Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?

Don't try to change history Faith.

Pretty much all 19th century Western scientists believed what you believe about the age of the earth. They only very grudgingly changed their collective minds over time when they were presented with the overwhelming evidence. That's what science does and faith doesn't.

And can you point me to the actual evidence that those on your list supported the Old Earth? I'd be particularly interested in Spurgeon, Boice, Machen, Warfield and Hodge.

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "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." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

Verse 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment. The new born earth was wrapped in aqueous swaddling bands. In the first ages, ere man appeared, the proud waters ruled the whole earth. The waters stood above the mountains, no dry land was visible, vapour as from a steaming cauldron covered all. Geologists inform us of this as a discovery, but the Holy Spirit had revealed the fact long before. ...

First, we have dismissed atheistic evolution and have come close to dismissing theistic evolution as well. ...

Second, we have suggested that any view that makes the earth a relatively new thing (on the order of twelve thousand to twenty thousand years old) flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable.  Some would dispute this, of course.  But in my judgement the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.

Third, we have shown the possibility of God's  having formed the earth and its life in a series of creative days representing long periods.  In view of the apparent age of the earth, this is not only possible--it is probable. ...

The 19th century Princetonians, who regarded themselves as upholders of Reformed orthodoxy and of the Westminster Standards, expressed broad views of Genesis 1 which have frequently been discussed. In particular, neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1. The Princeton tradition refrained from dogmatic insistence on a single necessary meaning for "day" (yôm) in Genesis 1.

Westminster Theological Seminary has always seen itself as continuing to honor the Princeton legacy. This was confirmed by the founder of the institution, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, when he stated in connection with the days of Genesis 1: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time."

Professor Edward J. Young, often regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy in this matter, while holding that a chronological sequence is taught by Genesis 1, nevertheless made abundantly clear that chronological sequence should not be equated with or confused with chronological duration ...

... God, we are told, “created the heaven and the earth. 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.” Here it is clearly intimated that the universe, when first created, was in a state of chaos, and that by the life-giving, organizing power of the Spirit of God, it was gradually moulded into the wonderful cosmos which we now behold. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes.
...
Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe, two methods of reconciling the Mosaic account with those facts have been adopted. First, some understand the first verse to refer to the original creation of the matter of the universe in the indefinite past, and what follows to refer to the last reorganizing change in the state of our earth to fit it for the habitation of man. Second, the word day as used throughout the chapter is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration.
...
It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them.

Thank you VERY much for assembling all that information, I truly appreciate it and it's information I really need to know. From my point of view it's very sad but I still need to know it. My original post assumed, as I guess many do, that Christians holding Old Earth views must also be influenced by Liberal Christianity, that got started in Tubingen, because to my mind they both require bending the scripture to accommodate a worldly belief. So it's important to know that there are different sources of such ideas. Thanks again.

I would have said that YECism as you call it goes back to Ussher's dating of the age of the earth, I wouldn't have connected it with the SDAs. I thought, as I said, that anyone who accepted the Old Earth was thinking like a "liberal Christian" which was a theological trend that started in the mid 19th century in Germany. kbertsche's list includes some of the greatest names in orthodox Christianity that I wouldn't have expected to give in to the Old Earth.

So what does this mean though? They apparently think of the creation of Adam and Eve as a special creation of God, and not as the culmination of evolutionary processes for starters, right? BUT they also, or some of them, Spurgeon apparently for instance, from the link you provided earlier, seem to think that animals had lived for millions of years before human beings were created. From what Spurgeon said that doesn't necessarily imply evolution, just many different kinds of animals that didn't exist in the present, which I suppose he gathered from the fossil record, understood already as a sequence of ages, but it does imply that animals did die during those millions of years.

The problem, though, is that it's the Bible that's wrong, not the earth. If your faith rests on the Bible, then yes, your house is built on sand.

Geocentrism is a particularly bad example. While the Bible might not specifically dictate geocentrism, it certainly doesn't specify otherwise either. It's vague enough that you could shoehorn almost any shape of universe into it.

Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?

In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.

What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.

If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.