[_ Old Earth _] Appearance of Age Argument

[Doulos Iesou]

If I were given a fish when Christ fed the multitudes by all observation I would conclude the fish had age.
Creating Adam with maturity and then continuing to live, grow, digest and age doesn't imply deceit. It means Adam wasn't born with a history of childhood to progress to maturity as an already living, breathing man. God created Adam in progress who began to age from the time he was created.

Again, God did not "plant" evidence to deceive. It's man that claims what he sees is evidence against God's power to create with maturity/age.

You would imply that the fish and Adam had history, which would be because of their maturity. Where the comparison fails is that the earth doesn't just have maturity, it has real evidence of history.

If Adam was created with Tattoos and scares that would be different.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Answers in Genesis?


I haven't quoted anything from them. If I do I'll post the link as I'm compelled to do according to the ToS.

They defend Young Earth Creationism and are perhaps the most popular source for Young Earth Creationists.

Do you not recognize them as an organization you agree with?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Gotta run. I work the afternoon/evening shift.

Okay, talk to you later!

 

[lordkalvan]

You know, something really occurred to me. I like taking the Bible as the inspired, infallible Word of God and that Genesis is a literal history book of the beginning of the Creation. So we see that we have 20 impact craters, that is something we can see. I'm not sure if this is the biggest, but one large impact crater is so massive in the gulf of mexico, that it would probably fit the whole state of Rhode Island or even more. No one is questioning that these have occurred -- well some people probably. But we do have physical and obversational science that we could see. But would it actually affect the whole environment? Most say yes, some say no. The scientists says that one of these impacts have killed the Dinosaurs, but that is not what the Bible teaches. Matter of fact, if we calculate through the Bible and if we add up all of these years through Genesis 5, 11, and some other places, we would get roughly around 6,000 years. But the only thing we can almost draw a conclusion on is that the days in Genesis 1, must be millions of years old. That is about the only place we could add tragic events, but then, how could God say that His creation was "very good?"

The Bible says nothing about dinosaurs as far as I am aware. As to the effects of Earth impacts, these are a matter of simple physics. The Earth Impact Effects Programme at http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/ allows you to plug in various parameters and see the calculated effect for yourself. You might also want to consider the environmental consequences of the formation of the numerous massive continental basalt traps that are found worldwide had they all formed within the last 6000 years.

 

[Rick W]

You would imply that the fish and Adam had history, which would be because of their maturity. Where the comparison fails is that the earth doesn't just have maturity, it has real evidence of history.

If Adam was created with Tattoos and scares that would be different.

I imply nothing. Implication of age/history would be in the eye of the observer. Holding a fish mature enough to eat wouldn't give most if not anyone any thought that it may be but minutes or hours old.
That's my point.
Because age/history is believed by observation (fish don't mature in minutes or hours) a further investigation would begin with that assumption, evidence would be sought to support the assumption (it's fins are fully developed, weight is right for an adult fish of the type etc) and presented as irrefutable data that the fish is indeed months old.
It's the investigator that imposes the need for history, a timeline, a beginning. Not that which was created.
Therein lies the reluctance to use the word "created" to answer the question, "Where did the extra mass come from?". "He created it" would then not only imply but confirm the lack of history and give a much closer look, a pointed example of and at creation not in the OT but now creation in the New Testament and that by Christ himself in front of thousands.
Had this discussion before. Same thing.
Heard some really good ones though. And you know what? The others refusing to say "created" never uttered a word against any of it. Like I said, anything but creation

But, here's Christ with but a few fish and feeds the 5,000. For some reason it becomes imperative the fish be not created. Anything else is fine but creation is out. totally.

They defend Young Earth Creationism and are perhaps the most popular source for Young Earth Creationists.

Do you not recognize them as an organization you agree with?

Ok, I looked at the site. Haven't been there in years.
Place has changed.
Looked for what we're talking about, the age of the fish. Nothing. Found a sermon on the miracle though.
What do I think of the site?
I'm not about to get mired down or caught up in defending/refuting/denying/supporting a website's or an organization's views/beliefs/whatever it might be. I'm not going to be led down that rabbit hole. My opinion of a website has little to nothing to do the views I'm expressing here, creation of those fish. Why is my opinion important to you? If you care to quote something from there then fine, but remember to include a link.

 

[Edward]

Allright so check this out. We're all Christians here (at least most of us), and no one is denying the deity of the Lord, or that He can and does perform miracles, unless I'm missing something big that is. SO how about this?

