I am very aware that all of the answers are not in yet, as science still has a lot of work to do in answering these questions.

I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation. Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence, and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.

It's important to note that I can only hypothesize, as can scientists, as to the age of the Earth and Universe, so here's my best guess.

The universe is old, very old, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands or even millions of years. This is why the matter that makes up the Earth and moon seem old. But considering the young-Earth evidence, it seems that someone stopped by this busy little solar system several thousand years ago and did some rearranging.

(I say "I think" below to humbly underscore the fact that I don't know all of these things. This is my best guess.)

I think God updated some of the satellite positions around the planets, most notably the Earth's moon. Hence the "astronomical" coincidence that the moon, when viewed from the Earth, can eclipse the sun perfectly. It seems self evident that it is not by chance.

He also made other changes to the solar system that are necessary and intimately related to the proper functioning of life on Earth. These changes explain the anomalies that we see pointed out in this video:

(Our Solar System)
http://urlbam.com/ha/u

I think God also rejuvenated the Earth, changing it in many ways in preparation for the life He would create on it.

The Biblical support for this hypothesis is as follows.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

This is pretty clear, and I think that God did create the Earth in the beginning, probably meaning that time/space was all created at the same "time" as it is necessary (so far as we know) for the existence of matter.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2)

This verse is mistranslated. The verse should read:

"And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."

Those in doubt (which should be everyone) should look up the words in Strong's. Don't believe me. It's important that everyone does their own research. It's enlightening and rewarding and builds confidence.

So, we have the Earth "becoming" a waste and a ruin. This implies that at some previous time, it was not a waste or ruin.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
(Genesis 1:3)

Now, I think verse 3 (shown above) occurs after a great deal of time. This means that I generally accept what Christians call the "Gap Theory", being that there is a time gap between verses 2 and 3.

I will also point out that this is the only place (that I'm aware of) that my belief differs from Hovind. Hovind believes in a young Earth, and he provide strong evidence for it, but in studying his case for young Earth, I believe most—if not all—of his points are easily explained by a "renewed" Earth, as I pointed out in the verse above.

I will also add that the Bible make references to previous Earth ages, and I think this is supported by science and is another point of validity for an old Earth, new creation theory.

Now, on the other hand, I must admit that this theory also leaves a few of the "On the X day, God created..." verses isolated, at least, at first glance.

So as we look at this, and admittedly (I'm still researching this little by little as time permits) you do find some interesting things.

For example, the first creation is light (Gen 1:3) and that creation is marked by the appearance of darkness and light:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
(Genesis 1:5)

The word evening here means "night" and is from a root that means "dusk". The word morning here is from a root meaning "dawn", which is the first appearance of light. Considering that days are measured by the absence and presence of light, this verse becomes more interesting than at first glance.

It is most important to point out that all of the creation days are written from an Earth perspective, meaning that they seem to be explaining what the Earth experienced (or what an Earth-bound observer would see) during this time. Keeping this in mind, verses like the Genesis 1:3 become easier to understand in that the Earth was probably completely dark and covered with layers of thick water vapor.

The verse that is generally speaking about the creation of light may have nothing to do with the original "creation" of light at all. Light was likely "created" much earlier in time, and in fact, the verse (Gen 1:3) does not say light was created. It says that God said "Let there be light." When we view this from an Earth perspective, it could mean that God allowed light to be on the Earth at that time, even though He actually created light at a much earlier time.

If this is written like the rest of these verses—from an Earth perspective (which would be logical considering the verses were written to be understood by a people who dwell on the Earth)—then things begin to make more sense. The same logic holds true for verses 14 through 16. Verse 17 further substantiates my "Earth perspective" theory.

Most of the remaining creation days deal directly with terraforming the Earth and creating life, all things that I suspect God has no problem doing in an Earth day (24 hours) with His own power.

I think this gives you a pretty good idea of my current creation theory, and I hope it answers your questions.


An interesting loosely related subject:

The Fourth Word of the Bible: Christ's Role In Creation.