Created to look old...

[BVZ]

Lets assume that the universe was created 6500y ago. This presets a problem since there are observable things that are older than that. For instance, light from distant stars. There are stars that are more than 6500 light years away.

The standard solution creationists have to offer is that the light was created in transit to look old. In fact, EVERYTHING was created to look old.

Now, heres a question: If God created everything to be old, is it not old? If God created the earth old, is it not old? If someone claims that the earth is 4.5billion years old, how can he be wrong, if God created the world that way?

Just who do you guys think you are to tell God he didn't create the universe the way he did? (old!)

 

[LightHorseman]

Although the Bible clearly states that God hates deception...

 

[JohnR7]

The standard solution creationists have to offer is that the light was created in transit to look old. In fact, EVERYTHING was created to look old.

This still would not explain why the universe is expanding. If you have a expanding universe, then it is only natural that people are going to reverse that to try and determine when in time the whole universe was in the same area.

Also, when they are trying to figure out what was causing the static on one of the marine radio channels, they found out that it could be traced back to the big bang from the beginning of the universe.

God could have created the light in transit. But there is no evidence for that. The evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[BVZ]

Actually, it is impossible to prove it one way or the other. I am merely tryong to demonstarate that using the 'created as old' argument kind of defeats itself, since if God creats something to be old, it IS old.

 

[nvxplorer]

The standard solution creationists have to offer is that the light was created in transit to look old. In fact, EVERYTHING was created to look old.

Including the Bible. It just appears to be old. It was actually created in 2005 by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That guy...what a joker!

 

[kermit]

Actually, it is impossible to prove it one way or the other. I am merely tryong to demonstarate that using the 'created as old' argument kind of defeats itself, since if God creats something to be old, it IS old.

Tihs is more a philosphical question than a creation question.

 

[Bork]

Lets assume that the universe was created 6500y ago. This presets a problem since there are observable things that are older than that. For instance, light from distant stars. There are stars that are more than 6500 light years away.

The standard solution creationists have to offer is that the light was created in transit to look old. In fact, EVERYTHING was created to look old.

Now, heres a question: If God created everything to be old, is it not old? If God created the earth old, is it not old? If someone claims that the earth is 4.5billion years old, how can he be wrong, if God created the world that way?

Just who do you guys think you are to tell God he didn't create the universe the way he did? (old!)

I have always wondered why christians feel compelled to believe God works outside rational means... if God created it this way, then it is good enough.

I mean, if there is a god then he definitely created logical laws and solutions.

 

[BVZ]

Tihs is more a philosphical question than a creation question.

I agree. I am argueing against people who don't realise this.

 

[madarab]

Although the Bible clearly states that God hates deception...

...except when you're stealing your brother's inheritance.

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

Let's all believe in a deceptive god that punishes people for not being ignorant of the evidence he puts there.

 

[USincognito]

Now, heres a question: If God created everything to be old, is it not old? If God created the earth old, is it not old? If someone claims that the earth is 4.5billion years old, how can he be wrong, if God created the world that way?

Don't forget that the issue is more problematic than just the appearance of age, it's the appearance of history as well. It's not just that mountains look old, it's that they have evidence of long processes having taken place to build them. That's the real problem facing appearance of age claims.

 

[Chalnoth]

Don't forget that the issue is more problematic than just the appearance of age, it's the appearance of history as well. It's not just that mountains look old, it's that they have evidence of long processes having taken place to build them. That's the real problem facing appearance of age claims.

And evidence of large numbers of very specific events.

 

[PanSapiens]

god creating the universe with light from stars already in place so that it seems old is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It only goes to show how far some people will streatch reason and rationality to continue believing their simple view of the world.

Here's a novel idea: if the universe looks old maybe it's old.

Any god that would create the universe to look old and trick people into believing in evolution is evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any god that would create the universe to look old and trick people into believing in evolution is evil.

Please explain why this would be deception, when even atheists admit that a young Earth cannot sustain life.

 

[LightHorseman]

Not to mention that the Bible specifically says that God hates deception

 

[Jase]

Please explain why this would be deception, when even atheists admit that a young Earth cannot sustain life.

The Earth need not be 4.5 billion years old with asteroid craters, mountains, canyons, trenches, etc. etc. to sustain life.

 

[LightHorseman]

The Earth need not be 4.5 billion years old with asteroid craters, mountains, canyons, trenches, etc. etc. to sustain life.

it isn't the asteroid craters et al that support life, rather the layered history of the biosphere becoming more and more complex and the chemical interactions therein. A 6000 year old Earth is a molten globbet, with any atmosphere being insanely hostile.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth need not be 4.5 billion years old with asteroid craters, mountains, canyons, trenches, etc. etc. to sustain life.

Oh, now we're going to add asteroid craters, mountains, canyons, trenches, "etc." into the equation?

Let's try this again:

On the day Earth was created, why would it be "deceptive" to embed age into said creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

it isn't the asteroid craters et al that support life, rather the layered history of the biosphere becoming more and more complex and the chemical interactions therein. A 6000 year old Earth is a molten globbet, with any atmosphere being insanely hostile.

Light, this is old hat stuff.

They always ask about Day One of Creation, then bring up stuff that supposedly happened years later.

If you just make them stick to the age of the Earth on DAY ONE, and forget about meteors and asteroids that supposedly slammed into the Earth years later, they usually end up "disappearing" and not answering you.

Just watch --- and I'll demonstrate.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Oh, now we're going to add asteroid craters, mountains, canyons, trenches, "etc." into the equation?

Let's try this again:

On the day Earth was created, why would it be "deceptive" to embed age into said creation?

Hundreds of meteor strikes are hardly necessary, and they would have been utterly catastrophic had they happened in a day or a week or 6000 years.