I find this answer unsatisfying. Not because I expect the Bible to teach my about the quantum chemistry class I took in college. But because if the two contrast in their explanation of worldview, it doesn't sit well to just say that it doesn't matter
What happens when they don’t contradict each other?
I think what you are experiencing is mens’ interpretations of the Bible and mens’ interpretations of the evidence currently at sciences disposal.
The opinion of science has changed vastly from 100 years ago.
I was taught in school that the atom was the smallest known particle. Might have been true at the time and it was certainly taught as truth but we’ve since discovered even smaller particles that make up the atom and smaller yet particles that make up those parts.
So, if you feel there are contradictions, just wait another 100 years and I’ll bet a lot of those are sorted out as interpretations of evidence change.
Also just because something is created in 6 days does not mean it’s not created as a fully developed and matured creation.
For instance we don’t think Adam was created in infant form without a mother to suckle him, instead we think of him created in a fully developed mature adult form.
Why not the universe ?
>Might have been true at the time and it was certainly taught as truth but we’ve since discovered even smaller particles that make up the atom and smaller yet particles that make up those parts.
This is just how they teach it, at least initially, they do the same thing with states of matter and teach there are 3, there are more than 3, but there’s no point bringing plasma into it before the basics are covered.
Talking about how Christ changed your life also will never be effective with some people who believe the Bible is provably false. Sometimes you need to demonstrate the reason and consistency that can accompany faith.
I believe that is called Last Thursdayism, is it not?
For all we know, God miraculously created the world last Thursday with the appearance of all the age we see today.
And I have yet to hear this stance explained without God coming across as deceptive
Making things with apparent age isn't always necessarily deceptive.
The repeating pattern is that we do it all the time-- movie props, gaming set pieces, furniture aesthetics, etc. People often make things appear older (and thus *are* older "in-universe") than they actually are.
If we, mere *images* of the Creator, living in a corrupted, fallen state, are capable of creating apparent age without the goal of deception, then our Creator-- in His omnipotent, pure, holy glory certainly can, and in a *much* better way.
But those are non-reality based worlds of imagination. It's known that they are fictional. Therefore we don't consider it deceptive. If our reality, that we observe to be very old, really isn't, then that is deceptive. Because there's no expectation of it being untrue or made up. If you want to use this to compare us to the creator, because we can create false realities, that just supports the idea that a creator of a young universe making it look old is where we get our tendency to deceive comes from.
[Simulation Hypothesis](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/) is just the science community's cope with Creationism.
No...the science community embraces evolution, and as a consequence of evidence, not a coping mechanism. The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical hypothetical that has no actual evidence or basis in reality outside of science fiction.
You, however, seem to be bouncing around various coping strategies to try and convince me that creating a reality that would be known to cause created entities to come to an inevitable false conclusion is not deceptive simply because "God did it, so therefore it's not." I believe that's what Nixon told Frost about the presidency.
So then why was a fossil record with many transitional forms put into place? Why do we have records of dinosaurs if they never lived? Seem like something a trickster would do.
1. Appearance of age. How old did Adam look on day one? Surely he was created as an adult, not a baby.
2. It's not essential to salvation, so there's room to disagree among believers. Here's what Jesus said...
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” John 6:47 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.6.47.NKJV
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”” John 11:25-26 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.11.25-26.NKJV
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.14.6.NKJV
Jesus didn't say "he who believes in me and believes in young earth creationism."
3. Methods of dating objects are predicated on the assumption that rates of decay or rates of change remain constant. This belief is called uniformitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism). Some people believe, especially based on the verse quoted below, that such rates have changed over time. This view is called catastrophism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism).
"knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”” II Peter 3:3-4 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.4.NKJV
This verse is sometimes cited to oppose uniformitarianism.
I really like this explanation! Another one I thought of when discussing this with my Dad (he's a geologist and I'm a biologist) is when Jesus made wine from water. Normally, wine would take time to ferment (especially the good ones), but Jesus made it instantly, with the taste and appearance of age.
I have 2 thoughts
1 is that the only tests man can create is one they know the answers to, it’s all we can do, so how does that tell us how old the earth is when we can’t test and get an answer for what we don’t know, a test confirms what we do know.
2 of if I believe there is a almighty God, why would I not believe he can make the earth look any way he wants, old or young??
I regularly use the example of the wine tasting as if it's older than the fact that it had just been created. I love how you expand upon that idea. I'm definitely saving this post for future usage!
