I would say that that is possible yes.

Edit: Give or take fifty million years as the current scientific method suggests.

Here, I did a quickie search and came up with this...it's Google doing this.

The German scientist Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), for example, calculated that the Earth was created in the year 3993 BC and Isaac Newton, (1642-1727) believed it to be 3998 BC, but two people famous for dating the age of the Earth were James Ussher and John Lightfoot.

The first edition of the Encyclopedia of Britannia 1771 talks about the general church view, and Christian scientists were in the church, of a young earth. It has been the general view of believers for almost 1850 years.

Yeah...we disagree.

Have you heard of Argument from authority?

Go on.

Unless you provide evidence which contradicts the existing evidence and explains why it doesn't prove what the vast majority of geologists think it proves, you don't get to "disagree."

It wasn't a trick question.

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong.[1] The argument can be considered sound if the authority is an expert and when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, and if the argument does not rely on the authority to establish truth.

And this may be the problem with your particular stance concerning a young earth.

Their information or views may be antiquated as some of them likely are.

A likely evolutionary step in human discovery and understanding to the present day.

You've got to be kidding, right? I put up an article for, primarily believers to read and wrestle with, and a torrent of vitriolic posts follows. I have disagreed politely with people, and I'm called ignorant and a gaslighter, and other things. If people reject Christ, do you think on judgement day they'll be able to get away with "But Tom put up an article about an in house controversy on OE, YEC, and it upset me, so I rejected Jesus, it's Tom's fault". To say anything about Christ these days sets unbelievers in a tizzy, pretty much like Jesus Himself, had to withstand the vitriol of unbelievers, or Paul being stoned for preaching the gospel.

I have no problem with operational science, the kind that makes stuff, that's different from historical "science" that generally tries to determine origins, that I have a problem with.

I took my Seiko watch off and handed it to my young earth brother in law.  
“You tell God what time it is!” I said “I’m not that bold!”

None of us know what time schedule God uses.  It certainly isn’t our puny time clock.  That is man centered hubris.

Young earth versus old earth theories has nothing to do with the salvation process in Christ.

Not one thing.

If God through His word or Spirit told me the absolute then I would absolutely believe.

Yet, He has not.

The Bible simply states that there will always be great mysteries out there for man to seek.

So, it is logical that science would have a part to play in all of this as well.

The Bible also states that God is the giver of all things.

It doesn't say in just some things.

So, when do Adam and Eve and the fall fit into those billions of years?

Word.

The authority is God, the fallacy doesn't apply to Him. Since the vast majority of people, including here, don't actually do "science" are they appealing to the authority of secular scientists unreasonably?

That wasn't the issue, bad deflection. That's what they believed back then, I agree with them.

You know, at this point I don't think we're engaged in coherent conversation.  Have a good one.

By dogma I mean dogma, and by science, I mean science. They are two mutually exclusive approaches to the pursuit of truth. One cannot be dogmatic and scientific about the same thing at the same time, that's why the magisteria never overlap no matter what your perspective is.

No, science is the alternative to dogma. There is no parity between belief in an authority of incontrovertible truth and belief in a theory built on observation and experiment, reason and evidence.

One is always subject to a better theory or better evidence, the other is not.

Mankind has not been around for that amount of time. Man is a relative newcomer on the order of creativity by God. I would say that mankind is only been around about twenty thousand years or so existent, but no one really knows how long except that he is relatively new. The Bible states that he is relatively new as well.

No, it's not hubris, it's actually humbly taking God at His word. He revealed the bible to us that may know something about Him. Believing that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is faith not pride.

I disagree, people in the "church" are trying pretty hard to undermine the idea that Genesis is history. The history of Adam and Eve and the fall, are the foundation on which the way of salvation is built. Death entered through Adam, but OE creationists have a real problem inserting billions of years into the bible narrative. If Genesis isn't literally true, the gospel falls.

I suppose not, you too.

The quotes there don't really say flat earth.

Ok, I just don't believe that "dogma" and true science contradict each other.

If the earth is a babnaner then my entire concept if scale is flawed.

Of course not.  Evidence of animals that are now extinct, some of which were buried rapidly so that their skeletons were preserved, is in no way at odds with Genesis.

The bible says he was created on the 6th day.

So, how long were the animals on the earth and dying by the millions.

The primordial ooze theory of chemicals in a pool getting hit by lightning and creating amino acids that form life is strikingly similar to And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

"Metal illness", that just sounds so...secular. Anyway, did you read the article.

People that believe in the young earth fail to know how long Adam and eve were in the garden before the fall. Nobody knows how long they were there before the fall,  could have been 69 billion years.

Yeah, but God made the dust, fashioned it, and breathed life into it. Chemicals naturally rearranging into living things by completely unknown and unknowable natural causes is just a myth, IMHO.

Ever wonder why these mysterious natural causes aren't working today, in a more life hospitable environment, cranking out new life forms left and right. Very interesting to me.

Ah ha! Your dialog here is increasingly resembling that of a modified flatearf/bigfeet stealth-troll. Smug rhetoric and sophistry galor! Enjoy your narcissistic endeavor.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I do know that if you believe in God as the creator of our universe it's not like it would be a difficult task for him to create an earth with an existing "history".

It's no different than a video game.  In 2011 when Skyrim came out how many years had that world existed for?  By all ingame (or in universe)!observations the answer was thousands of years at least.