If God can create Man out of the dust on the ground, where would be the big deal in creating a fish? Adam didn't have any history, that God multiplied a fish probably wasn't dependent on the original fish anyway. What like He couldn't have done it without a fish to multiply?

And another one...Evolutionists say the world billions of years old, YEC say the world is thousands of years old. Ok, so let's ask the question that hasn't been asked...By who's clock do you make your statement?

I (think) that we all know that God is outside of our time domain, He created time, ok.

We also all know (I think) that, time doesn't flow at the same rate in space as it does here on earth. There's a couple things here that confirm that. We've all heard that it's not just time, it's not just space. It's space-time. Einstein clued us all in on that, and he was right. We've all heard the story that if twins were born at the same instant, and one was shipped out to Arcturus or somewhere and returned, that he'd be a different age than his twin brother. We confirmed this before, we sent two atomic clocks on two flights, one went one way, the other another way, they didn't keep time to the same instant. Additionally, there are two atomic clocks in the world, one in Boulder Colorado, the other over in England somewhere. They don't keep the same time, but they're both right. Something to do with altitude. It's only about 5 millionths of a second per thousand years or something like that, but it's real and confirmed.

So I ask you again...who's clock do you go by when supposing that earth is (whatever) age?

Would it be possible that...God created the earth and the universe, but that the time difference in space was different and running faster than on earth, so that, in the long run (to us here on earth) that the universe IS billions of years old, while on earth, only about 6000 years have passed?

 

[Rick W]

Hi Edward,
I see what you're getting at with time but wasn't the universe created first? As for me I cannot discount the possibility the universe was created in progress, that is, already in motion continuing to progress as God willed it to do... as with Adam, created as a living being also already in progress of following the natural course of things while locked within the constraints of time.

 

[Edward]

Hi Edward,
I see what you're getting at with time but wasn't the universe created first? As for me I cannot discount the possibility the universe was created in progress, that is, already in motion continuing to progress as God willed it to do... as with Adam, created as a living being also already in progress of following the nature of things.

I think so. I thought about it, and I think Genesis gives us clues. It speaks of, and the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, and so forth...So I think it's telling us that these were in fact 24 hour days, i.e. earth time in other words. So if we are looking at creation in terms of 6 earth days...maybe while earth was very young, the universe was out there crashing galaxies and suns and novas together and all that stuff, like it was happening in fast forward by earth standard time...so that perhaps in some weird way...the universe could be billions of years old AND created in only 6 earth days also.

Perhaps a little far fetched but perhaps not seeing as how a lot of stuff that God does is...far fetched...to man and his limited understanding! But with God, all things are possible, so there's that...

:wink

 

[Edward]

Ahh, good night brothers and sisters. I gotta hit it. View attachment 5309

 

[Rick W]

Nite Edward.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I imply nothing. Implication of age/history would be in the eye of the observer. Holding a fish mature enough to eat wouldn't give most if not anyone any thought that it may be but minutes or hours old.
That's my point.
Because age/history is believed by observation (fish don't mature in minutes or hours) a further investigation would begin with that assumption, evidence would be sought to support the assumption (it's fins are fully developed, weight is right for an adult fish of the type etc) and presented as irrefutable data that the fish is indeed months old.
It's the investigator that imposes the need for history, a timeline, a beginning. Not that which was created.
Therein lies the reluctance to use the word "created" to answer the question, "Where did the extra mass come from?". "He created it" would then not only imply but confirm the lack of history and give a much closer look, a pointed example of and at creation not in the OT but now creation in the New Testament and that by Christ himself in front of thousands.
Had this discussion before. Same thing.
Heard some really good ones though. And you know what? The others refusing to say "created" never uttered a word against any of it. Like I said, anything but creation

But, here's Christ with but a few fish and feeds the 5,000. For some reason it becomes imperative the fish be not created. Anything else is fine but creation is out. totally.

Notice you keep talking about the fish, which is a rather simple creature when compared to the universe... you will not address the direct objections I present when this argument is applied to the universe... yet keep appealing to this fallacious analogy (as I already pointed out).

We don't imply a history, we observe a history to the universe! It's not that it's "mature" but rather that it has undergone observable changes over the past 13.8 billion years. We can observe Super Novas that happened millions of years ago, because of how long the light took to travel to get to us. This isn't maturity, it's a direct picture into the past we when stare up into the night sky because of how light travels. Not only do Super Novas take a really long time to happen, and you need to right size of star, but the fact that we can observe these distant Super Novas further demonstrates my point.

