# Argument against Apparent Age



## nwink

What is the best way to respond to the argument often made against young-earth creationists that goes something to the effect of: "You're contradicting yourself to say that the universe has the _appearance_ of old age, and then yet pointing to various evidences in the universe to support a specific young age (place a date on the universe." How can the young-earth person affirm both that evidences point to a young age...and yet be consistent in saying creation was made with the appearance of age?

For example, would dating methods be irrelevant to a young-earth creationist? If God created a fully-formed rock 6000 years ago, would it not be impossible to date the "birth" of the rock as an "infant rock", since it was created as a mature rock? So wouldn't dating be irrelevant and impossible to determine? Should the young-earth creationist not attempt to date anything that appears could be older than 6000 years?

Update: I would appreciate it if people in this thread would stick to answering my original post (answering this argument from a young-earth perspective) instead of arguing about the validity of different positions on Creation.


----------



## CharlieJ

I think it's a good argument. I think it reveals the absurdity of a lot of popular creation science. If one holds to a mature-creation view, then the universe should empirically test as being old. By the way, it's not actually an argument against the young-earth theory, only against its empirical verifiability. See Redeeming Science by Vern Poythress. http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf


----------



## Skyler

That argument seems sound to me. It's something that has bothered me a lot, and one of the reasons I don't put much weight on young-earth creation science.

I reject macroevolution on theological grounds, but the young/old earth debate is a different question, especially given some of the "time dilation" theories that have been propounded. There is so much fudge on both sides of the fence that I'd rather just sit on the fence and eat cake.


----------



## Peairtach

nwink said:


> What is the best way to respond to the argument often made against young-earth creationists that goes something to the effect of: "You're contradicting yourself to say that the universe has the _appearance_ of old age, and then yet pointing to various evidences in the universe to support a specific young age (place a date on the universe." How can the young-earth person affirm both that evidences point to a young age...and yet be consistent in saying creation was made with the appearance of age?



Good point. I suppose it would be best to ask the Answers in Genesis folks, as they'll have thought of this, although maybe a YEC at the PB can.

Would the wine at Cana, on closer analysis, show signs of its youth? Would Adam, on closer analysis, show signs of his youth?

Another Q is, Why is it important for the universe to have an appearance of age? What does a young earth or young universe look like, since we have nothing to compare them to?

I'm sceptical of attempts to define the Days of Creation as long ages, but am more open to there being a gap at the beginning before the Heavens and Earth were formed and filled.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Adam was created fully formed, was he not? I believe the universe could show apparent age just as he would have.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I don't think the proper term is "apparent age", but rather something like "fully formed" or "mature"... I don't see any dilemma for those who uphold 6 day creation and a young earth.

As far as empirical testing goes, we should be testing with the assumption that a young earth was created mature.


----------



## Reformed Roman

ChariotsofFire said:


> As far as empirical testing goes, we should be testing with the assumption that a young earth was created mature.



That's the biggest and most overlooked point I've seen with many people.


----------



## ChristianTrader

bylogos: On Mature Creation


----------



## LawrenceU

The 'contradiction' contains a false premise. The apparent old age of creation is based upon scientific theories that assume long processes of time are required for the visible condition. This includes everything from fossil development, nuclear degradation, erosion, light speed, and so on. The 'necessity' of viewing the universe as old is completely circular.


----------



## Skyler

Scottish Lass said:


> Adam was created fully formed, was he not? I believe the universe could show apparent age just as he would have.



Right... but then why say, on the one hand, that the universe shows "apparent age," and then try to prove that it doesn't?


----------



## jwithnell

You can find no scriptural grounds for the age of the earth. Indeed, I've heard about theistic evolutionists trying to use the "apparent" language to get around some problems shown on the genetic level with evolution. God has given us general and special revelation -- and both are just that, revelation.On that basis, why not let geologist do their thing? There is repeatability and observability in erosion, rock weathering, faults etc.


----------



## uberkermit

jwithnell said:


> You can find no scriptural grounds for the age of the earth.



Really? There is a long history of Christians who have used the Scriptures to get an approximate time for the creation. In any case, they were not coming up with numbers anywhere close to what the scientists are telling us today.



jwithnell said:


> why not let geologist do their thing?


 
Because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.



jwithnell said:


> There is repeatability and observability in erosion, rock weathering, faults etc.



Yes, but they are starting with the wrong assumptions. For them, they _need_ an incredibly old earth. It is the only thing that allows for the ridiculous notion of evolution. Since they believe that mantra, "From goo to you", and since that is their presuppositional starting point, then they are not setting out to find the truth, but to solidify their own ungodly position. That ungodly position includes undermining the truth of the scriptures regarding the creation of this earth.