So, you're inserting 69 billion years into the narrative? Really? Secularists believe the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. So, did all the animals not die for those 69 billion years also?

I'm a Christian and I do as well.

Call me "compromised" if you want, but I believe God is the ultimate scientist and science is not there to refute His existence but to be the means by which he reveals himself. I think that to ignore all the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and instead focus on a literal interpretation of a few words in the Bible is simply foolish and even God would say so.

Some thoughts:

1. God created the Universe/Earth in 7 "days". What is a "day" to an omnipotent, all-powerful, eternal, being? You think it's "24 hours"? I think that's a ridiculous notion. I think that God created the universe in pretty much the timeframe science says that it was created in, and that a "day" to such a being could be millions or billions of our years.

2. The Bible was written to be understood by the people of that time. They didn't really have a concept of "billions of years" at that point. To say that God created the universe in a short amount of time, like 7 days just served to illustrate to those people that He is eternal. He's always been and always will be. The billions of years it takes to create a universe through all the "natural processes" that we have learned about through science would be a brief period for God. Logically, an eternal being would not necessarily care to "snap" something into existence. God created physics and all of the natural processes in the universe to be the means by which he created everything.

3. Some young earthers claim dinosaurs are a hoax because it doesn't jive with their interpretation if the Bible. IMO the fate of the dinosaurs is evidence of God. God created animals before humans. When he decided to create man, he couldn't exactly plop man into a world full of velociraptors and T-rexes. The dinos had to die off to make way for man.

I left the Catholic church because I believe that a lot of what those folks do is "missing the point" and spend too much time and faith energy on stuff that simply doesn't matter. I believe that when Christ said "this is My body/blood" he didn't mean that communion is LITERALLY bread and wine turned into flesh and blood. He meant these are symbols of his sacrifice and we should remember that sacrifice when we eat/drink/participate in communion.  The point is Christ died for us and we should remember that. The point is NOT some mystical transmutation of bread into flesh. All this young earther crap is just flawed interpretation/thinking and more "missing the point".

Our universe was created to run on natural law governed by mathematics, at least it appears that way. The whole quantum uncertainty does certainly give God the ability to direct his creation but that doesn't violate natural law. Every effect had a proceeding cause in our universe back to the original cause...

Now, God us a bit of a perfectionist. If he designs a natural universe then he is going to design it with a built in history back to the first cause.

So, God might have created the universe one hour ago and given us all our memories up to this point. He might have created it 6,000 years ago and given it the history we find in the fossil record.

Or he might have created it something like 14 billion years ago with the big bang.

But if God designed something with a built in history we can hardly blame people for believing that this history was real and not just "virtual."

The argument against this idea is that "God doesn't lie." But the argument is not that God lies, but that he did the logical thing which was to give the natural universe he created a natural history, as is to be expected.

Does it matter?

Sophistry? No, I was just trying to give him an honest answer. Some Christians I have known, do and have believed in a flat earth. I think they are wrong, but they are still brethren to me. I guess, Harry and I are the trolls these days.

Lol, your troll-job is falling apart, it`s getting a bit ridiculous at this point.

The generations of man is young. The earth, not so much.

God gave us science. Science was an attempt to better understand our creator. It's really not that hard to make modern scientific theory mesh with a book that is interpreted differently by everyone who reads it.

We also see more and more archeological finds and scientific discoveries which bring more truth to the word. For a long time we couldn't corroborate simple things like the existence of Pontius Pilate but they found some coins and a tablet or something that did recently. It was also argued that most crucifixions were carried out by tying the victims to a cross but then we found heel bones that still had nails through them...

A God that is endless. A planet in  space and time that is endless. Doesn’t really matter how old you think it is, and in the end has no bearing on your salvation.

But party on…

Fossils are not preserved bones.

1. "Yom" with an ordinal number with the words "evening and morning" means a literal 24 hour day. That's the way Christians have understood it for centuries upon centuries.

2. That is speculative at best, untrue at worst. You don't know what they really understood about these abstract concepts. But when the 4th commandment was given at Sinai, it says that God created in 6 days and rested the 7th. Do you really believe they would have been asking themselves, was it really 6 days or maybe it was really just long periods of time or whatever? As for secular science learning things about origins, well, I don't think they have learned all that much.

3. Red herring, what some Christians might or might not say isn't really relevant to the article...did you read it?

I'm glad you left Catholicism, but whether the elements are literally the body and blood of Christ, doesn't have mush to do with whether Genesis is literal history.

We have hominid bones outside.of africa dated to ~1.5 to 2 million years old with  Sahelanthropus is thought to be 7 million years old, modern humas are believed to be 150,000 years old and archaic homo sapiens 300,000 plus. We have sites like Gobekli tepe which shows advanced society and architecture almost 12000 years ago.

Who the heck knows what vast swaths of civilization got covered up when the oceans rose 400ft at the end of the ice age, most civilization thrives near the coast.

There is a whole lot out there which points to old earth.

Is your faith so weak that it rests on such a narrow interpretation of the word and a total rejection of what God has revealed to man about history.

What is a day to a being that created the sun and the moon and the earth?

Found the root of the problem.

It's a big universe, God may well have set the pieces in motion all throughout it and is cranking out new life forms left and right constantly.