Apparent Age of Universe and Earth

[FallingWaters]

discussion started in Creationism...

 

[FallingWaters]

Hi, All:

I could not find a place to start a new thred. So forgive me on that.

Some YEC people suggested the concept of apparent age for everything that seems to be older than they like to see. A good argument is the creation of Adam and Eve as adults. Personally, I find nothing wrong with this concept. However, I like to know how would Christians who have different idea argue about this suggestion. For example, OEC must oppose it with good reasons. Anyone like to voice one reason to against it?

Hi! Welcome!

For future reference there are big buttons on the top and bottom left of the forums that say "New Thread"

Regarding the idea that the universe could be created with age: One has to ask why God would choose deception in the universe. Evidence of fossils is a good argument for this. Many other people with more knowledge on the subject might be better suited to answer these questions, but fossil records would show that many animals would have been created already dead and fossilized. It seems trivial to assume this. Some would say that the process that determines the ages of fossils has problems but if we assume your theory then they really are that old. There's more to this argument, but that's what I understand to be one of the main points.

Feel free to ask here or private message me if you have any more questions.

For future reference there are big buttons on the top and bottom left of the forums that say "New Thread"

Regarding the idea that the universe could be created with age: One has to ask why God would choose deception in the universe. Evidence of fossils is a good argument for this.

Sometime I saw it, sometime I don't. When I start to read one thread, I do not see the new thread button.

The cheating God argument is a cheap one. God does not cheat. Instead, people need to know better. Blame God for cheating is simply like blaming everyone else but self.

If God created things with apparent age, God also created a system so that the apparent age will be truly apparent, not just deceiving. The system is what we called science, physical and biological sciences. When we exam Adam, he is created as adult with all the adult physiology. When God created Earth, the earth looks old with all the geology built in it. If we do not look at God, but look at the geology, everyone would conclude that the earth is old. Because God created geology at the same time.

From this point of view, the YEC and the OEC are both right. Because there is no contradiction in God.

.....

 

[FallingWaters]

"Sometime I saw it, sometime I don't. When I start to read one thread, I do not see the new thread button."

As an example, on this page,
you would go to the heading at the top of the page and choose the place where you want to post.

This page has
Christian Forums > Christians Only Section > Theology > Origins Theology
at the top.

If you want to discuss Origins Theology, click on the Origins Theology link.
That will take you to a the main forum page with a list of all the threads or discussions taking place in that forum.

There is always a "New Thread" button on such a page.

 

[lucaspa]

The Appearance of Age argument is over 100 years old. It is religiously unsound.

In 1844 a pamphlet entitled Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, espousing an evolutionary viewpoint, was published. In response Philip Gosse, a minister in the Fundamentalist group called the Plymouth Brethren, wrote Oomphalos, published in 1857. In it Gosse made the first written argument that creation only LOOKS old. In it, Gosse even argued that Adam and Eve had navels because that is what one would expect in God-created creatures.
Gosse expected Oomphalos to be attacked by scientists. What he should have expected, but didn't, was the denunciation by the religious community. Asked to write a review of Oomphalos, his friend Charles Kinglsey, a minister and author of Westward Ho! refused and wrote the following letter to Gosse.
"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet discussed above] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."

 

[lucaspa]

.If God created things with apparent age, God also created a system so that the apparent age will be truly apparent, not just deceiving. The system is what we called science, physical and biological sciences. When we exam Adam, he is created as adult with all the adult physiology. When God created Earth, the earth looks old with all the geology built in it. If we do not look at God, but look at the geology, everyone would conclude that the earth is old. Because God created geology at the same time.

The problem is that the earth does not have to look old! God did not have to create a geology that makes the earth look old. God could easily have created the universe to look as young as it supposedly is. If God did not do this, then yes, God is deceiving us.

Here is how the earth could look young. If the earth and universe did exhibit these traits, we would have no trouble concluding that the earth really is less than 10,000 years old.

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth.

3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

5. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms.

6. Ice cores that only go back 10,000 layers (instead of ones that have over 10x that number of layers).

 

[juvenissun]

If God did not do this, then yes, God is deceiving us.

Here is how the earth could look young.

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

It is indeed a very interesting question. But what you suggested probably would not work. For example, an obvious one is that if there were no sedimentary rock on the earth, then we could not survive. No fossil won't work either. Suppose there were not a study called paleontology, then what would the atheists say about the origin of species? They will NOT recognize God due to no fossil. They will present another myth about the origin. Hmm... it may take sometime to figure out one. The young isotope age? If so, we would not be able to figure out a lot of things about how does the earth work. For example, the Seafloor Spreading model, which is probably true, will go up in smoke.

You really makes me think again on what do all those symptoms of old age mean. My sense is just opposite to yours. Without the the system which results in apparent old ages, the earth might not work (means not be able to support life). In other words, in order to have the earth work and obey the law of physics (which is created, too), it has to look old even it was created yesterday.

Yeah. an easier case to think about: how should Adam look and how would he function if he were created with a true age (not deceiving, satisfied?)? If so, there would definitely be more puzzles to solve today.