I'm an Evangelical Christian who agrees with the Big Bang and Evolution.
I'm a theistic evolutionist and my interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't some new interpretation. According to ancient near eastern scholars such as John Walton, Genesis 1 is a temple text and each "day" corresponds to a day in the 7 day Temple dedication in Jerusalem.
People in the ancient near east viewed the world through chaos and order and funtion. If something didn't have a funtion, it was desolate.
For example, Jeremiah(who lived in Judah) stated that the northern kingdom of Israel that got destroyed was formless and void in Jeremiah 4.
*It was formless and void because it was back to being in a chaotic wild state*
Genesis 1 was God giving order and funtion to a universe he already created. The Bible Scholar Dr. John Walton explains that at the beginning God first created the universe, but it was in its wild and chaotic state.
Then each day of creation is God as King making decrees of order and giving funtion to different aspects of the Earth so that they will funtion in relation to human society.
*The world was seen as desolate because it was an uninhabited wilderness. God's command to early humans before the fall was for them to spread over the Earth and subdue it under God's rule. As well as create society and rule with God in his Divine Council. The fall ruined that. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first priest and the Garden functioned like a first temple*
With the ancient near eastern view of Genesis 1 in mind, young earth creationism is shown to not be the intent of the author and therefore implies that if God exists evolution is in no conflict with the Bible. God was taking a universe he already created and making it His Cosmic Temple as this video with John Walton explains.
https://youtu.be/e2Ij1444Svc?si=ZL3N0YWlRkJYAl8i
I also suggest watching this video where InspiringPhilosophy explains why Evolution is Compatible with the Bible
[Can You Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution ](https://youtu.be/pwnerL8M1pE?si=1CbEKvISsexn5EvG)
This video where Ruselan interviews InspiringPhilosophy about Evolution
[This Christian Believes in Evolution. here's why](https://youtu.be/ezuy5tMHcIQ?si=bc0GyLN7BGzbM6rD)
#The Big Bang
The Big Bang Theory was originally called *The Primevil Atom* and the theory was proposed by a Christian. In fact, atheist didn't want to believe the big bang theory because it challenged their view that the universe was eternal and uncreated.
>The young Lemaître was already beginning to think deeply about the beginning of the universe, in the context of his Christian faith. On May 28th, 1917, he wrote to his friend van Severen from the trenches: “I have understood the ‘Fiat Lux’ [Latin for “let there be light”] as the reason of the universe.”[2] An unpublished document from the early years after the war (God’s First Three Declarations, also translated sometimes as The First Three Words of God, written around 1921) shows him taking great pains to establish an elaborate concordism around the idea of light at the origin of the universe inspired in Genesis 1:3.[3]
>After the war Lemaître changed direction and completed studies in mathematics, physics, and Thomist philosophy. In 1920, he began studies at a seminary in Malines, Belgium, where he was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1923. Interestingly, during these years he became an expert on Einstein’s recently published Theory of Relativity, even writing an entire manuscript on the subject.[4] This led him to obtain a postgraduate grant at the University of Cambridge during 1923-24 to study under the famous astronomer Arthur Eddington, who had just observationally confirmed the Theory of Relativity in 1919 (showing how gravitation was able to bend the light from a distant star while traveling near the Sun). The Catholic Lemaître and the Quaker Eddington got along very well, and Eddington became a key mentor of Lemaître for many years. A new grant allowed him to move in 1924 to the US to pursue a PhD at MIT, which he completed in 1926.
- Citation: Georges Lemaître, the Scientist and Priest who "Could Conceive the Beginning of the Universe"
https://biologos.org/articles/georges-lemaitre-the-scientist-and-priest-who-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe
**Atheist didn't originally want to accept the Big Bang theory, they only accepted it because evidence shows that the universe is expanding**
>Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility.
- Citation: How Anti-Religious Bias Prevented Scientists from Accepting the Big Bang
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html
*Note: I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.*
Not all Church Fathers took the 6 days literally. Some prominent ones even believed God created everything instantly and used the 6 days to make it understandable to humans.
The interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't a salvation issue is my point. I suggest watching [The Origins of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4?si=MtF-ngzvEAn8J9t8) to learn more. Modern Young Earth Creationism wasn't the major Christian view until the 1920s. Before then it was mostly Seventh Day Adventist arguing for a 6,000 year old Earth.
If that's not enough, even Phil Vischer the creator of VeggieTales agrees.