----------



## TimV

> There is repeatability and observability in erosion



Someone traded me some plants for this aquatic reptile yesterday and even though it's supposed to be a zillion years old I uncovered one of the teeth in about 5 minutes scratching with a nail. It's compacted sand, not even close to sandstone yet. I just can't buy those bizarre number most geologists use, and I don't feel that makes me the kind of crackpot that, say, claims vaccines cause autism by the kind of personal observation doctors are too dumb to make or claim by personal intuition the government brought down the two towers. In the case of vaccines and 9/11 there is data that can be verified. In the case of geology as has been pointed out earlier on the thread you can't prove something takes 1,000,000,000 to happen when you don't have records farther back than 3,000 years or so.


----------



## steadfast7

whatever our opinion of young/old earth is, we cannot deny the monopoly that old earth darwinism has on the "science market" and there is NOTHING we can do about it. The more we argue against it, the sillier we look in the eyes of the scientific community. Tim Keller is supposedly a theistic evolutionist proponent and I think he's thought through his confessional theology and his position in the intellectual arena more than most of us. I'm not saying he's right, but here's an example of one "solution" to the impasse.

One argument against apparent age is that God has been intentionally deceptive in his creation of the world and the discovery of it, and that's another hurdle Christians must face.


----------



## TimV

> One argument against apparent age is that God has been intentionally deceptive in his creation of the world and the discovery of it, and that's another hurdle Christians must face.



That's the kind of argument used to mock the opposition. Like calling people "Replacement theologians" for believing the church is Israel. They both involve the assumption that their position is the norm, when it simply isn't the case.


----------



## Peairtach

ChristianTrader said:


> bylogos: On Mature Creation



This is an excellent site by, I presume, Dr John Byl. Thanks for drawing my attention to it CT.

*Dennis*


> The more we argue against it, the sillier we look in the eyes of the scientific community.



You could sell the whole pass on the Gospel if you decided what to believe from Scripture depending on whether some people thought you were silly!



> but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.(I Cor 1:23-25, ESV)


----------



## steadfast7

I'm just saying that Tim Keller is probably smarter than me, has thought about the issues more deeply than me, has more to lose in conceding to theistic evolution, and has still become convinced of that view... I know a Christian paleontologist and he cannot but be baffled at young earth views. I happen to think that young earth proponents have some valid points, but I also see the power of the superstructure that has monopolized the market - it cannot be denied.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was created fully formed, was he not? I believe the universe could show apparent age just as he would have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... but then why say, on the one hand, that the universe shows "apparent age," and then try to prove that it doesn't?
Click to expand...


Actually if you just think about it a moment, you can see what they are doing. The old age folk assume uniformitarianism (if it takes x years for the grand canyon to widen deepen etc. y inches therefore it took z millions or billions for it to form what we see today). Then if one can show that under special conditions, the time it takes to develop something that normally takes a long time is greatly shortened, then one has attacked uniformitarianism. It is then up to the uniformitarian to justify their belief that it must have taken a long time.

CT


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


steadfast7 said:


> I'm just saying that Tim Keller is probably smarter than me, has thought about the issues more deeply than me, has more to lose in conceding to theistic evolution, and has still become convinced of that view... I know a Christian paleontologist and he cannot but be baffled at young earth views. I happen to think that young earth proponents have some valid points, but I also see the power of the superstructure that has monopolized the market - it cannot be denied.



The pressure to compromise - and attacks of the Evil One - are often greater on these big name evangelicals.

We shouldn't let Tim Keller or anyone else come between us and God's Word. I'm not saying you're doing that.


----------



## rookie

uberkermit said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can find no scriptural grounds for the age of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is a long history of Christians who have used the Scriptures to get an approximate time for the creation. In any case, they were not coming up with numbers anywhere close to what the scientists are telling us today.
> 
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not let geologist do their thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is repeatability and observability in erosion, rock weathering, faults etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but they are starting with the wrong assumptions. For them, they _need_ an incredibly old earth. It is the only thing that allows for the ridiculous notion of evolution. Since they believe that mantra, "From goo to you", and since that is their presuppositional starting point, then they are not setting out to find the truth, but to solidify their own ungodly position. That ungodly position includes undermining the truth of the scriptures regarding the creation of this earth.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. I know Kent Hovind has ruined his testimony as a christian with some of the issues that led him to prison. However, I find him one of the most educated individuals when it comes to debating "evolution vs creationism".

Another point, is that the text of Genesis chapter 1 verses 1-5 are the same context. There is no break.

