Young Earth looking Old

[humbledbyhim]

What about history? What do we know about history that states otherwise that God is God and God created the universe? Science I can see problems. I know of ecosystems, I know of planetary systems. I know that in order for ecosystems to be self-sustaining and workable, there have to be a lot of aspects of it in place at the same time. For something to become that from nothing would take a long time, but if God wanted to create a fully working ecosystem, He just would have, and then it would have looked like it took a long time because that's how it's naturally done.

The same goes with planetary creation. It takes the supernovas of stars to spread the heavier elements naturally, and in dust disks, the heavier elements are collected to form another star and perhaps planets around that. So, when God creates a fully formed, fully functioning star system, with fully functioning planets with fully functioning ecosystems on them, from our point of view, as we came later, it would look like it had taken a long time to form, when in reality it didn't.

Just an idea.

Oh, and has anyone here read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ? It really gets into a lot of scientific reasons why the Gospels are trustworthy.

Pertaining to peer reviewed scientific journals. When the majority of your peers think there's no God, and is biased towards never accepting evidence to the contrary, it's difficult to get your work published in said journals. Even the "objective" scientific community is made up of people, and people are never really objective. In Six Days is a compilation of essays from fifty different scientists, edited by a scientist. The only difference with this bias is that it leans more towards creationism, and so really does allow those views, and not the views of evolutionists. It's all bias. Looking at boths sides of an issue help see more than just your own bias though, and then you can decide for yourself what, exactly, you want to believe.

This was written by Lee Fey, and I never even thought of it like that, but it looks possible. Any thoughts? And keep things polite please.

 

[Critias]

I am an advocate of God creating a mature universe. He did so with man, He did so with wine, and creation was completed in six days and supported life. It just makes sense to me. Some people here choose to call this deception on God's part which really places themselves above God.

 

[Saucy]

God did it with all of life!

 

[gluadys]

I am an advocate of God creating a mature universe. He did so with man, He did so with wine, and creation was completed in six days and supported life. It just makes sense to me. Some people here choose to call this deception on God's part which really places themselves above God.

Quite apart from any question of deception, the concept of a universe made in mature form strikes me as a magician's trick rather than creation. A matter of taste, I suppose.

 

[Mikecpking]

I don't think its God's style to create something that looks old, complete with fossils, an enormous universe just to confuse us. God actullay encourage us to study science and of course, Science includes Geology. I think Galileo had it right when he said "teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes"!

 

[gluadys]

I don't think its God's style to create something that looks old, complete with fossils, an enormous universe just to confuse us. God actullay encourage us to study science and of course, Science includes Geology. I think Galileo had it right when he said "teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes"!

The actual quote is:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go"

He also said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/galileo_galilei/

Two of my all-time favorite quotes.

 

[EchelonForm]

I don't think its God's style to create something that looks old, complete with fossils

Not sure where you got this?

I think, Mature as in functioning, as apposed to making the heavenly bodies an then letting them go, like the birth of the sun would effect earth a coupke of days latter, not old looking. Like creating man, not a child.

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go"

He also said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Wow, thats great, thanks, I don't why that matters here. Galileo said stuff...

 

[Critias]

I don't think its God's style to create something that looks old, complete with fossils, an enormous universe just to confuse us. God actullay encourage us to study science and of course, Science includes Geology. I think Galileo had it right when he said "teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes"!

I don't know why people always think a mature earth comes with fossils.

I think God encourages us to follow Him, not make up our own theories to exclude Him.

 

[Mikecpking]

I don't know why people always think a mature earth comes with fossils.

I think God encourages us to follow Him, not make up our own theories to exclude Him.

That what it implies. Where do the fossils come from?

There are many christian including people in science who believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth and for them and me hardly excludes God!

 

[shernren]

There is a difference between maturity and age. Throughout the discussion I will be assuming that God works rationally according to what I know of logic. I admit that this may for all I know be a wrong presupposition. But then again, the other side assumes that God communicates through the written word rationally according to what we now know of science. This is also possibly wrong.

Disclaimers aside.

What I disagree with when it comes to the appearance of maturity argument is that:
a) It supposes limitations on God's creative power, (i.e. it assumes more than necessary),
b) It does not explain current knowledge about creation, (i.e. it explains less than necessary).

b) is the standard argument. The simplest demonstration is probably that a mature universe supporting life does not require Hubble's law and does not require galaxies outside our own, which cannot and apparently have not causally affected us other than spilling starlight on us. Again, there is no need to adjust isotopic ratios to show artificial age. Life will not die just because there are a few extra atoms of undecayed uranium in rocks around the earth.