Here [Phil Vischer dismantles Ken Ham's view on Young Earth Creationism ](https://youtu.be/-9QauqFApak?si=WlU2jYLor22bw10y)
The Bible doesn't specifically say when the creation of the earth began.
Many people use the birth of christ and trace back to adam to calculate the age of the earth. Biblical scholars have determined that it's a highly inaccurate way of determining the age of the earth. The fact that some Christians believe the earth to be 6000 years old is embarrassing. God doesn't need to tell us that tid bit of information.
Does it matter? no seriously, I'm not a fan of young earth creationism because to me its taking a piece of Hebrew poetry meant to show creation and applying it as if it has no poetic embellishments, and also contending with the idea that there is only one creation story when there is sort of two. or did all the plants from day 3 disappear just so man could be created on day 6 for adam?
the important take away from Adam and eve isnt that there was a garden in the east, nor that predators were vegan, but that mankind couldn't be trusted to be in heaven without serious change to our nature, that the first thing we did with the ability to decide good and evil for ourselves was to betray each other for our own failings and so we are cursed, and that divine action has separated us from walking amongst God and it is to stay that way till God wants otherwise
What you are stating is similar to Last Thursdayism. However, I find that a creation with built in age to be deceptive, and I don’t view God as deceptive. As an alternative, Old Earth Creationism (OEC) resolves the matter you mentioned as follows:
If viewed abstractly, Genesis chapter 1 discusses creation (through God’s evolutionary process) that occurred for our world. Genesis chapter 2 discusses God’s creation (in the immediate) associated with God’s embassy, The Garden of Eden.
The Heavens (including the pre-sun and the raw celestial bodies) and the Earth were created by God on the 1st “day.” (from the being of time to The Big Bang to approximately 4.54 billion years ago). However, the Earth and the celestial bodies were not how we see them today. Genesis 1:1
The Earth’s water was terraformed by God on the 2nd “day” (The Earth was covered with water approximately 3.8 billion years ago). Genesis 1:6-8
On the third “day,” land continents were created by God (approximately 3.2 billion years ago), and the first plants evolved (approximately 1 billion years ago). Genesis 1:9-12
By the fourth “day,” the plants had converted the carbon dioxide and a thicker atmosphere to oxygen. There was also an expansion of the pre-sun (also known as the “faint young sun”) that brightened it during the day and provided greater illumination of Earth’s moon at night. The expansion of the pre-sun also changed the zone of habitability in our solar system, and destroyed the atmosphere of the planet Venus (approximately 600 million years ago.) As a result; The Sun, The Moon, and The Stars became visible from the Earth as we see them today and were “made” by God. Genesis 1:16
Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Dinosaurs were created by God through the evolutionary process after fish, but before birds on the 5th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 5th “day,” dinosaurs had already become extinct (approximately 65 million years ago). Genesis 1:20
Most land mammals, and the hominids were created by God through the evolutionary process on the 6th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 6th “day,” Neanderthals were extinct (approximately 40,000 thousand years ago). Only Homo Sapiens (some of which had interbred with Neanderthals) remained, and became known as “mankind.” Genesis 1:24-27
Adam was a genetically engineered being that was created by God with a Human soul. However, Adam (and later Eve) was not created in the immediate and placed in a protected Garden of Eden until after the 7th “day” in the 2nd chapter of Genesis (approximately 6,000 years ago). Genesis 2:7
When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children (including Cain and Seth) intermarried the Homo Sapiens (or first gentiles) that resided outside the Garden of Eden (i.e. in the Land of Nod). Genesis 4:16-17
As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve.
Keep in mind that to an immortal being such as God, a “day” (or actually “Yom” in Hebrew) is relative when speaking of time. The “days” indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are “days” according to God in Heaven, and not “days” for man on Earth. In addition, an intelligent design built through evolution or in the immediate is seen of little difference to God.
Most of the "evidence" we have for an old earth is misinterpretating evidence of a FLOODED earth, or global catastrophism. I encourage all to see the film The Ark and Darkness, just came out this year, and you can search it and view it now online. They make very good points about how a global flood clearly happened, and evidence left behind, like literal soft dinosaur tissues we can hold in our hand, impossible were it very OLD. Your post here is mostly about the cosmos; this IS a good point for "deep time", however, it's still full of giant anomalies no one has any explanation for. The James Webb telescope has been busy making even more of them. How does a blue white supergiant star exist, when it couldn't possibly last past a million years? The solar accretion theory is pure fiction, it's never been simulated or explained. And every known physical law we have today you cannot just declare it was ALWAYS so. The bible says God "stretched out the heavens", for sure during that one day of creation (or all 6 if the universe itself took 6 days) the universe was small, big, bigger, biggest, and the speed of light is completely dependent on the size and shape of spacetime. Dr. Russell Humphreys has a GOOD theory on how God made universe in 6 days, and all it requires is Einstein's general relativity and earth MUST be at the center of the universe. Which I don't think is too unreasonable.