And my last point, is for the ones that believe dinosaurs (that word was only invented in 1844 meaning "big dragon" or something like that), if they died before Adam, then the bible is faulty, because Adam and Eve are the ones that brought death to the earth.

So either God lied, or humans are.....I would rather put my hope and faith in a God that doesn't lie, therefore, men lie.....


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Answers in Genesis: Mature for Her Age


----------



## jwithnell

> There is a long history of Christians who have used the Scriptures to get an approximate time for the creation.



I don't agree with the age young-earth folks derive, nor the age that geologists claim. 

Asserting that many through the ages have held a position doesn't make it valid; what I've seen uses scriptures in a way they were not intended. Genealogies in the Bible serve as a remembrance or as a way of bringing the hearer (or reader) from God's work in the past, to His later revelation. It doesn't serve as, or claim to be, a census record.

Trying to claim "apparent age" cannot be supported either through the scriptures or through science. We know that God does not contradict Himself. So if He says there's an historical Adam who fell into sin, there is an historical Adam, period. But that is not addressing why the earth looks as it does. To argue that the earth has an apparent age or you can't believe in an historical Adam is an argument from necessity and doesn't prove anything.

I have seen for myself, canyons 2 miles deep. (The Grand Canyon is an irrigation ditch compared to the Snake River or Kings River Canyons.) I have seen the amazing folding in _rock_ in Kings Canyon and praised the almighty God who created it. I agree that many scientists bring their assumptions into the science, and that much of the last 150+ years of science has been corrupted by the evolutionary perspective. But that doesn't mean that all human observation (general revelation!) has to be thrown out, especially when it can be repeatedly modeled. 

_Could_ God have made earth look like it has an apparent age. Certainly! But to say that he _did_ so is where we run into problems with special and general revelation. Quite frankly, the whole "creation science" debacle has put Christians in a bad light and I believe it's fair to say that some who have taken up theistic-evolution have done so because it appears on some levels to have more academic credibility.

I am comfortable saying that I just don't know, and this side of heaven, that we may never know how the physical realm came to be the way it is. But I don't abandon the idea that God has given us an objective reality that can be explored and tested so that we can better understand some parts of it. I'm comfortable in saying that God has given us a force that draws objects toward the center of the earth and that gravity will work tomorrow the way it has worked today because it has come from the hand of a creator who in unchangeable and who is to be glorified by His own creation.


----------



## cih1355

nwink said:


> What is the best way to respond to the argument often made against young-earth creationists that goes something to the effect of: "You're contradicting yourself to say that the universe has the _appearance_ of old age, and then yet pointing to various evidences in the universe to support a specific young age (place a date on the universe." How can the young-earth person affirm both that evidences point to a young age...and yet be consistent in saying creation was made with the appearance of age?



The universe doesn't look old; it looks young. It looks like it is about 6000 years old.


----------



## rookie

Personally, the reason I think many people believe in old earth, is ever since the theory of evolution came around.

Before then, people in general agreed that the earth was only 6000 yrs old, and then scientists and evolutionist and a bunch of other "ists" started making the earth older than it was, and then some bible believers tried to adapt that theory.

Now it's the only way some people see it. Quite sad.


----------



## Sviata Nich

rookie said:


> Personally, the reason I think many people believe in old earth, is ever since the theory of evolution came around.
> 
> Before then, people in general agreed that the earth was only 6000 yrs old, and then scientists and evolutionist and a bunch of other "ists" started making the earth older than it was, and then some bible believers tried to adapt that theory.
> 
> Now it's the only way some people see it. Quite sad.



There was a debated between the Church fathers as to how old the earth was and whether or not Genesis 1 was to be taken literally or allegorically. Alister Mcgrath in his book The Passionate Intellect said that Saint Augustine for one, did not believe in a six day creation. So although most Christians have generally agreed that the Creation story is to be taken literally, there has always been a debate (a Christian debate), and long before the time of Darwin.

I know Calvin has a good answer to the question/argument but a simple reading through Genesis 1 can leave a reader scratching their heads. Our day is based upon the earth's rotation of the the Sun, but the Sun was not created until the fourth day. So how can three days pass before the object which is the basis for our day even exists? Questions about creation do not just come from Darwinism or naturalism but from the reading of holy scripture itself.

I don't think the sad thing is that people believe the earth is older than 6,000 years but that people don't believe in a sovereign God who created, guided and is in total control of His creation.


----------



## CharlieJ

ChariotsofFire said:


> Answers in Genesis: Mature for Her Age



I think this article is rather silly. It assumes that there was no aging before the Fall. I agree that there would be no deleterious effects of aging, but to deny that organisms would change over time is to assume a completely static universe. Let's take trees. Did the trees in the garden not grow? Did they not add rings? Were there not sprouts, saplings, and "old" trees, and could Adam not have understood (at least by observation over time) that by a natural process, the saplings would grow gradually toward becoming big old oaks?