Good point, pal. Thanks a lot.

 

[juvenissun]

The Appearance of Age argument is over 100 years old. It is religiously unsound. [/FONT]

OK, just try to examine the logic again: (an old question does not mean it is solved correctly)

The problem is: God creates one thing which looks much older than it actually is.

The reason we think it is much older because God also gives us a measuring tool which indicates the apparent old age.

But God also gives us a book, which says it is actually very young.

Now, the choice is on us. Do we believe in the tool God gives us, or do we believe what God says. This is what's called the "deceiving problem"

OK, the question turns to be: why would God give us such a tool?

Simple, because the tool is good and could be used to do other positive things instead of being used to question God.

So, what is the ultimate question? It is still an old one: Do we believe what God says? The tool is not in a position to answer this question. (thus, the deceiving accusation does not stand)

I think you like science. So, tell me what's wrong with my logic.

 

[theFijian]

But God also gives us a book, which says it is actually very young.

I've spotted your problem right there, the Bible doesn't say the earth is actually very young.

 

[Citanul]

No fossil won't work either. Suppose there were not a study called paleontology, then what would the atheists say about the origin of species?

I'm a bit confused about this. Are you saying that fossils were created in order for atheists to come up with a theory regarding evolution?

They will NOT recognize God due to no fossil. They will present another myth about the origin.

Why would that be the case? Wouldn't no fossils actually be evidence supporting the 6-day creation story? One of the stumbling blocks for atheists would have effectively been removed.

 

[shernren]

Yeah. an easier case to think about: how should Adam look and how would he function if he were created with a true age (not deceiving, satisfied?)? If so, there would definitely be more puzzles to solve today.

Come to think of it, why did Adam have to be created old, too? After all, why did God create Adam? In Genesis 1, man is represented as being made in the image of God. But surely a newborn baby is as much in the image of God as a full-grown man. In Genesis 2, God commands man to work the garden and enjoy its fruits. But surely God could have taken care of the garden and Adam while Adam grew up.

The argument that God must have created everything old strikes me as limiting God's work to our imagination. Surely there are possible life-forms that can be supported in a 6,000-year-old universe or even a ten-second-old one, and surely they can be made sentient enough to recognize, acknowledge, and relate with God. It is a question of engineering, and if creationists believe that God made the universe (as we all do), they should have no problem believing that God could make a working universe without a wrinkled face.

 

[juvenissun]

I've spotted your problem right there, the Bible doesn't say the earth is actually very young.

YEC people interpret the Bible literally. They concluded from the literal meaning of Bible and insist a young earth.

Could I just use their conclusions to say that the Bible suggests a young earth? (hypothetical syllogism)

If not, I think you would have to debate with YEC "based on the literal interpretation of Bible". Which I don't think you could concluded with an idea of an old earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Come to think of it, why did Adam have to be created old, too? After all, why did God create Adam? In Genesis 1, man is represented as being made in the image of God. But surely a newborn baby is as much in the image of God as a full-grown man. In Genesis 2, God commands man to work the garden and enjoy its fruits. But surely God could have taken care of the garden and Adam while Adam grew up.

The argument that God must have created everything old strikes me as limiting God's work to our imagination. Surely there are possible life-forms that can be supported in a 6,000-year-old universe or even a ten-second-old one, and surely they can be made sentient enough to recognize, acknowledge, and relate with God. It is a question of engineering, and if creationists believe that God made the universe (as we all do), they should have no problem believing that God could make a working universe without a wrinkled face.

This is the whole point of the argument. God creates the universe and the earth. Both of them "obey the law of physics". Physical laws are created "together with" the universe. In other words: God creates things. God also tells how should the things operate. There should be no confliction between the two.

Now, the key: An apparently young earth would violate the physical laws. God does not have to do it this way. But God did it this way.

The consequence is: all scientists who have no God in their mind, can only see the physical world, which is operated by the physical laws. And inevitabley concluded an old earth and an old universe. We could not ask God to take away the physics and still maintain the world as he created. Blessed be those OEC. They see the contradiction, but they still believe.

God is not trying to deceive us. Those people who rejects God, could still live perfectly in the physical world God created. The physics, logic, whatever, do not PROVE God. The understading of physics, earth, and universe DOES NOT necessary lead one to God. The study of created thing is NOT equivalent to the study of God. There is no deceiving or not not deceiving issue.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm a bit confused about this. Are you saying that fossils were created in order for atheists to come up with a theory regarding evolution?

Why would that be the case? Wouldn't no fossils actually be evidence supporting the 6-day creation story? One of the stumbling blocks for atheists would have effectively been removed.

I am not sure why do fossil exist. But I know for sure that the study of fossil gives the idea of evolution, but does NOT gives concrete evidence to reject creation.

God's creation is so profound that the current knowledge of anything, include Paleontology, are only at the infant stage. We are not able to reject God based on what we know in Paleontology. However, we do can reject God, by using immature and incompete arguments in Paleontology "as an excuse". (stupid excuses, though.)

