depthdeception said:
If you are into poetic beauty, and human-centrism, I would suggest that you study some "anthropic principle" writings. In a way, the thrust of a form of this argument shows that the vastness of the universe, including its extreme age, is actually necessary for life on earth to be possible. Think about it: if we are made of "stardust" (carbon), then there must be time for stars to form, burnout, and be spread across the reaches of space in order for the elements which compose human life to gather and coelesce. This idea has been helpful for me, a former, hard-core YEC attempting to move on to a more observationally-consistent understanding of the universe.
Thank you dd, I see what you are saying, but I think I might not have been clear enough earlier in what I said. I'll elaborate a bit
And also to gluadys, thanks for giving me a bit extra to think over concerning mankind being the purpose/caretaker of creation. I can certainly see it from that viewpoint also.
Now for a bit of clarification on what I said earlier.
Since I see the exact how of creation to be unimportant, only the fact that it was God that did the creating matters, many of the different views on it are acceptable to me. I only tend to prefer YEC for what I see as an inherent beauty in it. The others all also have beauty in them (such as, that God would have the universe tick away for billions of years to get to the exact perfect state for man to exist in it) it's just that the YEC one appeals to me most aesthetically.
In my way of looking at it, if I take the account of creation to be a literal 6 day work, then asking the age of the universe is really two questions to me. What is the age of the universe and how old is it. The two things are quite different.
For example, if Adam were literally created on the spot by God he was certainly not an infant baby needing the years of care and guidance until adulthood. For simplicities sake, say he was created at an age of 25. In this way, Adam may have only been a few minutes
old, but he had an
age of 25. In all ways he showed the normal progress and maturity of someone who had experienced 25 years of growth even though he was factually only moments old. See where i'm going with this?
Applying that same idea to the universe, if God did indeed create everything wham-bam-pow in just a few days some 6000 or so years ago, then even though when he created it it could be said to be only moments
old, it had the
age of a universe that had existed for billions of years and displayed the progress and maturity of a universe that had experienced billions of years of growth. This is why it would not require the actual time necessary for the things you describe DD, it was created as if all that had already occurred.
Now, understand please, i'm not advancing this as truth or even slight likelihood
This is, just for me, a way of looking at it all that allows the creation account to be literal, for scientific understanding to remain accurate and gives me a sense of how sublime God's power indeed can be. I would never suggest that anyone even consider this as how things really happened, or that anyone
must accept YEC or any other idea about the origin. It's just a silly idea that I happen to like.