why couldn't God create the appearance of age?

[Saucy]

One of the best arguements that TEs sport is that the universe and the earth just looks old. "There's no way the earth could be young!" they shout. Why couldn't God have given the appearance of age? He had to of created everything mature and all the plants blooming and bursting with fruit, or else Adam and Eve couldn't of eaten! The earth would've been desolate. Also, no reproduction would've happened for many, many years down the road. Jesus was capable of adding the appearance of age! Remember when He turned water into wine? What's the best kind of wine there is? The kind that has been aged the longest and yet the people at the weddind said that this wine was the best! It was created with the appearance of age! Why couldn't the earth and universe be created the same way?

 

[Jipsah]

One of the best arguements that TEs sport is that the universe and the earth just looks old. "There's no way the earth could be young!" they shout. Why couldn't God have given the appearance of age?

That's back to my "God created everything late last week and just made it look like everything had been around for a long time" deal. What it's saying is that God cooked the books and left us intentionally deceptive geological and cosmological records to make us think something is true that actually is not.

I don't think God work's that way. Could He have done it is not the issue. Of course He could have, He's God. Would He have done it is the question, and I believe that the answer to that question is an unqualified "No!"

He had to of created everything mature and all the plants blooming and bursting with fruit, or else Adam and Eve couldn't of eaten!

Any time you say "God couldn't..." or "God can't..." then you're probably wrong.

 

[Saucy]

Think of it this way...how would man have gotten along without the stars in the sky? One, mapping out the stars was early man's calander. They knew what year it was, month, and even day based upon the stars. Even sailors used the stars to chart their way through the sea. To say there is no reason for the stars is wrong. Even in Genesis, it says, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years" Genesis 1:14-15. For thousands of years, sailors used nothing but the stars to plot their courses. If this was God's design from the beginning, then the stars had to of been designed with the appearance of age, so that the light had already reached earth.

 

[Brownsy]

This may only be a relevant arguement if you take the days of creation in Genesis to be literal 24 hour days, or even slightly longer periods, say a few years.

Remember that as TE's we believe that stars had already been around for billions of years before man came along, giving their light plenty of time to reach earth by natural means.

Blessings to you all

 

[random_guy]

Think of it this way...how would man have gotten along without the stars in the sky? One, mapping out the stars was early man's calander. They knew what year it was, month, and even day based upon the stars. Even sailors used the stars to chart their way through the sea. To say there is no reason for the stars is wrong. Even in Genesis, it says, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years" Genesis 1:14-15. For thousands of years, sailors used nothing but the stars to plot their courses. If this was God's design from the beginning, then the stars had to of been designed with the appearance of age, so that the light had already reached earth.

However, the majority of the stars are not visible from Earth. Added to this problem is if stars are made for nagivation, were clouds made by Satan? What about supernovas and black holes? Where do they come in? How about comets and astroids? Other planets?

It seems extremely hubric to assume that stars were made specifically for us for nagivation.

 

[Saucy]

Exploration! Showing God's awesome power! The bible says that we should be able to look at His creation and know that He is there! Also, some prophecy (Isaiah, I believe) talks about the original intention of the universe. Man was supposed to live forever and forever inhabit the universe. If man's population kept growing and nobody died and continued to be at their peak, would keep having children, then we would quickly fill the universe! There are lot's of reasons! I would accept it even if it was all created just for us to look at! It's so beautiful!

 

[The Lady Kate]

One of the best arguements that TEs sport is that the universe and the earth just looks old. "There's no way the earth could be young!" they shout. Why couldn't God have given the appearance of age?

He could have, but would he?

What is "appearance of age," anyway? More than a number, age implies a past, and a history. Not only can we say the Earth is billions of years old, but we can see the signs of certain events that happened in its distant past.

Would God create an Earth that contained a history which never actually happened?

Remember when He turned water into wine? What's the best kind of wine there is? The kind that has been aged the longest and yet the people at the weddind said that this wine was the best! It was created with the appearance of age! Why couldn't the earth and universe be created the same way?

Did Jesus say where he got the wine? Did he put the wine in a bottle that said it was aged 20 years?

Did Jesus do anything to imply that his creation (the wine) was anyhting other than what it was?

No... that would be dishonest.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Exploration! Showing God's awesome power! The bible says that we should be able to look at His creation and know that He is there!

Does God need to show off to impress us?
Insecurity is an all-too-human weakness.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Think of it this way...how would man have gotten along without the stars in the sky? One, mapping out the stars was early man's calander. They knew what year it was, month, and even day based upon the stars. Even sailors used the stars to chart their way through the sea. To say there is no reason for the stars is wrong. Even in Genesis, it says, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years" Genesis 1:14-15. For thousands of years, sailors used nothing but the stars to plot their courses. If this was God's design from the beginning, then the stars had to of been designed with the appearance of age, so that the light had already reached earth.

Except that stars give off more than just pretty lights... they broadcast electromagnetic waves all across the spectrum... most of which is invisible to our eyes. UV radiation is a good example. Why would God create radiation we couldn't see "in transit"?

