Old Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In

This is a good book for parents and teens to read. It's informative and helps to understand what is wrong with the old earth argument from a Biblical standpoint and scientific. Recommend.

I found that the explanations and points of truth blew holes in the old-earthers arguments. A must read for biblical-creationists.

For Christians seeking a deeper understanding of God’s word, and especially those interested in Genesis/creation, this book is a must read. As a young earth creationist, it not only helped strengthen my view with many points I’d never even considered (like the importance of a worldwide flood), but it also shows in a clear light many arguments for old earth creationism and evolution, and where they fall short. It can be easy to get into the mentality that it’s obvious that your views are right, so it doesn’t matter what the other side says, but now more than ever it is essential to have an understanding of both sides when making any argument, especially when it comes to Christ and His word.

First, I find it interesting that the book centers around a "trial". The book was published in 2008 when AiG, the ministry that Dr. Lisle was with at the time was in legal dispute with another young earth ministry CMI. It was encouraging that in "Is Genesis History" both groups were sitting at a table together (it is 10 years later now) and such matters are in the past. I still can't help but wonder if this is a large part of why Dr. Lisle left AiG.Dr. Lisle states that "Old-earth creationists must be able to conclusively demonstrate that Scripture repeatedly not only allows for, but also implies, an age of the earth in excess of 10,000 years." Even young earth creationists have done this. One of the best defenses of gaps in the genealogies is found in appendix ii of "The Genesis Flood" Morris Whitcomb 1961 p. 474-489. I find their arguments much more persuasive than appendix c of OEC on trial.Dr. Lisle sates that personal attacks are unnecessary and unbiblical, and states that we should cast down arguments not people. This is too true. I wish Dr. Lisle had written this before he wrote the chapters on the flood (chapter5-6). You would think that the local flood view is the idea of Dr. Hugh Ross. But in "The Genesis Flood" 1961 on page 36, they go after Dr. Bernard Ramm for this. But in "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" 1954, Dr. Ramm states that "Although many Christians still believe in the universal flood, most of the recent conservative scholarship of the church defends a local flood." So go after the arguments, Dr. Lisle, not Ross, not Ramm, not the recent conservative scholarship of the 1950s, go after the arguments, and cast those down, not the people. By going after Ross on this you show the political motivation of your view.In Appendix E they state that "The big bang is the secular model of how the universe was formed." This completely denies the historical framework of the big bang in its entirety. The big bang was first proposed under a theistic worldview and Dr. Lisle knows this. The big bang gained dominance in the 1950s and was rejected by secular astronomers because of its theistic implications. There is a similar problem between those who hold a naturalistic worldview, and Christians who only view certain theories under a naturalistic lens. In both cases, it can be a blinder that keeps them from discovering the truth.The reason I have great respect for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are young earth creationists is that they are holding on to what they believe. They state in the book "God's Word clearly teaches a young earth and that settles the matter." If I became convinced that the Bible taught YEC, then I would hold on to it as well. But after comparing the claims of this book with what the Bible actually teaches, I strongly disagree and the inappropriate dogmatism of chapter 9 The Verdict and Recommendations does not help thier case. If truth is on your side, then dogmatism like this not necessary. My apologies to Tim Chaffey coauthor since I have been strictly using "Dr. Lisle".

I have read Chaffey before. This one I judge as plausible, but still indecisive when it comes to biblical proof and logic. Nonetheless, whereby I was originally leaning toward an older earth, it makes me hold fast that which I have until further notice. I notice that he is biblically strong but not in every instance. He seems to adhere to his denominational training at times; and that's where he comes up short, in my opinion. If a concept or question deviates from his denominational training, then he opts for the denominational definition, not always the true biblical leaning which he proudly touts elsewhere.One area that I disagree is in the rear of the book where he tries to address Gen 1:1 to 1:2. While I can agree that the Great Flood disturbed the earth's surface to an immense degree, but there is still too much in the fossil record to totally exclude an older earth. Point: it's not a hands down judgment either way, but there is only one real answer, I agree.The other issue that cracked me up is that he has the Adversary (Satan) falling all during creation week, making me think, "Wow that was fast", as if the angelic realm is on the same time schedule. This does not totally agree with scriptures; otherwise the implication is Creator seems to have failed with every creation event involving free will agents. Frankly, it took time for Satan to develop his dark side. And that alone made me suspicious of his certainty with the timeline. Even ancient alien theorists have artifacts that other corporeal beings perhaps besides angels have been coming to this earth before man, even modifying genetics. And he makes no mention of the war in the heavens either, which likely made the earth void and without form in the first place, and necessitated "replenishing."

I already have this book in paperback edition but consider it so good I had to have it on kindle as well because Christians who believe in an old earth either are not reading their bibles right or do not believe it and this book goes some way in exposing this