[_ Old Earth _] Appearance of Age Argument

[Doulos Iesou]

This particular argument is hinted at quite often on this board, but never really expressed in too much detail. This argument usually sounds like this. "When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, were they newborn babies or fully fledged adults. So it is with the Earth, he created the Earth like he did Adam, with the appearance of age."

This argument has a fatal flaw which I have pointed out earlier and that is with the character of God. It's not just that the earth has mountains that are millions of years old in appearance, or just very old rocks that we date and appear to be very old, or that the stars appear to be extremely far away. Rather it's that there are signs of history to the earth and universe that don't just point to age, but events happening in the past that we can learn about. For instance, why would there be ancient dinosaur bones or evidence for meteor impacts that date back millions of years, if the earth was only thousands of years old?

For me it is the cumulative knowledge of our natural history that is most compelling for an old earth perspective and it is what would make God extremely deceptive should he actually have done this.

Even creationist organizations like "answers in Genesis," object to this view for the same reason of it being deceptive, but despite them not recognizing the clear evidence for earth's ancient history.

 

[Allen Sherry]

I did come across with the argument about the apparent age of the Earth and the Universe. I had a co-worker says that believed that at first. But I believe it doesn't line up with the Bible. First, the Scientists uses a very common dating method, which is Carbon-14 dating. To make a long story short, they are not measuring the date that was in the rock. They are measuring the rate of the parental element and how long it takes for it to decay in the daughter element. But they must assume that the rock had none of these parental elements to begin with, or the rate must be constantly the same. But then, Noah's Flood will disrupt the elements anyways.

But as I look at the creation, I actually see a young Earth and even a young universe.

 

[lordkalvan]

This particular argument is hinted at quite often on this board, but never really expressed in too much detail. This argument usually sounds like this. "When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, were they newborn babies or fully fledged adults. So it is with the Earth, he created the Earth like he did Adam, with the appearance of age."

This argument has a fatal flaw which I have pointed out earlier and that is with the character of God. It's not just that the earth has mountains that are millions of years old in appearance, or just very old rocks that we date and appear to be very old, or that the stars appear to be extremely far away. Rather it's that there are signs of history to the earth and universe that don't just point to age, but events happening in the past that we can learn about. For instance, why would there be ancient dinosaur bones or evidence for meteor impacts that date back millions of years, if the earth was only thousands of years old?

For me it is the cumulative knowledge of our natural history that is most compelling for an old earth perspective and it is what would make God extremely deceptive should he actually have done this.

Even creationist organizations like "answers in Genesis," object to this view for the same reason of it being deceptive, but despite them not recognizing the clear evidence for earth's ancient history.

I always like reflecting from a YEC POV on the twenty largest impact craters we know of on Earth: there is clear evidence that they exist and that they are the result of large objects colliding with Earth. Now, if these impacts had occurred within the last 4000-5000 years (which, presumably, they must have or the Noachian deluge would have obliterated their traces), then Earth would still be suffering from the environmental effects of these impacts. If, on the other hand, they do not represent real events (thus avoiding the environmental consequences of the impacts) then what we see is evidence of events that did not take place, i.e. the creative work of a 'deceptive' deity. The only alternative seems to be to invoke miraculous intervention to negate the environmental effects caused by the impacts, in which case why not miraculously intervene to prevent the impacts happening at all?

 

[Rick W]

The fish Christ created to feed the masses, twice... how old were they?
If you were given one to eat then by observation only how old would you say the fish in your hand was?

 

[lordkalvan]

I did come across with the argument about the apparent age of the Earth and the Universe. I had a co-worker says that believed that at first. But I believe it doesn't line up with the Bible. First, the Scientists uses a very common dating method, which is Carbon-14 dating. To make a long story short, they are not measuring the date that was in the rock. They are measuring the rate of the parental element and how long it takes for it to decay in the daughter element. But they must assume that the rock had none of these parental elements to begin with, or the rate must be constantly the same. But then, Noah's Flood will disrupt the elements anyways.

But as I look at the creation, I actually see a young Earth and even a young universe.

