Interesting Theory

[Lotar]

The other week I read an interesting Creationist theory, that God created the world in the literal 6 days, but that He created a mature world. That in every way the universe appears like it would if it had been created through the natural processes over billions of years.

I think this is probably the most logical Creation theory I've ever heard. It's also probably the only one that couldn't be disproved.

 

[Bushido216]

That's the "Appearance of Age" arguement. Basically it says that God lied to us, which isn't a God I want to pray to.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually, thats not a theory. It's an idea.

A theory must have evidence to back it up.
This notion has no evidence, and also by it's own definition cannot produce evidence.
Therefore it is not a theory, only an idea.

You may as well say that;
"The universe is only 1 second old, and wer were all created with our memories intact giving us the appearance of having lived our lives"

or

"I am all that exists. Everything else, including y'all, exist only in my mind"

or

"There are invisible dragons living in my basement. Only I am aware of their presence, and they cannot be detected. And they tell me to do things."

See. All these ideas, progressively more absurd and disturbing, are all the same in that they cannot be supported or falsified in any way.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The other week I read an interesting Creationist theory, that God created the world in the literal 6 days, but that He created a mature world. That in every way the universe appears like it would if it had been created through the natural processes over billions of years.

I think this is probably the most logical Creation theory I've ever heard. It's also probably the only one that couldn't be disproved.

It can't be disproved because it's a mobile goalpost. Evidence against it? God did that. Of course this assumes God is a huge liar.

 

[Lotar]

Why would it assume God's a liar? That's an odd arguement. All it would mean is that the creation story truely is litteral. How could it be a lie, if He gave us a story telling us how it happened?

Think about it this way, God created all the natural laws, but decided instead of having billions of years of nothing that He would just create it as it would be if it had been around for billions of years. Ofcourse since God also created time and exists outside of it, then it would logically make no difference to Him whether it took 6 days or 6 trillion years.

I'm not saying that I believe it, I truely don't care how it happened. I just find some of the arguements interesting.

 

[notto]

The logic collapses when you consider that not only is everything that still exists mature, but that God would have had to create the illusion of things existing that never did exist or happen (exploding super novas for one, lots of radioactive decay as well).

God is the deceiver.

Not good science, not good theology.

 

[Lotar]

He would just have to create the light that would have been emmitted from the explosions, and since everything would already be in the state as if it had been in existence for however long, the radioactive decay would follow the same.

God can't be a deciever if He straight out told us that He just spoke it into existence.

 

[ThePhoenix]

He would just have to create the light that would have been emmitted from the explosions, and since everything would already be in the state as if it had been in existence for however long, the radioactive decay would follow the same.

God can't be a deciever if He straight out told us that He just spoke it into existence.

If God spoke it into existance then the world would look like he spoke it into existance. The earth says it didn't happen. So either God is contradicting himself (literal interpretation vs. evidence), God is lying, or the literal interpretation is not how the passage was intended.

If God spoke the world into existance then there would be no need for appearance of age. There are many things that would function just fine in a 6,000 year old earth, and there would be no need to exclude them. Creating an earth in such a way that it indistuinguishable from an old one is deception, plain and simple.

 

[notto]

He would just have to create the light that would have been emmitted from the explosions, and since everything would already be in the state as if it had been in existence for however long, the radioactive decay would follow the same.

God can't be a deciever if He straight out told us that He just spoke it into existence.

Thats not maturity, thats mirage.

Did the trees in the newly created mature world have marks from insect damage and lightening strikes that never happened?

Did Adam have a belly button?

Did the moon have craters? Why?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The problem with this idea is that it brings up many more questions than it answers. Why would God create a mature world? Why wouldn't God mention that He created the appearance of age in the creation stories, since the goal of this idea is to retain the literal interpretation of the creation stories? It also says nothing about the Flood, unless it postulates that God removed any evidence of the Flood, which just brings up more problems.

Furthermore, it brings up serious questions about the nature of God. Can you trust a God who intentionally created the world in a way that those investigating His Creation would come to wrong conclusions?

 

[ej]

I don't think God conforms to our human concept of time, and hence your arguments are in a vacuum - Time is something which humans invented to help them cope with infinity, and then humans try to use this to measure God's work.

