is creating with age deceptive?

[ForumMonk]

Personally, I think the "practical" argument is silly. Some YEC's say it makes no sense for an all-powerful God to take hundreds of billions of years instead of six days to create the universe. Relatively speaking, though, for an eternal being hundreds of billions of years is essentially EQUAL to six days, in that both are reduced to absolute insignificance.

So much for the hope of the believer. Christ might not decide to return for a day or two. What's that about 10 billion years?

Regards,
FM

 

[busterdog]

So, would it be deceptive for the rate of radioactive decay to vary?

Wouldn't that create a false age and a false history?

Was God under the obligation to make this a constant?

How about varves? Is it deceptive for tidal varves to have the appearance of annual varves?

How about all those people before Einstein who didn't understand relativity? Did God lie to them?

There is no viable argument for deception, since someone is always going to be deceived and it is always going to be God's fault by this line of reasoning. Why is our particular modern perspective with the state of science in 2007 so precious that it becomes the measure of anything in this respect?

The question is whether you are right in the first place about the appearance of age and history.

And, let's remember Falling Waters, who says the earth just doesn't look that old to her! I'm with that.

 

[KerrMetric]

And, let's remember Falling Waters, who says the earth just doesn't look that old to her! I'm with that.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

 

[crawfish]

So much for the hope of the believer. Christ might not decide to return for a day or two. What's that about 10 billion years?

Regards,
FM

I'm sure most of the early Christians would be shocked to still see us around, waiting, 2000 years later. Writings indicate they thought the coming was imminent. God had other plans - and other timescales.

The hope of believers is eternity. Mankind might go on for another 10 billion years - but YOU won't. Think of death as a shortcut.

 

[crawfish]

There is no viable argument for deception, since someone is always going to be deceived and it is always going to be God's fault by this line of reasoning. Why is our particular modern perspective with the state of science in 2007 so precious that it becomes the measure of anything in this respect?

The question is whether you are right in the first place about the appearance of age and history.

Only under YEC reasoning is God at fault for being deceptive.

You can say our current science is wrong - and you might be right - but it's pretty much like putting a puzzle together and seeing a bunny rabbit in a green field, only to have it change to a black starscape when you put the last few pieces in. In other words, the preponderance of evidence is far too great to assume that one or two items will show things to be utterly different.

And, let's remember Falling Waters, who says the earth just doesn't look that old to her! I'm with that.

I'm probably not allowed to ask how many times she's turned 29...

 

[jckstraw72]

the earth only looks old if you look at it with an evolutionary mindset. if you accept that God created a mature earth (not actually having age) there was the fall which radically changed creation and the universal flood which radically changed creation, then there's no reason to think its any older than the Bible tells us.

 

[theIdi0t]

God did not create a world that looked old nor did He give it history. He created with age for His purpose and to demonstrate to all His power so that those who believe in Him will not be afraid but have confidence when they face temptation,struggles and persecution.

Can you tell us the difference between a world looking like it was "created with age" and a world looking like it was created as "old"?
I don't understand the distinction between the two.

 

[theIdi0t]

I mean if everything in the universe was new at the same instant, wouldn't you think it you would like to add some interesting variations for you and the others of your creation to enjoy? What we perceive as age may simply be "character."

Ah, perhaps, and God wasn't aware that we'd take it so seriously. The world is not a few billion years old, the evidence is just designed to look like it is, because God like a painter wanted to give his creation an age like finish.

Do you see the problem with comparing a painter who draws with age, and creator who creates with age? The woman on a painting will never wonder about her age, the woman who was created will.

 

[theIdi0t]

So much for the hope of the believer. Christ might not decide to return for a day or two. What's that about 10 billion years?

Regards,
FM

Time is relative to us, who live in time, not to one outside of time. As crawfish pointed out, to a being outside of time billions of years are no different than six days. For St. Augustine six days was too long, so he took the account as figurative, and believed God created everything with one snap of a finger within a second.

A few billion years before God reveals himself to man is meaningless to us also. It is meaningless even to the first man, because the moment God revealed himself to him is the beginning for him. The time before that is only relative to the creator and not to what he created. The creator is outside of time, he feels no long wait, whether it be billions of years, 6 days, or a matter of milliseconds, a being outside of time does not feel time like we do.

It's an interesting thing that you brought up the return of Christ. The disciples were disappointed after Christ death on the cross, because they assumed that he was going to build the Kingdom for them now, for them to wait thousands of years seemed too long. A God that waited for such a length of time did not make sense to them.

Every generation breeds a crop who feels that Christ must return in their lifetime, because a time outside of their lifetime is too long. Man waits, and feels wait, but God does not, he arrives at his appropriate time, even if we feel we have waited too long for his arrival.

 

[ForumMonk]

You can say our current science is wrong - and you might be right - but it's pretty much like putting a puzzle together and seeing a bunny rabbit in a green field, only to have it change to a black starscape when you put the last few pieces in. In other words, the preponderance of evidence is far too great to assume that one or two items will show things to be utterly different.

Hi Crawfish,
If you don't mind I would like to make two comments about your post, quoted above.

1. If the appearance is a bunny in a greenfield and later we see a starfield, then the puzzle is deceiving us; i.e. science.
2. The implication in the latter part appears that the puzzle is nearly complete and so it is unlikely that a few more pieces will radically change our view of nature. I would consider this a bit overstated.

It seems, how one views his world is very much dependent upon ones mind-set.

Regards,
FM

 

[ForumMonk]

Time is relative to us, ... The time before that is only relative to the creator and not to what he created. The creator is outside of time, he feels no long wait, whether it be billions of years, 6 days, or a matter of milliseconds, a being outside of time does not feel time like we do.