That if God created the universe 6,000 years ago, then he would have created a completely deceptive picture of the sky, as if it had been undergoing changes for billions of years and complex processes such as Galaxy building and Super Novas would be observable as if the light had been traveling for millions and billions of years.

I can literally cite thousands of examples that would demonstrate my case, which would not be the case with something like a fish. Hence, the analogy fails to fully represent the complexities of this issue.

Ok, I looked at the site. Haven't been there in years.
Place has changed.
Looked for what we're talking about, the age of the fish. Nothing. Found a sermon on the miracle though.
What do I think of the site?
I'm not about to get mired down or caught up in defending/refuting/denying/supporting a website's or an organization's views/beliefs/whatever it might be. I'm not going to be led down that rabbit hole. My opinion of a website has little to nothing to do the views I'm expressing here, creation of those fish. Why is my opinion important to you? If you care to quote something from there then fine, but remember to include a link.

If I quote anything I always provide links.

Also, I wasn't asking you to defend views that aren't your own, but rather to show you that other YEC's see the error in the Appearance of Age argument, and that this isn't just an objection leveled from those who reject YEC.

This creates a big theological problem.

 

[Rick W]

Notice you keep talking about the fish...

Well yeah. Those simple fish are the gist of my simple inquiry.

How old would those fish have appeared?
If they weren't created then where did the extra mass come from?

If a contractor doesn't know how a storage shed is built then how can I trust him to know how to build my house?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Allright so check this out. We're all Christians here (at least most of us), and no one is denying the deity of the Lord, or that He can and does perform miracles, unless I'm missing something big that is. SO how about this?

If God can create Man out of the dust on the ground, where would be the big deal in creating a fish? Adam didn't have any history, that God multiplied a fish probably wasn't dependent on the original fish anyway. What like He couldn't have done it without a fish to multiply?

And another one...Evolutionists say the world billions of years old, YEC say the world is thousands of years old. Ok, so let's ask the question that hasn't been asked...By who's clock do you make your statement?

I (think) that we all know that God is outside of our time domain, He created time, ok.

We also all know (I think) that, time doesn't flow at the same rate in space as it does here on earth. There's a couple things here that confirm that. We've all heard that it's not just time, it's not just space. It's space-time. Einstein clued us all in on that, and he was right. We've all heard the story that if twins were born at the same instant, and one was shipped out to Arcturus or somewhere and returned, that he'd be a different age than his twin brother. We confirmed this before, we sent two atomic clocks on two flights, one went one way, the other another way, they didn't keep time to the same instant. Additionally, there are two atomic clocks in the world, one in Boulder Colorado, the other over in England somewhere. They don't keep the same time, but they're both right. Something to do with altitude. It's only about 5 millionths of a second per thousand years or something like that, but it's real and confirmed.

So I ask you again...who's clock do you go by when supposing that earth is (whatever) age?

Would it be possible that...God created the earth and the universe, but that the time difference in space was different and running faster than on earth, so that, in the long run (to us here on earth) that the universe IS billions of years old, while on earth, only about 6000 years have passed?

Time is certainly a complex issue, and what you're referring to here is called Time dilation. This gets rather deep into it, but space-time is warped by mass and time has been proven to move slower when closer to larger objects. I don't know about the Atomic Clock experiment you are referring to, but the one I know of included two clocks in a Water Tower, one at the top and one at the bottom. These changes on earth are very small, yet measurable. When we factor in the possibility of interstellar travel then things get more complicated then I can comment on.

However, this isn't to say that measuring time is totally useless as it is relative. The age of the earth for example is determined by measuring the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes, which is measuring the rate of decay of certain elements such as Uranium to lead isotope dating. Since the half-life is a constant, we can analyze the age of the sample. The oldest thing on earth we have been able to date is Zircon in Australia which is 4.04 Billion years old, but we know the earth is older because of the period of accretion that took place prior to the formation of these crystals. We have date meteorites that have given us the true age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years old.

The speed of light is the same everywhere, and we have observed nothing to indicate that gravity functions differently elsewhere, so nothing would seem to indicate that the universe was really young. Everything we know indicates an ancient universe and an ancient solar system and earth.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well yeah. Those simple fish are the gist of my simple inquiry.

How old would those fish have appeared?
If they weren't created then where did the extra mass come from?

If a contractor doesn't know how a storage shed is built then how can I trust him to know how to build my house?

This is about the appearance of age as it pertains to the earth and universe, not fish.