As for Adam, I don't know how he would have changed over time, but I'm pretty sure that if he and Eve had a baby, it wouldn't have popped out like a full-grown Adam! Therefore, by observing the growth and development of children, Adam and Eve could infer that their own bodies were created at a stage in development that otherwise normally takes time. Hence, apparent and mature age. 

This brings us back to the main point. If God made a mature creation, there's no way to prove that it's young. There would be no empirical difference between a tree created 100-years "mature" and an actual 100-year old tree. So, there's no such thing as young-earth science if one accepts the cohesively mature creation view.


----------



## Marrow Man

Sviata Nich said:


> There was a debated between the Church fathers as to how old the earth was and whether or not Genesis 1 was to be taken literally or allegorically. Alister Mcgrath in his book The Passionate Intellect said that Saint Augustine for one, did not believe in a six day creation. So although most Christians have generally agreed that the Creation story is to be taken literally, there has always been a debate (a Christian debate), and long before the time of Darwin.



Could you provide a list of the Early Church Fathers who thought Genesis 1 was allegory? I believe Origen did, but he's not exactly the best representative of biblical interpretation. Augustine postulated this, of course, but not an old earth -- it actually bothered him that God would take 6 days instead of an instant. That seems more like a VYEC (Very Young Earth Creationist) view.


----------



## jwithnell

> There has always been a debate (a Christian debate), and long before the time of Darwin.


 Quite true. I believe it was the Scopes trial that resulted in Christians feeling like they had to make a stand regardless of whether or not they had the revelation to support their position. "Young earth" suddenly became the "old time religion" that people had "always" believed.


----------



## Brian Withnell

hmmm ... first, I would state what ought to be obvious to everyone posting here. If it could be proved that the earth was of _any_ particular age, would it say _anything_ that would contradict my faith? No.

From a purely historic point of view, until the coming of Darwinism and atheist mechanistic evolution, a large number of opinions existed in the time of creation. Augustine thought of a creation in an instant in time long before the debate over apparent age (or mature creation) came into view. So if we are charitable toward our brothers, then we do not try to paint one view as an attempt to fit into an atheist world view, but of honest differences in how exegesis of the book of God's word and the book of God's work is carried out.

That God is truth is certain. So if the age of the universe is 21 billion years, or 8000 years is only a question of what matches God. The problem I have with some is that they presume that the Spirit will only guide Christians in truth involving the scriptures. Jesus said: "“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you_* into all the truth*_; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." That means not only special revelation, but general revelation as well. All truth ... not explicitly just the Bible. "So as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." (WCF Chapter I, 8). The age of the earth is not a controversy of religion, but of science. Those who press the Bible to speak beyond what God intended do so against reason. While what the Bible says is true and authentic, what it does not say, it does not say. (To state the obvious.)

For those that adhere to a creation of a mature earth, fine and good. While that may be true, it is certainly worthwhile investigating the nature of that maturity even if it is only apparent maturity (to understand what God has in fact wrought). It is just as worthwhile as looking at the phenomena of light from stars that never existed (for that "mature earth" would also have to be extended to a mature universe, in which the "supernova" we see today of stars that had apparent distance of 100,000 light years would never have existed.) While it may be that the star never existed, it is certain that if God is not a God of chaos, then the universe today would operate under the same principles ... all of modern science is based on that premise that the universe is not chaotic, but ordered. So regardless, it would make sense to investigate the apparent age of the universe and the realm of the maturity of it (the apparent mechanisms by which it would have been created if it were old and not new).

For those that hold to an old universe, the "knowledge" of the apparent age being old should in no way impinge upon the message of scripture that God created the heavens and the earth. That there was a particular man Adam and particular woman Eve that were the special creative act of God and they were the first of all the human race. It must not impinge upon the knowledge that Adam was created pure and good, and that sin entered the world through Adam's sin and he fell and all his posterity through natural generation with him. Study of the mechanisms of creation should not change the knowledge that the existence of mechanism does not preclude the creator either from the origin or providential care over the creation.

Both groups should understand that only with union of all revelation will we have any chance of understanding what God has said ... for all he has said is in concert with his nature which is truth itself. God cannot lie, either in scripture or in creation. It is impossible for him to say one thing in one place and something else in another. We might not understand what he has said, but we are fallible in both our following the lead of the Spirit in his Word and his Works.