It ain't gonna work.
God is way beyond our realm of thought.

 

[Bushido216]

Saying that "Time" is a mirage is like saying that "Distance" is a mirage. Time is a measurable thing. All we've done is come up with our own measurements.

 

[ej]

Saying that "Time" is a mirage is like saying that "Distance" is a mirage. Time is a measurable thing. All we've done is come up with our own measurements.

I didn't say they were mirages

They are the human way of coping with infinity - we measure stuff which we know is finite.

God is not finite, so I doubt we can successfully apply finite measurements to Him.

 

[Bushido216]

Alright, my bad then. I was replying in a hurry. I was just trying to head-off meta-physical wanderings at the pass.

 

[Lotar]

I don't think God conforms to our human concept of time, and hence your arguments are in a vacuum - Time is something which humans invented to help them cope with infinity, and then humans try to use this to measure God's work.

It ain't gonna work.
God is way beyond our realm of thought.

Actually, God created time. It is measurable, effects its surroundings and is affected by its surroundings. It is the fourth dimension.

When I was mentioning time, I was argueing against it, since as far as we know there is no reason for God to bypass the natural process and just speak everything into existance. It's not like God was going to get bored waiting around for a trillion years or however old the universe is.

But I believe it is possible that He did so, and I was hoping that maybe there was someone here who followed this theory and wished to defend it. I guess most creationists just deny the evidence instead of trying to reconcile it.

 

[ej]

You calling me a Creationist?

 

[lucaspa]

The other week I read an interesting Creationist theory, that God created the world in the literal 6 days, but that He created a mature world. That in every way the universe appears like it would if it had been created through the natural processes over billions of years.

I think this is probably the most logical Creation theory I've ever heard. It's also probably the only one that couldn't be disproved.

It's the worst creationist theory from the standpoint of Christianity or theism. As Bushido noted, it's the "Appearance of Age" argument, or the Oomphalos argument. Oomphalos comes from the title of a book published in 1857.

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. 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." Garret Hardin, ""Scientific Creationism'" - Marketing Deception as Truth" in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu, 1982.
The problem is twofold:
1. If God had created as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, then the universe could easily have looked young. There is no reason to create a "mature" universe. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then there is no reason to see light from stars farther away than 6,000 light years. Yes, the rest of the universe could exist, but we wouldn't see it yet because the light hadn't reached us. Also, there is no reason to have miles thick deposits of sedimentary rock and we should have no metamorphic rock. We would have igneous rock with a layer of topsoil for the plants. There is no reason to have thousands of layers of ice in Greenland or the Andes, each representing an annual snowfall. We should have 6,000 layers. We don't need glaciers on the planet.

2. Although God certainly has the power to make a young earth and make it look old --thus deceiving us -- the important things in Christianity rely on trust of God. We rely on God not to deceive us concerning the Resurrection of Jesus. We trust God to keep His promises regarding eternal life. Oomphalos, as Kingsley noted, violates that trust and makes God the equivalent of Satan -- a deceiver.

3. Like Kingsley, I would pay any amount of money to keep this argument away from our children. I have often said that creationism is the worst danger Christianity has ever faced. This is evidence of that. That you think the argument is good just shows how dangerous creationism is. Arguments like this will destroy Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't think God conforms to our human concept of time, and hence your arguments are in a vacuum - Time is something which humans invented to help them cope with infinity, and then humans try to use this to measure God's work.

Time is a human invention? Sorry, ej, but time is a real entity, altho we don't completely understand it yet. We live in a 4 dimensional spacetime. It isn't our invention.

 

[Bushido216]

I think she means in the way that we percieve and measure time.

 

[lucaspa]

I think she means in the way that we percieve and measure time.

Tiime still exists as an objective entity outside our perception. Some physical processes occur in only 1 time direction (giving us an arrow of time) and atomic clocks tick away regardless of our perception of time. Those clocks speed up or slow down in under acceleration independent of whatever humans do.

Yes, time is difficult to describe and our knowledge of it is incomplete, but time still exists as an independent entity.

Reminds me of species. Lots of human arguments about species, and some have even tried to say that species are a human invention. But species exist as independent entities despite our inability to come up with a precise definition of the term.