 

[jasperbound]

That's back to my "God created everything late last week and just made it look like everything had been around for a long time" deal. What it's saying is that God cooked the books and left us intentionally deceptive geological and cosmological records to make us think something is true that actually is not.

Just as God used an intentionally deceptive creation account that doesn't separate fact from fiction (and in fact, is treated as literally real throughout the Bible) if TE is correct. Of course, either way, I don't see it as intentionally deceptive. I see it as humans being upset that things happened in a way they, not God, didn't expect.

 

[jasperbound]

Did Jesus say where he got the wine? Did he put the wine in a bottle that said it was aged 20 years?

Did Jesus do anything to imply that his creation (the wine) was anyhting other than what it was?

No... that would be dishonest.

Indeed. God isn't deceptive. Man is just presumptuous.

 

[random_guy]

Exploration! Showing God's awesome power! The bible says that we should be able to look at His creation and know that He is there! Also, some prophecy (Isaiah, I believe) talks about the original intention of the universe. Man was supposed to live forever and forever inhabit the universe. If man's population kept growing and nobody died and continued to be at their peak, would keep having children, then we would quickly fill the universe! There are lot's of reasons! I would accept it even if it was all created just for us to look at! It's so beautiful!

I definitely agree that God's creation is absolutely beautiful, and that's why I study science, to learn more about His works. However, I don't think that we should assume that the stars were made for nagivation, like you originally said, any more than we should assume mountains were made for nagivation. Both may be used in that fashion, but I don't think they were created for that, it's just a side effect.

Anyway, back to the originally question, the problem is the Earth and Universe was created with an appearance of age AND history, and it's the history part that causes problems with the YEC senerio. Why would God make it seem that a supernove occurred 100k years ago, or why would God make it seem that the Earth is old by leaving no short decay radioactive isotopes on Earth, etc... and cause scientists to mistakenly believe that the Earth is far older than 6000?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

One of the best arguements that TEs sport is that the universe and the earth just looks old. "There's no way the earth could be young!" they shout. Why couldn't God have given the appearance of age? He had to of created everything mature and all the plants blooming and bursting with fruit, or else Adam and Eve couldn't of eaten! The earth would've been desolate. Also, no reproduction would've happened for many, many years down the road. Jesus was capable of adding the appearance of age! Remember when He turned water into wine? What's the best kind of wine there is? The kind that has been aged the longest and yet the people at the weddind said that this wine was the best! It was created with the appearance of age! Why couldn't the earth and universe be created the same way?

There are two types of appearences of age. The first is the creation of something fully developed. Time is normally required, but it is possible for an alternate method of creation to create things faster. Creating something fully developed isn't a problem.

The second type is the presence of scars. Scars tell a story of an event in the past. Creating something with false scars is deceptive.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Just as God used an intentionally deceptive creation account that doesn't separate fact from fiction (and in fact, is treated as literally real throughout the Bible) if TE is correct.

Except that God didn't leave us that account... not directly, anyway. Men did.
Men who took divine inspiration and related it as best they could under the limitations of the current speech and culture.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Because he said that he didn't. A few new testament verses;

Acts 3:21

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
This implys that there have been people since the world began.


2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



The "standing out of the water" refers to the waters above the firmament and the waters under the firmament of Genesis 1:7

 

[jasperbound]

Except that God didn't leave us that account... not directly, anyway. Men did.
Men who took divine inspiration and related it as best they could under the limitations of the current speech and culture.

So, men can be wrong. Does this include TEs and other evolutionists?

 

[ebia]

Because he said that he didn't.

Didn't what?

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
This implys that there have been people since the world began.

Whereas Genesis clearly tells that there hasn't, and that people didn't appear for several days. In other words, the phrase in Acts is a figure of speach.

2 Peter 3:5-7

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



The "standing out of the water" refers to the waters above the firmament and the waters under the firmament of Genesis 1:7

Peter is making a point through reference to a shared myth. Only if you deny God the right to speak through myth would you deem this evidence of anything historical.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, men can be wrong. Does this include TEs and other evolutionists?

As much as it includes YECs.

 

[artybloke]

What's the best kind of wine there is? The kind that has been aged the longest

Actually, it's a myth that the older the wine the better it gets. Some wine does improve with age; some definitely does not. There is also a limit to the maturing age of most wines, after which they start to go downhill into vinegar territory.

A good wine is one that has been grown in the right climate, with the right soil conditions etc; its age, while not being totally irrelevant, doesn't tell you how good a wine is.

 

[Critias]

Actually, it's a myth that the older the wine the better it gets. Some wine does improve with age; some definitely does not. There is also a limit to the maturing age of most wines, after which they start to go downhill into vinegar territory.

A good wine is one that has been grown in the right climate, with the right soil conditions etc; its age, while not being totally irrelevant, doesn't tell you how good a wine is.

Well, someone must tell those who sell wine this new revelation. Wine that has been grown in the right climate and is aged will sell for more than one that is grown in the right climate and is new. Why would the price be higher, if both bottles are from the same maker, same type of wine, same climate, but different age, for the one that is aged more?

A conundrum!

It is well understood that in those days Romans and Greeks knew good wine and good wine was always aged.