Hi theIdi0t,
Yes I agree to a point. Perhaps we can assume time is meaningless to an infinite creator, but in keeping with the theme of creative deception, why would God tell us he created in six days (framed in the context of evening and morning) when he really meant it took billions of years. He certainly did not mention the time frame for His own sake, since we assume it is meaningless for Him.



Regards,
FM

 

[Mallon]

Relevant reading to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) is a joke version of omphalism, and of Bertrand Russell's Five minute hypothesis. It is the idea that the world was created last Thursday, but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth. As such it resembles the Occasionalism of Malebranche.

For those advocating the Omphalos hypothesis (i.e., the idea that the world was created with age/history), I hope they will at least address the concerns raised above. It's a slippery slope argument that merits serious attention.

 

[ForumMonk]

For those advocating the Omphalos hypothesis (i.e., the idea that the world was created with age/history), I hope they will at least address the concerns raised above. It's a slippery slope argument that merits serious attention.

Hi Mallon,
I have pointed out already, how the standard critiques of omphalism were being pulled out (i.e. The Five Minute Hypothesis, reduced to two minutes in this thread) and I fully expected the water into wine rebuttal next. Actually Bertrand Russell did not devise his hypothesis as a critique nor support of Omphalism as Omphalism is clearly a theistic construct while Bertie was agnostic and probably atheistic at the time he wrote his book (in 1921 iirc?) and arrived at his hypothesis on the basis of logical inference.

It seems, however, now the discussion is more directed toward the evidence of age or history. Is it reliable?

Regards,
FM

 

[Tinker Grey]

as for my quoting --i am not computer literate but i doid see the difference and would not know how to add the name. i thought it was automatic.

If you click the post-quote button, you'll something similar to my quote of you in this post.

If you want to respond to two people, click the multi-quote button on the post of the first person's post (that button will change color), then click post-quote of the second post, both person's posts will be in your post. This is easily extend to more than two.

The downside is that sometimes you have to delete a lot of stuff you are not interested in.

Also, if you accidentally included someone, re-click multi-post and the color will return to its original state.

Also, if do any of the above, you'll see how the computer automates. Since it is just script, you can duplicate the automation by typing what the computer "typed".

 

[theIdi0t]

Hi theIdi0t,
Yes I agree to a point. Perhaps we can assume time is meaningless to an infinite creator, but in keeping with the theme of creative deception, why would God tell us he created in six days (framed in the context of evening and morning) when he really meant it took billions of years. He certainly did not mention the time frame for His own sake, since we assume it is meaningless for Him.

Because that is not what Moses was trying to show you. Time is not what Moses was concerned with, the relation between man and the One true God is what is important. Moses is showing a God of order in a time where all one could see is disorder. He is showing a creator God that has revealed himself to man, while all the ancient religions saw a creator God distant to man. Luke describes a moment in Acts, where Paul tells the Athenians, concerning an alter inscribed, 'To an Unknown God: "What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you." Moses is telling his people the same thing.

Genesis tells the story of how God the creator revealed himself to mankind, and tells them he is knowable. The pursuit of this being came about when man understand right from wrong, good from evil, and that the ways of God are good. But man fell on the stone, when he pursued life on his own, he killed his brother, he made war, he lied in pig pens, and then a Savior arrives to tell him that this is the way to Good, and if you believe in me you shall not fall, and no longer is God just the creator God, but Abba Father.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am puzzled by the occassional YEC that asserts in one breath God could have created the earth with age/history and then in the next breath complains when someone says the evidence shows that age/history.

 

[Mallon]

It seems, however, now the discussion is more directed toward the evidence of age or history. Is it reliable?

The Bible says it is. The Bible says God's creation declares His glory. I don't see how this could be the case if it were twisted and rendered useless by Omphalos creation or, say, the Fall.

 

[crawfish]

Hi Crawfish,
If you don't mind I would like to make two comments about your post, quoted above.

1. If the appearance is a bunny in a greenfield and later we see a starfield, then the puzzle is deceiving us; i.e. science.
2. The implication in the latter part appears that the puzzle is nearly complete and so it is unlikely that a few more pieces will radically change our view of nature. I would consider this a bit overstated.

It seems, how one views his world is very much dependent upon ones mind-set.

Regards,
FM

1. Science includes observation using our senses. The puzzle pieces are "evidence" - things we observe in nature. As more and more pieces are put in place, we begin to sense a pattern. You can usually see the pattern long before you've completed the puzzle. For instance, when you were 10% complete it might become obvious that the picture is of a castle. You wouldn't know that there was a maiden in a window, or a knight on the stairs until you had put together those pieces; but you'd know the outline of the whole.

If the picture indicated a castle, but "magically" turned into a sparrow when you were 90% through, that would not be science's fault.

2. If you have a random distribution of pieces in place, you don't need very much of the puzzle put together to start to detect patterns. The more pieces you get, the less likely it is that the end result will deviate from the apparent pattern.

 

[ForumMonk]

Because that is not what Moses was trying to show you....

Hi theIdi0t,
Hmmmm. Maybe I should display my faith icon or what ever you call it. It is the same as yours and so I accept completely what you say.

I just think you casually avoided the question.

Blessings,
FM

 

[ForumMonk]

The Bible says it is. The Bible says God's creation declares His glory. I don't see how this could be the case if it were twisted and rendered useless by Omphalos creation or, say, the Fall.

Science includes observation using our senses.

Fellow Posters,
I think one of the interesting points archaeologist made early on was, if God makes something a certain way, and tells you he made it, is it deception? For example, if I fashion a piece of furniture in an old style and try to pass it off to you as antique, that would be deception. But, if I tell you I made it, it is not deception.

Following that analogy, we may feel the need to ask God, "why did you make the world in such a such way" but we can not say to Him "why did you deceive us?".

Regards,
FM