Carbon 14 dating is only used on organic material and is reliable only up to 50-60,000 years. There are multiple other means of radiometric dating of certain types of rocks. You may find this discussion helpful, especially as regards the alleged problem of the prior presence of daughter elements in the decay process:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

I hope this helps.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I did come across with the argument about the apparent age of the Earth and the Universe. I had a co-worker says that believed that at first. But I believe it doesn't line up with the Bible. First, the Scientists uses a very common dating method, which is Carbon-14 dating. To make a long story short, they are not measuring the date that was in the rock. They are measuring the rate of the parental element and how long it takes for it to decay in the daughter element. But they must assume that the rock had none of these parental elements to begin with, or the rate must be constantly the same. But then, Noah's Flood will disrupt the elements anyways.

But as I look at the creation, I actually see a young Earth and even a young universe.

As lordkalvan already noted, Carbon 14 Dating isn't used to date rocks, nor is it related to the age of the earth, which we don't even use samples found on earth to date it. Rather we use meteorites to date the age of the earth, and this comes from our understanding of cosmology and the formation of the solar system. These were not subject to a global flood of some sort, but reflect a solar system and planet that is about 4.5 billion years old. Samples taken from the moon, which is also not subject to anything you noted also denote billions of years, not thousands.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I always like reflecting from a YEC POV on the twenty largest impact craters we know of on Earth: there is clear evidence that they exist and that they are the result of large objects colliding with Earth. Now, if these impacts had occurred within the last 4000-5000 years (which, presumably, they must have or the Noachian deluge would have obliterated their traces), then Earth would still be suffering from the environmental effects of these impacts. If, on the other hand, they do not represent real events (thus avoiding the environmental consequences of the impacts) then what we see is evidence of events that did not take place, i.e. the creative work of a 'deceptive' deity. The only alternative seems to be to invoke miraculous intervention to negate the environmental effects caused by the impacts, in which case why not miraculously intervene to prevent the impacts happening at all?

That subject alone would be one of the best topics for debunking YEC in a clear way that can be easily understood by anyone. I alluded to it in my post simply because it's a topic that often comes to mind for me when pondering on how ancient earth's history is. To allow for earth to undergo major meteor impacts that sometimes result in mass extinction, and then have the time to recover and repeat again.

Certainly it would take far longer than these people say the earth exists, to recover from such impacts.

This argument would actually force the YEC to accept the Appearance of Age Argument and just appeal to those craters as appearance of age. But would then fall to my critique in the OP.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The fish Christ created to feed the masses, twice... how old were they?
If you were given one to eat then by observation only how old would you say the fish in your hand was?

The text says he "multiplied" the fish and the bread, so I imagine they were exactly the same as the other fish. A miracle that does not denote any kind of deceit. If God created the earth with the appearance of age then it was certainly miraculous, but would fall victim to being guilty of deceit and lying given that the earth denotes a clear and observable history, i.e. meteor craters from traumatic impacts.

 

[Rick W]

So the age of the fish was also multiplied?
I have several fish. They have a certain mass. I multiply them. Now I have more mass.
Where did the additional mass come from? And how old was that additional mass?

 

[Allen Sherry]

I always like reflecting from a YEC POV on the twenty largest impact craters we know of on Earth: there is clear evidence that they exist and that they are the result of large objects colliding with Earth. Now, if these impacts had occurred within the last 4000-5000 years (which, presumably, they must have or the Noachian deluge would have obliterated their traces), then Earth would still be suffering from the environmental effects of these impacts. If, on the other hand, they do not represent real events (thus avoiding the environmental consequences of the impacts) then what we see is evidence of events that did not take place, i.e. the creative work of a 'deceptive' deity. The only alternative seems to be to invoke miraculous intervention to negate the environmental effects caused by the impacts, in which case why not miraculously intervene to prevent the impacts happening at all?

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?"

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So the age of the fish was also multiplied?

This is just speculation, but if I made a copy of a piece of paper, it generally is the same thing on that paper. The exact nature of that fish was multiplied so that thousands could be fed.

