The Age of Rocks, Not the Rock of Ages
Hutton’s insight that the earth was much more ancient than the Bible suggested, and that there was actually no evidential support for a global flood was met with several Church reactions. The first was of course condemnation and denial. But, as the physical facts are readily observed, a more reasoned response was developed. In fact there were three that are still encountered today; 1) the Gap theory, 2) the Day/Age theory, and 3) the Omphalos theory. The latter is named from the Greek word for bellybutton because a key argument of this notion was that Adam was created as a mature adult, and must have had a navel. We more often today hear it as the “appearance of age” theory- the idea that God created the earth with a built-in age.
The Gap theory was never particularly successful. It proposed that there were long periods of time between each of the Genesis days of creation, or at least the first and second days and those subsequent. The problem of the time between the origin of the universe and the origin of the solar system, about 8.2 billion years, might be accommodated, but we know that the earth and moon formed at the same time following a collision of the proto-earth and another planetesimal slightly smaller than Mars. The six day literalist is forced to deny all of this by their interpretation of Genesis 1:14-18. (My longer critique of creationist notions about the origin of the moon is linked below).
The Day / Age interpretation is the most easily reconciled with science. The days of creation in Genesis 1 are flexible in duration, and in the logical extension of this idea, are more metaphors than actual time periods. This is the interpretation preferred by theistic evolutionists, old earth and progressive creationists. They often cite 2 Peter 3:8, “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” It is rejected by young earth creationists.
Scientists use a growing number of methods to determine the age of things. Some of the most obvious are simply counting things that happen on a regular periodic basis, the easiest being annual events. Nearly everyone knows that trees grow with seasonal rings, particularly in climates with either a strong annual variation in temperature or precipitation. The width of the rings varies with the age of the tree, and the conditions it grows under. For example, tree rings are much narrower during droughts than when there is ample rainfall. In the tree cross-section photograph below from Henri D. Grissino-Mayer's “The Ultimate Tree Ring Pages,” we see that there is more than just an annual record of rain. These are not merely an “appearance of age,” but a complex history of forest fire, insect attacks, and survival. The annual deposit of sediments in lakes can be attributed to changes in seasonal temperatures, and river or glacial input. In the article from Science Magazine linked below, the varve record from a single Japanese lake is painstakingly analyzed yielding a year by year record for the last 45,000 years. This record includes detailed changes in the content and chemistry of 45,000 tiny laminations of sediments. Varves, tree rings, unconformities – these are not merely year counters, but they are records of histories; fire and drought in tree rings, lakes and ocean basins.
There are two critical points to be made here; the biblical argument for a young earth is in direct conflict with the physical creation, and the physical creation is not merely a construct of scientific imagination but an actual, physical record of events. The “Appearance of Age” creationist argument claims that this is all pretend- that God just made it look that way by miracle. Science does not contend with supernatural miracles. If the universe has been hoaxed (which is certainly what we would call it if a scientist altered all their results), the creationists might expected to explain why they think this, particularly when it is directly contradicted by the Bible.

1. Why is the earth the only planet that is sustainable for life forms?
2. Assuming you believe in the big bang theory, what caused the big bang to occur?
3. What is the purpose of life, is it just to be and then not to be?
4. Is this all there is in life? Bummer
5. Since people are all so different why arent we seeing planets with other types of life forms?
6. How do you explain archeological finds that validate Hebrew Biblical writings regarding Gd, Jesus, and then nullify it in the same sentence?
7. If the Bible is correct and one day is as a thousand to Gd is it possible that earth was formed in over a period of 6,000 years or 6 days in heaven...because as you know the farther away from earth you get the shorter time is...you did know that right?
"1. Why is the earth the only planet that is sustainable for life forms?"
Well the answer is that "as far as we have observed Earth is the only planet with life. It is quite possible that life existed on Mars at some point in the past, and it is also possible that life exists on the Jovian moon Europa. Since or exploration of other planets in the solar system has been quite limited it is far to early to discount. As for life outside of the Solar system, or exploration there is vastly limited (we have only been able to detect planets around other stars for a short period of time).
"2. Assuming you believe in the big bang theory, what caused the big bang to occur?"
We don't know... yet. The exact causes of the big bang is currently an area of great interest to Scientists who study it.
"3. What is the purpose of life, is it just to be and then not to be?"
On what basis do you assume that life has a purpose?
"4. Is this all there is in life? Bummer"
In what way? There is so much art, music, and science in this world to fill thousands of lifetimes. I'd also be remiss in not pointing out that if someone is dissatisfied with their life that does not somehow prove that there is something 'more'/
"5. Since people are all so different why arent we seeing planets with other types of life forms?"
This doesn't make a great deal of sense. Our exploration of the solar system is exceptionally limited, and our exploration beyond our own solar system is at it's earliest stages. Right now Mars and Europa are seen as the most likely candidates for harboring life (either now or at some point in the past). It is almost certain that Mars had liquid water at some point, so it was the right temperature for life to exist. Europa is seen as a candidate because it is believed that there is a liquid ocean under the ice (which would provide protection against radiation), and from our own observations here on earth we know that sunlight is not needed for life.
"6. How do you explain archeological finds that validate Hebrew Biblical writings regarding Gd, Jesus, and then nullify it in the same sentence?"
Which finds are those? One bit that has always stood out to me is the fact that the plagues and the Exodus are not recorded in Egyptian literature... or do you think that the Egyptians did not find it memorable that the oldest son in every family was killed in one night and that their entire army was drowned under the Red Sea?
"7. If the Bible is correct and one day is as a thousand to Gd is it possible that earth was formed in over a period of 6,000 years or 6 days in heaven...because as you know the farther away from earth you get the shorter time is...you did know that right?"
Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Yes time does travel slightly slower on earth then in orbit (the difference is so small that only the most accurate clocks can detect it) due to Gravitational Time Dilation. But that effect is very small. The difference in time between someone standing on Earth and someone outside of the solar system is only slightly greater. This effect 'flattens out' the further you get away from earth... so someone at the 5 light year mark and someone at the 10 light year mark would not be able to detect a difference in their measurements due to the presence of Earth.
Then there is the evidence that the Earth took more then six thousand years to form...
The argument he is giving is that the day age theory works better then the 6-day creation. "A day is a thousand years" is no more literal then when Jesus said you have to forgive a person 7 times 7. The advantage to the day age creation is not only that it agrees with science but that there is no way to explain how the writer of Genesis knew that the plants were created before the sun appeared in the sky.