Creationists would argue back that this supposes that we know everything there is to know about life and the science behind its requirements (although almost nothing can overturn the fact that nothing outside a 6000-light-year radius can affect a 6000-year-old planet). Hence argument (a), which did not occur to me until recently. Creationists argue that God created an old universe because life requires it. Let me turn that around: how do you know that all life requires an old universe? For example, God could have modified the properties of the Big Bang and the coefficients of nuclear forces such that the Big Bang itself could have produced all the elements needed for life such as carbon etc., without requiring stars to turn into supernovae, a process that requires a few million years at least AFAIK. God could have created sentient life that can survive the interstellar medium and not require planets. Science fiction writers imagine all sorts of esoteric lifeforms that can survive in the early universe, from quark-plasma energy spheres to brown-dwarf-subsurface-modular-distributed-intelligence beings (both from the same book from the same author! Stephen Baxter, Phase Space). Are you telling me, seriously, that Stephen Baxter has more imagination than God?

 

[Critias]

That what it implies. Where do the fossils come from?

Fossils come from dead animals/mankind. God creating the earth mature so that it can sustain life does not imply already dead animals/mankind or planted fossils. It implies that God created an earth that can sustain life in six days.

It is statements like yours that assumes if you are wrong, God is a deceiver.

There are many christian including people in science who believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth and for them and me hardly excludes God!

Well, I know how the Creationary Theory speaks of God, so why not explain to me how the Evolutionary Theory speaks of God. This is what you want to replace the Creationary Theory with, correct?

Creationary Theory = Six Day Creation as Genesis teaches.

 

[Critias]

There is a difference between maturity and age. Throughout the discussion I will be assuming that God works rationally according to what I know of logic. I admit that this may for all I know be a wrong presupposition. But then again, the other side assumes that God communicates through the written word rationally according to what we now know of science. This is also possibly wrong.

Disclaimers aside.

What I disagree with when it comes to the appearance of maturity argument is that:
a) It supposes limitations on God's creative power, (i.e. it assumes more than necessary),

The Bible states God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. Do you think natural processes can move that quickly to make an earth just formed to an earth that can sustain life? Key word, natural processes.

If not, which is why we have the 4.6 billion year time span, then if God created in six days as Genesis says, then God must have created an earth that can sustain life for mankind and animals to be created on the sixth day.

Now, explain to me if God chooses to create in six days how this limits His power? Are you trying to suggest that if He does things quickly that He is less powerful? Is Jesus less powerful because He raised a man from the dead instantly?

b) It does not explain current knowledge about creation, (i.e. it explains less than necessary).

Where we differ is that you require man's knowledge, which is limited and fallible, to be supreme and knowledgable of a time when he wasn't there. He expect what scientist tell you is truth. Thus, with these presuppostions you turn and put the Bible, God's teachings, under scrutiny of the scientists. Frankly, you hold God to the judgements made by scientists. From my view point, TEs hold God accountable as a possible deceiver and not scientists.

Tell me something, when do you think it is a good time to call God a deceiver if man is wrong? When is it a good time to become God's judge?

TEs who do do this, show that they do not fear God.

b) is the standard argument. The simplest demonstration is probably that a mature universe supporting life does not require Hubble's law and does not require galaxies outside our own, which cannot and apparently have not causally affected us other than spilling starlight on us. Again, there is no need to adjust isotopic ratios to show artificial age. Life will not die just because there are a few extra atoms of undecayed uranium in rocks around the earth.

Tell me how God is accountable and must work within Hubble's law.

Creationists would argue back that this supposes that we know everything there is to know about life and the science behind its requirements (although almost nothing can overturn the fact that nothing outside a 6000-light-year radius can affect a 6000-year-old planet). Hence argument (a), which did not occur to me until recently. Creationists argue that God created an old universe because life requires it. Let me turn that around: how do you know that all life requires an old universe? For example, God could have modified the properties of the Big Bang and the coefficients of nuclear forces such that the Big Bang itself could have produced all the elements needed for life such as carbon etc., without requiring stars to turn into supernovae, a process that requires a few million years at least AFAIK. God could have created sentient life that can survive the interstellar medium and not require planets. Science fiction writers imagine all sorts of esoteric lifeforms that can survive in the early universe, from quark-plasma energy spheres to brown-dwarf-subsurface-modular-distributed-intelligence beings (both from the same book from the same author! Stephen Baxter, Phase Space). Are you telling me, seriously, that Stephen Baxter has more imagination than God?