I have several fish. They have a certain mass. I multiply them. Now I have more mass.
Where did the additional mass come from? And how old was that additional mass?

That would depend on how many times you multiplied it. In regards to where the mass comes from.. I have no clue, I don't suppose to understand the nature of miracles.

However, I would say that this is a bad analogy on account of the differences between a fish and the universe.. which are many.

This analogy and that of an Adam created with a certain age both fail to realize that they aren't created with some kind of previous history as noted in the text. The earth has a natural history which it's present day appearance is now the result of, and it would take God planting false evidence in order to make it appear so, which implies deceit.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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?"

You are referring to the Chicxulub Crater just north of the Yucatan Peninsula that hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the Dinosaurs. This crater was over 111 miles in Diameter and 12 miles deep. In addition to the crater and fossil evidence of Dinosaur extinction, we also found high concentrations of iridium in the geological signature K-Pg Boundary, which seems to have been sent into the atmosphere at that time and thus affected the entire planet in the fallout of the impact. No doubt a meteor that makes such an impact would have a cataclysmic affect on the entire planet, massive tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, massive earthquakes, widespread wildfires, perhaps even blocking out the sun for a period of time. It's hard to wrap our minds around such a devastating event. Yet.. this is not even the largest crater we have confirmed.

The largest confirmed crater is the Vredefort Crater in South Africa, which is 186 Miles in Diameter and hit our planet over 2 Billion years ago. And there is an unconfirmed impact crater in Australia that is thought to be nearly 400 miles in diameter, but researchers are still studying this one. There are several large impact craters on the planet that would cause cataclysmic extinction events when they struck, though for the largest ones, life was not beyond unicellular form.

If you believe that a meteor that creates a crater that is nearly 200 miles in diameter wouldn't cause such devastation, then I charge you to provide evidence of such.

 

[Rick W]

This is just speculation, but if I made a copy of a piece of paper, it generally is the same thing on that paper. The exact nature of that fish was multiplied so that thousands could be fed.

You started with another piece of paper. And more ink.

That would depend on how many times you multiplied it. In regards to where the mass comes from.. I have no clue, I don't suppose to understand the nature of miracles.

And the creation of Adam wasn't a miracle?

However, I would say that this is a bad analogy on account of the differences between a fish and the universe.. which are many.

That places limits on God's power.

This analogy and that of an Adam created with a certain age both fail to realize that they aren't created with some kind of previous history as noted in the text. The earth has a natural history which it's present day appearance is now the result of, and it would take God planting false evidence in order to make it appear so, which implies deceit.

The multiplied fish that came into being had no previous history. The originals did. So you're saying God multiplied history?

Not deceit. God said He created Adam. He said so. There's no deceit when He tells us right up front what He did.

Planting false evidence? We're the ones that declare what we see is evidence to substantiate our beliefs to come to the wrong conclusions to support those beliefs. If there's any deceit it's in self-deceit and again God gets the blame as Adam blamed God for giving Him Eve. "The woman You gave me.."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You started with another piece of paper. And more ink.

Well of course the analogy breaks down, but I was only using the aspect in that it makes a perfect copy.

And the creation of Adam wasn't a miracle?

You and I have different views on the interpretation of early Genesis and the origin of mankind.

That places limits on God's power.

Indeed, I observe the limit that God cannot lie.

The multiplied fish that came into being had no previous history. The originals did. So you're saying God multiplied history?

What kind of history does a fish have? A scar from a hook in it's mouth? Though these would have been caught with a net, and would have just looked like a fish, nothing really definitive or noteworthy.

Not deceit. God said He created Adam. He said so. There's no deceit when He tells us right up front what He did.

Planting false evidence? We're the ones that declare what we see is evidence to substantiate our beliefs to come to the wrong conclusions to support those beliefs. If there's any deceit it's in self-deceit and again God gets the blame as Adam blamed God for giving Him Eve. "The woman You gave me.."

Let's cut to the chase, as all those analogies fail to compare to God creating the earth with an appearance of age. Is this what you're asserting. If so, I will show you the evidence of why that would be deceitful.