----------



## Sviata Nich

Marrow Man said:


> Could you provide a list of the Early Church Fathers who thought Genesis 1 was allegory? I believe Origen did, but he's not exactly the best representative of biblical interpretation. Augustine postulated this, of course, but not an old earth -- it actually bothered him that God would take 6 days instead of an instant. That seems more like a VYEC (Very Young Earth Creationist) view.



I'll try to talk to my Orthodox friend tomorrow, but as I remember - like you said - Origen did, Clement of Alexandria did, I think (although less sure) that Irenaeus did. Many were unsure like Jerome, Tertullian, and Gregory of Nyssa. Most did believe in a literal six day creation though, that I'm not denying.


----------



## Skyler

rookie said:


> Personally, the reason I think many people believe in old earth, is ever since the theory of evolution came around.
> 
> Before then, people in general agreed that the earth was only 6000 yrs old...



I'm curious to know where you found that statistic.


----------



## rookie

Skyler said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, the reason I think many people believe in old earth, is ever since the theory of evolution came around.
> 
> Before then, people in general agreed that the earth was only 6000 yrs old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know where you found that statistic.
Click to expand...


Not a statistic, and not supported....just leaning towards logic. I have a few friends that believe in the gap theory, and their logic is based on what "science" has found


----------



## Skyler

rookie said:


> Not a statistic, and not supported....just leaning towards logic. I have a few friends that believe in the gap theory, and their logic is based on what "science" has found



In discussions like this, making unsupported assertions like that really isn't helpful.


----------



## CharlieJ

There's nothing wrong with re-evaluating our interpretation of pieces of Scripture by comparing it to what we learn from other sources. Most Christians throughout history believed, for both theological and non-theological reasons, in a physically geocentric universe. Today, the overwhelming majority of Christians do not. When new data arrived that removed the non-theological reasons for geocentricity, the theological reasons suddenly looked a lot more inconclusive, and Christians found other satisfactory ways of handling the data.

So, in one sense, it doesn't really help to appeal to what Christians thought before modern geology, astronomy, and biology. They didn't have the data that we do that raises the questions and allows us to think differently. Of course, one can question the data, and many do, but we can't afford simply to ignore it.

Also, old-earth scientists were not just a bunch of evolutionists. James Hutton published his work on old-earth geology in 1785. Sir Charles Lyell set the methodological tone for modern geology in _Principles of Geology_ in 1830. Darwin didn't publish _Origin of Species_ until 1859.


----------



## uberkermit

To those who have contributed to this thread, and support at least the possibility of an old earth, may I ask what your view on creation is, i.e, literal 6 day (24 hour days) or something other than that?


----------



## Sviata Nich

uberkermit said:


> To those who have contributed to this thread, and support at least the possibility of an old earth, may I ask what your view on creation is, i.e, literal 6 day (24 hour days) or something other than that?



I don't take a hard stand, but I tend to think the the six creation days were _not_ 24 hours. 
I'd add that I don't believe in chance or randomness (thus I don't believe in evolution). I do believe Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a garden of Eden, and that humanity is 6,000 years (or so) old. 

I think Hugh Ross makes a few interesting observations that make me think the creation days were longer than 24 hours... 
[video=youtube;n-syxid39kg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-syxid39kg&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Skyler

uberkermit said:


> To those who have contributed to this thread, and support at least the possibility of an old earth, may I ask what your view on creation is, i.e, literal 6 day (24 hour days) or something other than that?



I lean heavily towards a literal 6-day creation, but it's not a hill I would die on. I support the possibility of an old earth, but I have no strong leanings one way or the other.


----------



## sastark

jwithnell said:


> There has always been a debate (a Christian debate), and long before the time of Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true. I believe it was the Scopes trial that resulted in Christians feeling like they had to make a stand regardless of whether or not they had the revelation to support their position. "Young earth" suddenly became the "old time religion" that people had "always" believed.
Click to expand...


Respectfully, JWithnell, you could not be more wrong about this. In fact, Clarence Darrow who was defending Scopes (and evolution) was shocked when the star witness for the prosecution (the anti-evolution side) said he did NOT believe in a young earth. Here is a part of the transcript from the trial. Darrow is asking the Questions and William Jennings Bryan is Answering:



> Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
> A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.
> Q--Let's see whether it does; is this the one?
> A--That is the one, I think.
> Q--It says B.C. 4004?
> A--That is Bishop Usher's calculation.
> Q--That is printed in the Bible you introduced?
> A--Yes, sir....
> *Q--Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
> A--Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.*
> Q--How much?
> A--I couldn't say.
> Q--Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
> A--I don't think it is older or not.
> *Q--Do you think the earth was made in six days?
> A--Not six days of twenty-four hours.*
> Q--Doesn't it say so?
> A--No, sir....
> The Court--Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?



