Three points here:

1. I don’t think many realize that is not just Genesis 1&2 that are in question here. If we try to harmonize an old earth and the rest of the current scientific consensus on the history of the earth, human anthropology etc., we will have to deny the fall, the flood, the tower of babel, the geneologies of Genesis 5&11 and many other details of the book of Genesis. The framework, day-age and analogical views are not new interpretations of scripture, they are denials of scripture. Whatever happened to the analogy of faith and the perspicuity of the scriptures?

It is no surprise that the authors (at least two of them to my knowledge) deny a worldwide deluge as well. Why? Because it is impossible to believe in an old earth and also incorporate the biblical flood for many geological/anthropological reasons. There is a simple arguement why the earth cannot be old. The scriptures say it is young. A backup to this is that the scriptures also say there was a flood that destroyed every air-breathing terrestrial creature on the planet and covered every mountain. If your theory of earth history denies this then you need to re-evaluate your position and determine where you made an incorrect inference from the evidence.

2. The authors have not come to grips with their bondage to the uniformitarian mindset. Uniformitarianism is incompatible with the scriptures but is presupposed in geology. The key presupposition to correctly interpreting all of geological history is to understand the ramifications of these three events: creation ex-nihilo in six days, the fall and its after-effects, and the Noachic deluge and its after-effects.

3. The authors have made a glaring error in their scientific arguement for the second geological example. I I am waiting to see if anybody notices while I prepare an offical response.

There is another possibility … supernatural.
God could have caused history to occur prior to Adam and at a pace more rapid than “normal”. Let’s not put God in a box just because we can’t figure out exactly how He did it. He is, after all … God. Let’s not limit God only to things we, with our by definition limited intellectual capacity, can conceive of.

Answered the old earth new earth question once and forever.

Is Waltke consistent, but others, accepting old earth but still holding to a historical Adam, inconsistent ?

The article also seems to say that we must listen to certain (evolutionary) views about the age of the earth (old age) more than the other view (young age). On what grounds ?

And, why not also listen to that growing body of theologians and evolusionist proclaiming that Adam was not historical ? Where will MR draw the line, and how do you determine who to listen to, democracy: if the most theologians/scientists deny it, then it is correct ? (contra Ex.23:1-3)

And, why then do we only believe the evidence of certain theologians and certain scientists on certain issues, and not on other issues such as the resurrection. Why do we not listen also to the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of liberal theologians and scientists who ‘confirm’ that people cannot be raised from the dead, it is unscientific. Yes, “a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor”, and has confirmed that people are not raised from the dead. So, maybe the Gospels are trying to teach us something else than that Christ bodily and physically and historically raised from the dead, contra 1 Cor.15 ?

Where do we draw the line what to accept from modern science and what not ?

You write: “Likewise, in the present controversy, a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor.”

In the present controversy, over a long period of time (and still continuing), it becomes more clear that there are many theologians and scientist who reject (or compromise) the tradional view of Genesis 1 and especially the length of the days, who are also now starting to deny the historical Adam and the historicity of Gen.1-3.

Meanwhile, I do not know of any theologian or scientist (past or present) that holds to the traditional view of Genesis and the length of days and a young earth, that in any sense deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3 or Adam. Indeed, they hold even more firmly to the faith once delivered (Jud.3)

Prov.4:23 indeed.

Once again, how do you decide what theologians/scientists to believe on a certain issue, and who not to listen to (The ‘creationist’ theologians and scientist has the same degrees and academic pedigree, why are some biased against them and prefer the atheistic and theistic evolutionist theories more ?)

In Noah’s time the the majority, and it was a great majority, could see no ‘evidence’ for a coming world wide flood, but Noah was right according to Special Revelation. Once again Hebr.11:1-7.

It all boils down to, not the ‘large number of observations’ and how many telescopes and scientists using it, but through what lenses (pressupositions) both the theologians and scientists read both Scripture and nature, both special and natural revelation.

So, if it is so called ‘modern reformed’ to read Genesis and the rest of Scripture through the lenses of of modern (evolutionary) science; and ‘fundamentalistic’ to read nature/general revelation through the lenses of Scripture (Calvin, Luther, etc !), then I prefer to be a ‘fundamentalist’ in the biblical orthodox reformed historical sense of the word.

John 3:12 12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?