God is beyond Mr Baxter, you, me and everyone here. Why TEs feel that they can rightfully place God into an if statement where they claim if they are wrong, God is a deceiver, is hard for me to fathom.

Tell me, when do you think it is good to become God's judge?

 

[gluadys]

For example, God could have modified the properties of the Big Bang and the coefficients of nuclear forces such that the Big Bang itself could have produced all the elements needed for life such as carbon etc., without requiring stars to turn into supernovae, a process that requires a few million years at least AFAIK.

Billions, not millions. The physicist, Lee Smolin, in Life of the Cosmos says it takes 10 billion years to produce elements from helium to iron in the fusion of a star. And to produce elements heavier than iron takes a supernova.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

God creating a young Creation and making an old Creation is like someone buying a pie at a store and then making a mess in the kitchen to create the appearance it was homemade.

 

[itsgood]

anything is possibe, that is , if you truly believe God is God and not bound by scientific "laws" which man has made up in an attempt to interpret the creation around him

 

[shernren]

I have not become God's judge, Critias. What I am pointing out is that the creationists' argument is:

A: God created the universe with appearance of billions of years' age, because
B: appearance of billions of years' age is necessary for life.

What I am disputing is statement B, which you put forward as motivation for A. I am not trying to dispute A except to show that it is illogical without B in creationists' arguments since it is dependent on B there. For all I know, God may have indeed done A for any other reason C or D or E. But He did not do so for reason B not because of who God is but because reason B is simply illogical.

(By the by, God never explicitly said that He did A, or that He did it because of B. The creationists are the ones who say that and therefore by putting forth this statement they are "judging God". Of course, by that same judgment many TE apologetics are also "judging God". But as I have said elsewhere, sometimes it is necessary to put God in a box to reason about His behaviour. I do not consider it wrong, although I am aware that my conclusions may not be valid, and therefore I am fine with both you and me "judging God", as you put it. However you should be careful not to do what you condemn.)

Caveat aside, what I am disputing is the "necessary" of statement B. Firstly, because to our current knowledge, the appearance of billions of years' age is more than what is necessary for life (hence "it explains less than required"). If the planet really is 6000 years old, nothing within a 6,000-light-year radius can affect it causally, and therefore nothing outside this 6,000-lightyear-radius of causative effect has any effect whatsoever on the happenings on our planet. The Hubble Law is a good demonstration of this because the Hubble Law is chiefly demonstrable for objects outside the 6,000-lightyear radius, and it is acknowledged by both creationists and non alike (regardless of whether its origin, the Big Bang, is). However appearance of age alone cannot account for this because appearance of age alone cannot explain why there has to be anything outside the 6,000-lightyear radius for the Hubble Law to actually explain.

Secondly, life is not completely dependent upon appearance of billions of years' age. Why imagine that the only sentient beings possible are carbon-chemistry-based bipedal apes? God's imagination is surely far greater than that. The very fundamentals of the universe were/are at His disposal. Surely there are sciences in which carbon-based lifeforms within 6,000 years is an inescapable conclusion. Surely lifeforms could be designed which could survive within 6,000 years of the Big Bang. Why not?

 

[Critias]

I have not become God's judge, Critias. What I am pointing out is that the creationists' argument is:

I asked you a question that was not directed at you being God's judge. It was open ended on the latter. It is always something when English speaking people don't understand English sentences. I am assuming English is not your first language because of where it says you live, but what I asked was a question, not a statement.

When do you think it is ok to become God's judge?

The rest of what you have written goes off on your own creation of not understanding that i asked you a question and did not make a statement.

 

[Critias]

A: God created the universe with appearance of billions of years' age, because
B: appearance of billions of years' age is necessary for life.

What I am disputing is statement B, which you put forward as motivation for A. I am not trying to dispute A except to show that it is illogical without B in creationists' arguments since it is dependent on B there. For all I know, God may have indeed done A for any other reason C or D or E. But He did not do so for reason B not because of who God is but because reason B is simply illogical.