Source.


----------



## Peairtach

*Uberkermit*


> To those who have contributed to this thread, and support at least the possibility of an old earth, may I ask what your view on creation is, i.e, literal 6 day (24 hour days) or something other than that?



I'm a Six Day-er, but believe there is the possibility of a "gap", as the earth and universe itself aren't said to be created on the First Day but before. Not a "ruin-reconstruction gap".


----------



## yoyoceramic

I can't wait for this thread to settle this issue once and for all. *snicker*


----------



## MississippiBaptist

Sviata Nich said:


> I know Calvin has a good answer to the question/argument but a simple reading through Genesis 1 can leave a reader scratching their heads. Our day is based upon the earth's rotation of the the Sun, but the Sun was not created until the fourth day. So how can three days pass before the object which is the basis for our day even exists? Questions about creation do not just come from Darwinism or naturalism but from the reading of holy scripture itself.
> 
> I don't think the sad thing is that people believe the earth is older than 6,000 years but that people don't believe in a sovereign God who created, guided and is in total control of His creation.



Another way to view this argument(perhaps a help): The rotation of the earth did not establish the 24 hour day; rather, the sun and earth as part of God's creation are aligned with His pre-creation definition of a day. To my theistic evolution friends I ask, "Why do you think that the rotation of the earth inaccurately reflects God's definition of a day." Then I move on to Exodus 20.


----------



## jwithnell

> I don't take a hard stand, but I tend to think the the six creation days were not 24 hours.
> I'd add that I don't believe in chance or randomness (thus I don't believe in evolution)


 I honestly don't know about 6 days, but I think any belief in a random universe is, if not blasphemy, close to it. How could a sovereign God just let HIs universe go? The work in intelligent design appears to be the best science out there -- not afraid at looking at what is, but not placing the assumptions upon it of the creationists or evolutionists.



> Respectfully, JWithnell, you could not be more wrong about this. In fact, Clarence Darrow who was defending Scopes (and evolution) was shocked when the star witness for the prosecution (the anti-evolution side) said he did NOT believe in a young earth.


 I apologize for not clarifying my statement. I don't think the _trial itself_ stated a young earth or an old earth, but it polarized people who beforehand wouldn't have thought about taking a stand one way or another. Even in modern times I've heard people refer to the "monkey trials" and how heathens were infiltrating the schools when it's obvious that the earth is only X number years old. 

If you think back to the first few decades of the 20th century, people were largely excited about what "science" was producing, even if based in Darwinianism. Eugenics had followers (and laws!) across the United States.

I don't think this issue will be easily settled, but where brothers have differences it gives the opportunity to think and consider the issues.


----------



## Marrow Man

jwithnell said:


> If you think back to the first few decades of the 20th century, people were largely excited about what "science" was producing, even if based in Darwinianism. Eugenics had followers (and laws!) across the United States.



True, and in fact, the textbook that was being used in the Dayton school was a eugenic's textbook: George Hunter's _A Civic Biology_. He said many things in that book that would never be tolerated today (such as saying the Caucasian race was superior to other races). Certain segments of society were referred to as "parasitic." He mentioned that the laws of natural selection could be applied to such individuals and even wrote:



> If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country.


----------



## JoannaV

MississippiBaptist said:


> Sviata Nich said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know Calvin has a good answer to the question/argument but a simple reading through Genesis 1 can leave a reader scratching their heads. Our day is based upon the earth's rotation of the the Sun, but the Sun was not created until the fourth day. So how can three days pass before the object which is the basis for our day even exists? Questions about creation do not just come from Darwinism or naturalism but from the reading of holy scripture itself.
> 
> I don't think the sad thing is that people believe the earth is older than 6,000 years but that people don't believe in a sovereign God who created, guided and is in total control of His creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to view this argument(perhaps a help): The rotation of the earth did not establish the 24 hour day; rather, the sun and earth as part of God's creation are aligned with His pre-creation definition of a day. To my theistic evolution friends I ask, "Why do you think that the rotation of the earth inaccurately reflects God's definition of a day." Then I move on to Exodus 20.
Click to expand...


Agreed. We find out how long a day is because we observe the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. But it was God who made it that way so we would be able to know how long a day was...

Nathan, it really depends on what specific thing they were talking about. In general, we can maybe say that "apparent" age is a misnomer, as the "apparent" age is only apparent to science that is based upon an incorrect basis.


----------



## Peairtach

It seems that God created day and night on the first day of the week so that he could work on days. You can't work on Six Days without having any days. To that end He created light.



> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5)



Genesis 1:3-5 is as much about the creation of day and night as it is about the creation of light.


