal translation of Genesis 1:29-30 are we to conclude that there were no poisonous plants?
Posted by joejmz | January 10, 2014, 7:00 pmPoison probably either worked differently then, or bodies were less prone to poison’s effects since we were closer to perfection.
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 7:06 pmOK, two questions:
Were animals also perfect?
If man was perfect how could he sin?
Posted by joejmz | January 10, 2014, 7:44 pmI don’t think you are understanding this idea of “perfect” correctly. I am not saying the animals or people were perfect and could never do anything wrong. I am saying they were created perfectly. Like a pristine car that just comes off the assembly line. It checks out perfect. Then we get a hold of it… and drive it into the ground. Does that make more sense?
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 7:48 pmBut even a pristine car will be damaged by having diesel poured into its tank it if’s a gasoline-powered engine.
I believe when God declared His creation was “Good” at the end of each period is because it was exactly as it should be for His will to be done, and His will included Adam and Eve disobeying Him and eating from the Tree, otherwise He would not be omniscient. So, neither the universe, the Earth, the plants and animals, or man were flawless or pristine, they were perfect for the purpose God had for them. Perfection requires a purpose.
If I build a completely spherical ball, with a flawlessly smooth surface, is it perfect? Not if I want to play regulation baseball with it. Then the perfect ball is actually not quite spherical and has leather grain and stitching marring it’s surface, but yet it is perfect for playing regulation baseball.
I don’t believe a proper reading of Scripture requires that the laws of physics or biology were significantly different, if at all from what they are currently. I don’t believe that Scripture and rational thinking/science are at odds. I don’t believe we need to force unfounded assumptions on the evidence, that a proper reading of Scripture does not require us to believe God would lie to use by having the light from objects millions of light years away be created already here. I do believe that too many of the assumptions forced on “scientists” by their adherence to ontological naturalism are at odds with Scripture, but they are also at odds with logic, reason, and the scientific process.
Posted by joejmz | January 10, 2014, 8:04 pmGood comment. Two things I would take issue with. I ALSO do not believe scripture and science/reason are at odds, so you don’t get a monopoly on reason there. Also you say “I don’t believe a proper reading of Scripture requires that the laws of physics or biology were significantly different”. This is very definition of miracles – defying the natural laws. If you honestly do not believe that the bible describes miracles – then your distortion may be much bigger than creation/evolution.
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 8:08 pmNice try, but miracles, by their very definition, are deliberate actions by God which defy the way things normally work; which in turn indicates their is a particular way in which things normally work. I was by no means denying miracles, I was pointing out that we can trust that the light from objects millions of light years away has taken millions of years to reach us because that is what God established. If this is not so, then the very basis for reason, something God invites us to do with Him, is nonexistent. If we can’t trust God for the light we see, how can we trust Him for anything, including Salvation?
Posted by joejmz | January 10, 2014, 10:16 pmI think the only thing we can say for certain is that light travels at a specified rate TODAY, but we can’t really know for all of history. In fact, Einstein himself was not convinced that light travel was a constant rate. Another explanation I’ve heard is that a “light year” is not a measurement of time, but a measurement of distance. Also read up on Dr. Jason Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention) for more reasonable possibilities with distant starlight.
Posted by Tim | January 10, 2014, 10:21 pmI find articles like this very interesting, Tim:
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/01/10/peat-bog-chronicler-of-human-history/
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 11, 2014, 10:24 pmAgain, a tad off topic, but okay. I prefer articles on peat like this one: http://www.icr.org/article/6093/
Posted by Tim | January 11, 2014, 11:33 pmThese people are science haters. Are you too?
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3423
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 12, 2014, 12:17 amLikewise this one:
http://www.greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1
Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | January 11, 2014, 11:21 pmI think I’ve explained my problem with this reasoning before. Basically, if the universe operated in a fundamentally different way in the past we would expect to see evidence of fundamentally different processes occurring. We should find freakish rocks and fossils that can’t be explained using the forces we see today because they were not created by the forces we see today.
Yet all the evidence we find is consistent with the forces of the past operating the same as they do now. Which means that either:
1. The freakish force time left no evidence, in which case it can never be proven to have existed
2. It did leave evidence, but by coincidence it is identical to the sort of evidence left behind by modern forces; in which case the freakish time can never be proven to have existed.
3. The forces of the universe are the same now as they always were.
Posted by Adam Benton | January 21, 2014, 4:12 pmIt’s option 2 in my opinion. I believe the time doesn’t play an issue as much as the process. We actually believe in the same processes just dispute the time it has taken to do them. We both agree that the Grand Canyon was formed by water, we disagree on how long it took.
Posted by Tim | January 23, 2014, 2:49 pmSo I was mistaken; and you think that most of the historical evidence (geology, fossils, grand canyons etc.) was not formed during the period when the forces of nature were different, explaining why there is no evidence of such differences in the way the world worked? Is that a better description then?
Posted by Adam Benton | January 24, 2014, 11:25 am