Changes

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists.  For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists.  For example, believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism|day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism|day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

== Criticism ==

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible.  For example:

Meanwhile, [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible.  For example:

{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages.  Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.&mdash;[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55.  Emphasis in original.</ref>}}

{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages.  Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.&mdash;[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55.  Emphasis in original.</ref>}}

{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.&mdash;[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}

{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.&mdash;[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}