These analogies have already been proven to be fallacious, so I will not address it further. If you wish to speak directly about the issue, which is the appearance of age as it relates to the universe and earth then I will address that.

In case you need to know more about the fallacy of the weak analogy, here is some reading for you.

"Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:

(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.

For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.

An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough."
Source: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/

I have proven that he comparison is not strong enough, and therefore the analogy is logically fallacious and invalid to the pertaining discussion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I think so. I thought about it, and I think Genesis gives us clues. It speaks of, and the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, and so forth...So I think it's telling us that these were in fact 24 hour days, i.e. earth time in other words. So if we are looking at creation in terms of 6 earth days...maybe while earth was very young, the universe was out there crashing galaxies and suns and novas together and all that stuff, like it was happening in fast forward by earth standard time...so that perhaps in some weird way...the universe could be billions of years old AND created in only 6 earth days also.

Perhaps a little far fetched but perhaps not seeing as how a lot of stuff that God does is...far fetched...to man and his limited understanding! But with God, all things are possible, so there's that...

:wink

It's also possible that you are simply a brain sitting in a vat, that is having your personal experience projected in your mind, but in actuality your day to day experience is just apart of that computerized experience.

It's possible, but it definitely seems unlikely.

Could God have fast forwarded time everywhere? Sure. Is it likely. No, because it falls victim to God being deceitful in the way he portrayed the universe. I think if God created the universe 6,000 years ago, then he would have made it to appear so. This isn't the case, so I reject that hypothesis.

 

[Rick W]

It's also possible that you are simply a brain sitting in a vat, that is having your personal experience projected in your mind, but in actuality your day to day experience is just apart of that computerized experience.

You might be right. Found one of these while cleaning out the basement last weekend.

Ah, Deceit again.

God deceitful?
No
Man deceived by his own intelligence and ego?




Again, here's Christ demonstrating the power of creation in the NT to feed the masses but it's ignored because it's just too simple to waste time thinking about it. Or too inconvenient.
God deceitful?

Oh well.

 

[Edward]

Time is certainly a complex issue, and what you're referring to here is called Time dilation. This gets rather deep into it, but space-time is warped by mass and time has been proven to move slower when closer to larger objects. I don't know about the Atomic Clock experiment you are referring to, but the one I know of included two clocks in a Water Tower, one at the top and one at the bottom. These changes on earth are very small, yet measurable. When we factor in the possibility of interstellar travel then things get more complicated then I can comment on.

However, this isn't to say that measuring time is totally useless as it is relative. The age of the earth for example is determined by measuring the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes, which is measuring the rate of decay of certain elements such as Uranium to lead isotope dating. Since the half-life is a constant, we can analyze the age of the sample. The oldest thing on earth we have been able to date is Zircon in Australia which is 4.04 Billion years old, but we know the earth is older because of the period of accretion that took place prior to the formation of these crystals. We have date meteorites that have given us the true age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years old.

The speed of light is the same everywhere, and we have observed nothing to indicate that gravity functions differently elsewhere, so nothing would seem to indicate that the universe was really young. Everything we know indicates an ancient universe and an ancient solar system and earth.

So how were Adam & Eve able to look into the sky and see starlight?
We know that God can do things with time, it's scriptural, turning back time, stopping time...I think it's time to admit that there may be (huge) contributing factors that we have no knowledge of.

 

[Edward]

It's also possible that you are simply a brain sitting in a vat, that is having your personal experience projected in your mind, but in actuality your day to day experience is just apart of that computerized experience.

It's possible, but it definitely seems unlikely.

Could God have fast forwarded time everywhere? Sure. Is it likely. No, because it falls victim to God being deceitful in the way he portrayed the universe. I think if God created the universe 6,000 years ago, then he would have made it to appear so. This isn't the case, so I reject that hypothesis.

Whoa. That is an awful big assumption there brother. Gods ways are so much higher than our ways and his thoughts so much higher than our thoughts...that I'd be scared to make the statement you just did. You can't make the rules for God, and you can't (shouldn't) judge God. Just sayin'. So you don't get it. Neither do I. But that doesn't give us free reign to set standards for God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So how were Adam & Eve able to look into the sky and see starlight?
We know that God can do things with time, it's scriptural, turning back time, stopping time...I think it's time to admit that there may be (huge) contributing factors that we have no knowledge of.

This is a fallacious argument. I don't agree with your understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, and you are assuming that it is correct and then inferring the state of the universe on account of that understanding.