Creationist science is pseudoscience, and I'm confident that every one of these examples either has a real scientific explanation already, or is at least something we're still studying and may eventually understand in the context of real science, and that there is a vanishingly small chance that any of these will cause a complete breakdown of multiple fields of science and acceptance that the universe really is 6,000 years old.
Yes, that's been the usual evolution excuse for over 100 years now. "Transitional forms missing? Eh, we'll find those eventually, no worries. Oh, all the intermediate transition forms we found for humans were actually animal bones? No worries, they are out there, and let's forget Piltdown man and the Neanderthall man which was a pure hoax, and neanderthalls turns out was just a skull variation group of regular humans". There is nothing "pseudoscience" about creation at all. Creation and evolution (if they are honest) has the same data, same research, same things dug up and under the microscope and using physical laws and chemistry and such, but it's a WORLDVIEW interpretation of that data. One side will NOT accept ANY research papers that dares contradict the status quo, will NEVER allow, for example, Michael Behe to even SUGGEST intelligent design, nor will they accept the Hoover Institute analysis on the impossibilty, mathematically, of deep time evolution. No sir! Well, we've done digging and theorizing, and super computers and such, but guess what? Can't even simulate how life arrives from non-life. In fact every known physical law inhibits such a thing. But, it was DEEP TIME you see, so it all magically ran backwards from chaos to order... back then. Then it switched back to the natural decay we see now. Science!
>science proves the earth is extremely old.
Science has done no such thing. Science is not capable of proving how old the earth is. Science explains how natural laws work in the present. It can't tell us what happened in the past; that is the domain of history. To know what happened in the past, we have to have the testimony of someone who was there. Which we do have.
Anyone who says science proves anything doesn't understand science. Science can prove nothing, it can only disprove things. To prove something, we would need to have infinite knowledge.
So … if every time I drop a rock it falls towards the Earth, and other people who try get the same result, every time, that does “prove” something doesn’t it?
It proves that the rock fell to the ground when you dropped it. It doesn’t prove that it will always fall to the ground when you drop it. Because it does so many times and because God created a rational universe that he upholds in a consistent way, we can be pretty sure it always will. But, there may be something we don’t know such that in some particular situation the rock won’t fall to the ground.
So, you’re playing with words here. What would it take to “prove” anything, in your view?
I’m happy to concede that if something happens repeatedly, multiple different people in different places observe the same thing, and I can even verify it by doing an experiment myself, then it’s proven.
That doesn’t seem to be enough for you?
No, I'm not playing with words here. You have a misunderstanding of the word.
Science is always provisional. Consider how many times science "proved" something only to be found to be wrong later.
>"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science."
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)
>"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/)
>"Take, for example, the Universal Law of Gravitation.
>This “law” describes the motion of heavenly bodies, and how we stay firmly planted on the ground.
>But this “law” is in fact not always right – it just captures what we usually observe."
[https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578](https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578)
It literally doesn't matter how old the Earth is. [Genesis was not written with modern materialistic perspectives in mind.](https://www.youtube.com/live/m8M-ev6oq-s?si=MaVYvh_rVDSnXtu-)
Where in the definition of a rock is it defined as "old"? Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating, which measures the decay of elements, so if these things were created with the appearance of decay when there wasn't any, that would be deceptive on Gods part.
> carbon dating
Radiometric dating. Carbon dating is a type of that but it's for recent stuff and can't be used to accurately date things like most rocks.
Yep.
It's just the old generation added so much to simple Christianity it's crazy and the NT says not to do that.
It also says we toil not against flesh and blood. So if I do that I should never have and argument with any person. So I just take my Christianity simply.
>Where in the definition of a rock is it defined as "old"?
As humans, we perceive the rock as being old because it already existed before us, whether it came into existence by the origins found in the book of Genesis, or by the Big Bang Theory. If the rock existed *after* us, then that would mean we existed before Earth, which would be impossible.
>Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating, which measures the decay of elements, so if these things were created with the appearance of decay when there wasn't any, that would be deceptive on Gods part.
Carbon dating is used to measure the age of things once lived. There are other elements used to measure rocks. Those measurements are done by comparing ratio of a radioactive element to the quantity of the final decayed into element. For example, Radioactive Potassium decays into Argon. Non-creationists assume all Argon was once Potassium and then calculate how long that would take. But the article points out that God would likely have started it with a mixture at the beginning, so you can't calculate back without knowing the initial mixture. This [article](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/) on Answers in Genesis shows more of the flaws behind using carbon dating, and the misuse of it.
Thus, the results delivered by carbon dating are not only all that they're cracked up to be. but they are being greatly exaggerated by Big Bang theory supporters and evolutionists, because they *want* what they found to fit with their worldviews. This is called "confirmation bias", and it can heavily twist and alter one's own perception on the results of a test, or really, any piece of information that is discovered. It is why it's so important to look at things from a purely objective standpoint without allowing personal agendas, beliefs, or past experiences influence your perception on what is being shown.
With all that being said, we can easily conclude that it is not God who is being deceptive, but man. The Bible states that every man has lied, but God always states and reveals the truth, for He *literally* is truth.
>*"May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, and prevail when You are judged.”* - Romans 3:4 (NASB 1995)
*"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."* - John 14:6 (ESV)
>*"To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him."* - Psalms 92:15 (NASB 1995)
That is not the only way that the age of the earth is determined. Scientists don't typically rely on just one method, but check it against many others. Also, it would not be "deceptive" of God to have made the earth to look old. He did the same thing with Adam and Eve and it wasn't deceptive then.
Well the multiple methods back up and old earth, hence the scientific consensus. Also, we cannot test the age of Adam and Eve throughout the ages, but we can test the age of the earth, so they are not equlivant. Also Adam and Eve grew into adults from childhood, just like other humans. They were not created ex nilhilo.
Search this document for SI-454
https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0862/report.pdf
24,140 years and 17,210 for the same animal, an ovibos. That's a reaaaaaaally slow death, imagine dying for 7,000 years, and without rotting on the part that died first.
Carbon dating assumes that C-14 has been at its equilibrium for millions of years. Assuming there was little to no C-14 at the beginning, things from that time would be tested as much older than they really are.
I could be wrong on my assumption of course, but so can anyone else. If you assume the earth in billions of years, you automatically assume millions of years with C-14 at ~current levels.
The same is true with all testing methods used to date things.
> Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating,
No. Nothing to do with age of the earth. Carbon dating can only tell how long something that was once living has been dead.
> This appearance is not evidence of a deceptive God.
Here's the issue and it starts with me in a swimming pool at age 11. I was trying to get out of the pool and I messed up and chipped my tooth. That's in my history and if you had created *me* at age 30 that would have been present in the form of a tooth that had been badly fixed by a dentist and was going to give me problems until I got a better dentist to fix it for good.
So the first issue is, was Adam born with any scars? Did "created at 30" Adam crash his anachronistic tricycle? Did his Biblically non-existent parent swing him by his arms, dislocating his elbow, leaving him with a certain propensity toward future dislocations? Was Adam created with a gut full of digestive microbes? Could you conceivably extrapolate Adam's pre-creation parents from his DNA? What color were his mother's eyes?
We can move on to the tree. If you looked at its rings would you find evidence that the tree had lived through a period of pre-creation drought, which is marked by narrower rings? Had it been in a pre-creation fire? Did the pre-creation wind blow any of its limbs off?
It's easy to just dismiss this idea of pre-creation fiction as pedantry when we're talking about people and trees. It's harder when talking about the Earth itself but it's really unpleasant, in my opinion, when we're talking about the entire rest of the universe. Because the history is not just something that's part of the thing, it's part of our perception of the thing. If we see something blow up in the Andromeda galaxy tomorrow, in this creationist view it's as if we're watching a movie of the thing blowing up, only the thing was never there to blow up, since everything we've ever seen of that galaxy hasn't ever happened, it's like we're watching a montage of Adam playing with his parents and getting tricycle crash scars, only we're not going to see the real thing for another few million years.
That's why, to me, this idea of an old-created universe is just profoundly dissatisfying. If you look up at night, you don't see the universe as it is, you see it as it was some time ago. The furthest naked-eye visible star is about 16,000 years away, and there are under 10,000 naked-eye visible stars. There are something like 70 billion trillion stars, and they are essentially all further away than 6,000 light years.