----------



## ZackF

Skyler said:


> That argument seems sound to me. It's something that has bothered me a lot, and one of the reasons I don't put much weight on young-earth creation science.
> 
> I reject macroevolution on theological grounds, but the young/old earth debate is a different question, especially given some of the "time dilation" theories that have been propounded. There is so much fudge on both sides of the fence that I'd rather just sit on the fence and eat cake.



I am in a similiar boat. Not a YEC nor a full blown Francis Collins evolutionist either. If apparent age is "acceptable belief", may we also believe in "apparent evolution" if evidence points in that direction?

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answers in Genesis: Mature for Her Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this article is rather silly. It assumes that there was no aging before the Fall.
Click to expand...



I don't understand the absolutist, ironclad claim of "no death" before the Fall. To avoid being too graphic, what becomes of fruit that is plucked off of a tree and then eaten? Even assuming vegetarianism, what was the fate of fruit that Adam and Eve plucked, chewed up, digested and...... Surely the fruit "died" of sorts. Did no herbavore creature eat any bugs that were eating a tree?


----------



## sdesocio

Nathan, Depending on your position hold to a young earth view and an apparent age view might not always be the best option. The argument for apparent ages works as a defense of the literal 24 hour days found in Genesis.


----------



## TimV

Zack, when you eat an apple the apple tree doesn't die. When you cut your hair, you don't die.


----------



## ZackF

TimV said:


> Zack, when you eat an apple the apple tree doesn't die. When you cut your hair, you don't die.



No, but the cells do. No flowers, plants, grass nor anything were _eve_r smashed in the Garden? At least post Fall you can graft or transplant all or part of a plant and it will often survive. You can also eat it of which most all of it will die save a seed( if it is fruit that is eaten) is passed and it sprouts. Even when a person or animal takes off walking he can uproot vegetation.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

KS_Presby said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zack, when you eat an apple the apple tree doesn't die. When you cut your hair, you don't die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the cells do. No flowers, plants, grass nor anything were _eve_r smashed in the Garden? At least post Fall you can graft or transplant all or part of a plant and it will often survive. You can also eat it of which most all of it will die save a seed( if it is fruit that is eaten) is passed and it sprouts. Even when a person or animal takes off walking he can uproot vegetation.
Click to expand...


I disagree:

1. God is capable of creating a world without any death. 
------ including cellular death (this is just to say that God is capable of this, not that it is necessarily the case)
------ including bugs and flowers dying from being stepped on 
2. We should be careful in comparing our present world to the pre-fall world. We don't know exactly how the pre-fall world operated.
3. We can use what Scripture tells us about the pre-fall world such as:
------ God created it *good*
------ Romans 5 indicates that it was without death. 
4. We can use what Scripture tells us about the life to come to know what God thinks is a good world (ex no death)

*So why no death?*
1. The fall.
Romans 8:18-23 speaks to how the fall effected not just human beings, but the entire creation. 


> 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time nare not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for othe revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation pwas subjected to futility, not willingly, but qbecause of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that rthe creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that sthe whole creation thas been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have uthe firstfruits of the Spirit, vgroan inwardly as wwe wait eagerly for adoption as sons, xthe redemption of our bodies.



Romans 5:12-13


> 12 Therefore, just as tsin came into the world through one man, and udeath through sin, and vso death spread to all men5 because wall sinned—13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but xsin is not counted where there is no law.



2. Death is bad, and therefore life is good. God created the world good.
---- heaven gives us a clue that death is bad (no more death, lion laying down with lamb, etc.). This is a good clue that God thinks death is bad. 

Isaiah 11:6


> The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them.



3. It's foolish to think the only bad kind of death is human death. It's a terrible thing, when for example, my cat dies. The animal feels pain and is subject to the groaning of creation awaiting the final glorious day when death shall be defeated.


----------



## Ryft

nwink said:


> Should the young-earth creationist not attempt to date anything that appears to be older than 6,000 years?



Charlie Johnson already underscored the problem (Msg. 26) that young-earth creationists saddle themselves with by this mature creation argument when he indicated the problem of empirical equivalence; that is, there would be "no empirical difference between a tree created 100-years 'mature' and an actual 100-year old tree." Johnson's point cannot be overstated.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Ryft said:


> nwink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the young-earth creationist not attempt to date anything that appears to be older than 6,000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Johnson already underscored the problem (Msg. 26) that young-earth creationists saddle themselves with by this mature creation argument when he indicated the problem of empirical equivalence; that is, there would be "no empirical difference between a tree created 100-years 'mature' and an actual 100-year old tree." Johnson's point cannot be overstated.
Click to expand...