 

[Rick W]

Cutting to the chase God created Adam with maturity. Christ created the fish with maturity. Scripture tells us God created the universe with maturity. That's not deceit. He tells us what He did.
It's man that imposes the prerequisite of history. It's man that claims what he sees is evidence of that prerequisite for his argument against God's miracles of creation with age. And it's man that concludes deceit by the evidence he uses to impose his claim of history.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Cutting to the chase God created Adam with maturity. Christ created the fish with maturity. Scripture tells us God created the universe with maturity. That's not deceit. He tells us what He did.
It's man that imposes the prerequisite of history. It's man that claims what he sees is evidence of that prerequisite for his argument against God's miracles of creation with age. And it's man that concludes deceit by the evidence he uses to impose his claim of history.

Fallacy of the weak analogy. The earth and universe doesn't just have "maturity," it has HISTORY. There is evidence of Super Novas that happened millions and billions of years ago, there are craters that been left on our planet millions and billions of years ago. We have loads of ancient fossils that evidence that these beings actually existed and died millions of years ago.

Not to mention geographical history of how things like canyons formed through erosion over a long period of time.

There isn't just an appearance of age, but clear evidence that it actually is old. The only alternative is that the evidence was planted, which is deceiving.

You are not taking into account the vast differences between creating a fish and a man with the appearance of age, and creating the universe with the appearance of age as we observe.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Cutting to the chase God created Adam with maturity. Christ created the fish with maturity. Scripture tells us God created the universe with maturity. That's not deceit. He tells us what He did.
It's man that imposes the prerequisite of history. It's man that claims what he sees is evidence of that prerequisite for his argument against God's miracles of creation with age. And it's man that concludes deceit by the evidence he uses to impose his claim of history.

Even Answers in Genesis sees this.

"When dealing with issues about the age of the earth, many people defend the young-earth position by claiming that even though the world is young, God created it to “look old.” In other words, they say, God created the universe with the “appearance of age.”

Scripture states the directive that Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), which means they were formed as adults and not as infants. However, since they were able to have children, these well-intentioned defenders say they must have been “created old.” Some even go so far as to ask the question, “How old do you think Adam was when he was created?”

With this issue, a distinction must be made between an “old” creation and a “mature” creation.

First of all, God obviously created things that were fully functional from the beginning. After all, plants had to be bearing fruit in order to provide sustenance for Adam, Eve, and the animals. He did not just create seeds and wait for them to grow. The created “kinds” had to be capable of reproduction, so they were not created immature. As mentioned, Adam and Eve would have to be able to reproduce in order to fulfill the mandate to be fruitful. This does not imply that these creatures were “created old.” It merely indicates that they were created functional.
The concept of “appearance of age” brings our human experience to bear as we try to determine “how old” something or someone might be. For instance, how would you know what a 35-year-old man looked like if you had no experience watching people grow from birth to age 35?

For example, imagine you were in the Garden of Eden when Adam was created from dust. He appeared there—fully functional. After two hours, if you were asked how old he was, you would say two hours old because you would have no frame of reference watching people grow from infancy to adulthood. So without human experience, it would be impossible to understand the concept of “age.”

Furthermore, when someone makes the claim that the earth or the universe “looks old,” it is often because they have been indoctrinated to think it looks old. They have accepted man’s ideas about fallible dating methods and approach this issue on that basis. However, the real issue here is to ask what would a “young earth” or a “young universe” look like? After all, if one is sure something looks old, what would it look like before it aged?

God is not a deceiver. He cannot lie. Numbers 23:19 states, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” So why would God try and deceive us by creating things with the appearance of “age.” Why would He make the universe look “old” when it is not?

God has told us the truth in His Word. He originally created many things mature and fully functional. He did not create with the appearance of “age.” This is an argument Christians should not use."
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/god-created-things-to-look-old/

Given that this is a source you would normally trust, I suggest you check out their reasoning.

 

[Rick W]

There isn't just an appearance of age, but clear evidence that it actually is old. The only alternative is that the evidence was planted, which is deceiving.

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.

 

[Rick W]

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.

 

[Rick W]

Gotta run. I work the afternoon/evening shift.