I never stated a specific age like billions of years. I said, in the Bible it says God created the universe and everything in it in six days. On the sixth day, animals and man were created. By this time, trees and plants were living and growing.

Tell me, what natural process makes it possible for a newly formed plant to sustain life with plant growth, animals and mankind in six days? What natural process works this quickly to do such greatness?

There is none. Because it says everything was created in six days, obviously God created an earth that was capable of sustaining life, which would look to us as an old earth. And for this miracle, TEs call God a deceiver. Some think they have the right to judge how God carries out His business.

Previously you stated that a YECs belief in a six day creation is limiting God. Is God limited because He chooses to do things swiftly? Is God limited because He tells us what He has done?

 

[Mikecpking]

Fossils come from dead animals/mankind. God creating the earth mature so that it can sustain life does not imply already dead animals/mankind or planted fossils. It implies that God created an earth that can sustain life in six days.

I think I know where fossils come from, it is obvious that the are the imprints in the rock of something that was organic. But the time span of 6,000 years for a complete fossil record is nowhere near long enough

It is statements like yours that assumes if you are wrong, God is a deceiver.

Some YECs state that fossils were put there by God to decieve people. On this I disagree, its just not in God's character to do that.

Well, I know how the Creationary Theory speaks of God, so why not explain to me how the Evolutionary Theory speaks of God. This is what you want to replace the Creationary Theory with, correct?

Creationary Theory = Six Day Creation as Genesis teaches.

Yes, because God's word explains "why" and not "how". The reverse applies to Evolution; otherwise life would have no meaning. Theistic evolution acknowledges God as creator and that man is the pinnacle of his creation. Genesis also emphasises the special relationship man has with his creator.

The fossil record clearly shows there has been continuous change in fauna and flora over millions of years and contimuous change in environment. I find it exciting that even though we are but a blink of an eye in the timeline, God sent Jesus to die in my place so I can have a relationship to him!

 

[shernren]

I'm sorry for misunderstanding your question. (Do I post like someone for whom English isn't a first language? ) But define what you mean by judging God, and be careful to show that it does not apply to creationists too before you condemn it. Remember the "Irreconcilable Conflict" thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t2257087-irreconcilable-conflict.html nobody has shown that creationists do not, in fact, limit God either.

I never stated a specific age like billions of years. I said, in the Bible it says God created the universe and everything in it in six days. On the sixth day, animals and man were created. By this time, trees and plants were living and growing.

Tell me, what natural process makes it possible for a newly formed plant to sustain life with plant growth, animals and mankind in six days? What natural process works this quickly to do such greatness?

There is none. Because it says everything was created in six days, obviously God created an earth that was capable of sustaining life, which would look to us as an old earth. And for this miracle, TEs call God a deceiver. Some think they have the right to judge how God carries out His business.

Previously you stated that a YECs belief in a six day creation is limiting God. Is God limited because He chooses to do things swiftly? Is God limited because He tells us what He has done?

I am assuming that evidence is important to this discussion. And with the evidence, there is no scientific interpretation that allows for an age of less than a billion years (a gross underestimation) for both the universe and the earth. Imagine if I had instead stated my argument as:

A: God created the earth with billions of years' appearance of age, because
B: millions of years' appearance of age is necessary for the survival of life.

Wouldn't that be a complete non-sequitur? The "because" in statement A would have fallen and the whole theory would fall apart. Now, I'll admit that I don't know much about biogeology and what is entailed in supporting life, and I'll admit that science is still far from a complete understanding of everything, though not all that far. But let me reiterate: nothing outside a 6000-lightyear radius can causally affect a 6000-year-old planet in any way. And for that to change, to widen the causal radius to a billion lightyears, is going to be a sea change equivalent to finding that atoms don't exist, genes aren't encoded in DNA, and gravity pushes away from mass. Logically speaking, nothing more than 6000 lightyears away need be created because none of it would interact with a young planet to be needed by it or to endanger it. Unless, of course, this so-called "young" planet was actually a lot older.

So let's give the creationists the benefit of the doubt and say that everything within a 6,000-lightyear radius, which will interact with the earth within the course of its existence, is necessary for life. Fine. Now, to refine the non-sequitur-ness of the "appearance of age required for life" argument:

A: God created a universe anywhere from 13.7 to 156 billion lightyears wide, because
B: Life requires a universe that is 6,000 lightyears wide.

Simply stupendous.