The old-earthers have just as big a problem. If God made a young and mature creation, then there's no way to actually prove it's old. If the 101 ring tree is actually 1 year old, how can they interpret the evidence empirically any better? They'll be thinking the tree is older than it actually is. There's no way to conduct old-earth science looking at a young, maturely created creation. Johnson's argument sounds good, but in the end, it doesn't really tell us anything. All it tells us that both sides aren't going to figure it out empirically.

Besides, the young earth Creationist doesn't interpret the evidence like a naturalist. We don't go look at the evidence without the knowledge that there is a God, who also gave us special revelation. In his special revelation he told us plainly and clearly that the earth is young. It's in his Word we see that the earth was created mature. So, we look at the evidence around us, and it looks just like God said it looks: young and mature. You take any scientific piece of evidence, and it's going to be interpreted through that lens.


----------



## Ryft

ChariotsofFire said:


> The old-earthers have just as big a problem.



No they do not, because a recent mature creation is a young-earth theory (and therefore not a part of any old-earth view). It is a problem for old-earth creationists only if it is true, which is the very question and therefore must not be begged.



ChariotsofFire said:


> Besides, the young-earth creationist doesn't interpret the evidence like a naturalist.



I'm sorry, and which old-earth creationist does? Could you please point to an old-earth creationist who looks "at the evidence without the knowledge that there is a God, who also gave us special revelation"?


----------



## athanatos

jwithnell said:


> Trying to claim "apparent age" cannot be supported either through the scriptures or through science. We know that God does not contradict Himself. So if He says there's an historical Adam who fell into sin, there is an historical Adam, period. But that is not addressing why the earth looks as it does. To argue that the earth has an apparent age or you can't believe in an historical Adam is an argument from necessity and doesn't prove anything.
> 
> [...]
> 
> _Could_ God have made earth look like it has an apparent age. Certainly! But to say that he _did_ so is where we run into problems with special and general revelation. Quite frankly, the whole "creation science" debacle has put Christians in a bad light and I believe it's fair to say that some who have taken up theistic-evolution have done so because it appears on some levels to have more academic credibility.



I am not sure "apparent age" really is a problem for revelation any more than creation itself is a problem for revelation. If God made it and it looks a certain way, our presuppositions determine what the appearance would imply. As such, the appearance of looking really old doesn't make God out to be a liar, nor does it give credence to the position that God would be deceiving us, despite our better use of faculties.

Also, should there be a difference between maturity and decay? Moreover, progress and time elapsed?


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Ryft said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old-earthers have just as big a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they do not, because a recent mature creation is a young-earth theory (and therefore not a part of any old-earth view). It is a problem for old-earth creationists only if it is true, which is the very question and therefore must not be begged.
> 
> 
> 
> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, the young-earth creationist doesn't interpret the evidence like a naturalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, and which old-earth creationist does? Could you please point to an old-earth creationist who looks "at the evidence without the knowledge that there is a God, who also gave us special revelation"?
Click to expand...


Hmmm, well maybe I didn't put forth a sound argument, but I'm deeply saddened to see all this evolutionary thought in our circles. I would maintain that old-earth creationists are influenced by naturalism / evolution.


----------



## Ryft

athanatos said:


> The appearance of looking really old doesn't make God out to be a liar, nor does it give credence to the position that God would be deceiving us, despite our better use of faculties.



If you were a classic car collector and I was selling you a 1957 Chevy, would I be deceiving you if I refrained from telling you that I fabricated that vehicle from the ground up only last week? It would seem that I was. 

When we observe a star in our telescope that is 2.5 million light-years away, and sometime later we notice the star go supernova and finally vanish completely, under the "apparent age" theory God would be deceiving us about a 2.5 million-year-old historical event that did not actually happen; it only looked like it did.



ChariotsofFire said:


> I'm deeply saddened to see all this evolutionary thought in our circles.



Sorry, what evolutionary thought? We are talking about geology and astrophysics, etc., which is not evolution.

I am not altogether sure how evolutionary thought could be disheartening, at any rate. Perhaps you could be encouraged to elaborate on that a little? For example, would you be deeply saddened to see embryology thought in our circles, when the Bible says about God, "You knitted me together in my mother's womb" (Psa 139:13)?



ChariotsofFire said:


> I would maintain that old-earth creationists are influenced by naturalism/evolution.



What do you make of old-earth creationists, such as myself, who are presuppositionalists that take God and his word seriously and hold it to be inerrant? There certainly may be old-earth creationists who are influenced by naturalistic assumptions and Darwinian evolution—I can certainly think of some—but you paint with much too broad of a brush here.


----------