No fossil would only be "one more" evidence of creation. (there would be some scientific consequences of this no-fossil assumption, but not being a Paleontologist, I am not sure what they could be). No fossil does not "prove" creation. Fossil is just "one evidence" used to reject God. Without that, atheist still have many other "evidences" to do so. It is the same reason that Jesus refused to show more miracles to people.

 

[lucaspa]

It is indeed a very interesting question. But what you suggested probably would not work. For example, an obvious one is that if there were no sedimentary rock on the earth, then we could not survive.

Sure we would. We don't need sedimentary rock to survive. We need sediments, so God could create some thick topsoil, but no sedimentary rock.

No fossil won't work either. Suppose there were not a study called paleontology, then what would the atheists say about the origin of species?

The same thing that they said before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Are you seriously telling us that God deceived us so that atheists would have a plausible argument? Then why have Paul write that "they have no excuse"?

The young isotope age? If so, we would not be able to figure out a lot of things about how does the earth work.

Sure we would. We see young isotopes from the decay of long-lived isotopes to short lived ones. So God already gave us the means to learn about how the earth works.

The problem is that there is a subset of short-lived isotopes that are not formed from either 1) radiation or 2) decay of long-lived isotope. All of those, and ONLY those, are missing from the earth's crust.

But, if the earth were really only 10,000 years old, those isotopes would not have had a chance to decay yet. So why did God exclude ONLY those isotopes from creation? It deceives us that the earth really is old.

the Seafloor Spreading model, which is probably true, will go up in smoke.

Not at all. That is based on reversal of magnetic fields and LONG lived isotope.

In other words, in order to have the earth work and obey the law of physics (which is created, too), it has to look old even it was created yesterday.

NO, it doesn't. That's the point.

Also, you skipped right over the starlight problem. If God creates a universe where the physical laws are already operating, that means that light travels at a finite speed. So light starts out from a star that is 10,000 light years away at the moment of creation. And it reaches us for the first time right now.

There is no reason light has to be made "on the way" so that it looks like it took several million years to get from say, the galaxy Andromeda, to us. All that does is deceive us.

Yeah. an easier case to think about: how should Adam look and how would he function if he were created with a true age (not deceiving, satisfied?)?

He would look like an adult because he was created an adult. BUT, would he have a navel? NO! Because he never had an umbilical cord, did he? Neither did Eve.

For instance, if God created an "adult" tree -- a large one -- from scratch, it would not have any rings. It doesn't need the rings for nutrients or for survival. The ONLY thing the rings do is mark the growth each year it has been alive. So a God-created adult tree would have no rings.

So why do we have bristlecone pines with 10,000 rings if the earth is only 6,000 years old. The maximum number of rings a tree should have is 6,000.
And we really shouldn't be able to line up rings from different trees to go back 20,000 years like we do.

Keep dodging, Juvenissen, but in trying to preserve your god of a literal Bible, you destroy God. I would rather smash your false-idol god and keep the real God.

 

[theFijian]

YEC people interpret the Bible literally. They concluded from the literal meaning of Bible and insist a young earth.

Really, how literally? Because nobody interpretes the Bible 100% literally.

 

[Assyrian]

YEC people interpret the Bible literally. They concluded from the literal meaning of Bible and insist a young earth.

Could I just use their conclusions to say that the Bible suggests a young earth? (hypothetical syllogism)

If not, I think you would have to debate with YEC "based on the literal interpretation of Bible". Which I don't think you could concluded with an idea of an old earth.

If Moses didn't take God's days literally (read Psalm 90:4) why should I believe YECs who do?

Even if you do read the Genesis days literally, Genesis still does not say the the world was made in six day (go ahead read it, it never says this.)

 

[juvenissun]

Quote: Really, how literally? Because nobody interpretes the Bible 100% literally.

For example, the interpretation of creation "day", and the life span of early people.

Well, may be not. But I would say it is due to the lack of faith and the superstition of science. When we see some scripture "obviously" violates the scientific understanding, we make a different interpretation (to avoid being called stupid). However, I believe if we know better (in the future), we will find the scripture is literally right afterall. There are numerous such examples in the Book of Job. They do not make any sense until recent decades.

 

[Assyrian]

So I take you believe the earth is set on pillars and the sun orbits around us?

 

[juvenissun]

If Moses didn't take God's days literally (read Psalm 90:4) why should I believe YECs who do?

Even if you do read the Genesis days literally, Genesis still does not say the the world was made in six day (go ahead read it, it never says this.)

First, I am not a 100% YEC. I am also not defending their position.

I think the "Day" Moses said is still just a normal "day", at least to Moses. What does the "day" mean to God is up to God, like Moses suggested.

If so (not done in six days), what does the 7th day, the sabbath day mean?

 

[juvenissun]

So I take you believe the earth is set on pillars and the sun orbits around us?

I do not know what to say about the sun. Where does the scripture say that the sun orbits the earth?

But I do think I can accept the idea of pillars on earth. To me, I can understand the pillar indicates the root of continent. It tapers off into the mantle. And the scripture does say the pillar shakes. It is a perfect image of earthquake. The "earth" could well be the "continent" as we still use it this way commonly.