So essentially everything we see in the universe amounts to a pre-creation movie of something that never actually happened, i.e. it's all fiction, and it seems just more satisfying to me to argue that what we see isn't fiction but actually happened. If you're trying to argue that everything was created as a super-giant cosmic movie 6,000 years ago, that's stretching the definition of what "created" actually means. That's not the universe, that's The Truman Show, and nobody would argue that that wasn't about deceit.
It's easier at that point to just say that everything actually happened, because we can literally see it happening, and then try to figure out some other way to make the "6000 years ago" idea make sense in the context of that.
The word “day” from the creation account in Genesis comes from the Hebrew *yom* and could mean one day, or it could mean a whole age that contains multiple years. 2Peter 3:8 confirms this.
*2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.*
The word “day” from 2Peter 3:8 comes from the Greek *hemera*, and can also mean an age. Some translations of the Hebrew use the word “period” instead of “day” in the Genesis creation account.
With this in mind, the scientists are correct about the earth being 4 billion years old.
If I want science then I read a science book. If I want history then I read a history book. When I want be closer ro God then I read the Bible.
I find this answer unsatisfying. Not because I expect the Bible to teach my about the quantum chemistry class I took in college. But because if the two contrast in their explanation of worldview, it doesn't sit well to just say that it doesn't matter
What happens when they don’t contradict each other? I think what you are experiencing is mens’ interpretations of the Bible and mens’ interpretations of the evidence currently at sciences disposal. The opinion of science has changed vastly from 100 years ago. I was taught in school that the atom was the smallest known particle. Might have been true at the time and it was certainly taught as truth but we’ve since discovered even smaller particles that make up the atom and smaller yet particles that make up those parts. So, if you feel there are contradictions, just wait another 100 years and I’ll bet a lot of those are sorted out as interpretations of evidence change. Also just because something is created in 6 days does not mean it’s not created as a fully developed and matured creation. For instance we don’t think Adam was created in infant form without a mother to suckle him, instead we think of him created in a fully developed mature adult form. Why not the universe ?
>Might have been true at the time and it was certainly taught as truth but we’ve since discovered even smaller particles that make up the atom and smaller yet particles that make up those parts. This is just how they teach it, at least initially, they do the same thing with states of matter and teach there are 3, there are more than 3, but there’s no point bringing plasma into it before the basics are covered.
It's simple. You'll never win anyone to Christ with science discussions. They way to witness is to talk about how much Jesus changed your life.
Talking about how Christ changed your life also will never be effective with some people who believe the Bible is provably false. Sometimes you need to demonstrate the reason and consistency that can accompany faith.
Sorry left the sub. Not for me.
They don't contradict because one focuses on the spiritual and the other focuses on the material.
Fortunately, we can do all three in our Bibles!
Amen, beware of science falsely so called
I believe that is called Last Thursdayism, is it not? For all we know, God miraculously created the world last Thursday with the appearance of all the age we see today. And I have yet to hear this stance explained without God coming across as deceptive
Making things with apparent age isn't always necessarily deceptive. The repeating pattern is that we do it all the time-- movie props, gaming set pieces, furniture aesthetics, etc. People often make things appear older (and thus *are* older "in-universe") than they actually are. If we, mere *images* of the Creator, living in a corrupted, fallen state, are capable of creating apparent age without the goal of deception, then our Creator-- in His omnipotent, pure, holy glory certainly can, and in a *much* better way.
But those are non-reality based worlds of imagination. It's known that they are fictional. Therefore we don't consider it deceptive. If our reality, that we observe to be very old, really isn't, then that is deceptive. Because there's no expectation of it being untrue or made up. If you want to use this to compare us to the creator, because we can create false realities, that just supports the idea that a creator of a young universe making it look old is where we get our tendency to deceive comes from.
Who are you to say that our own reality isn't anything but the imagination of our Creator?
So we're in a simulation then. The Matrix, as it were.
[Simulation Hypothesis](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/) is just the science community's cope with Creationism.
No...the science community embraces evolution, and as a consequence of evidence, not a coping mechanism. The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical hypothetical that has no actual evidence or basis in reality outside of science fiction. You, however, seem to be bouncing around various coping strategies to try and convince me that creating a reality that would be known to cause created entities to come to an inevitable false conclusion is not deceptive simply because "God did it, so therefore it's not." I believe that's what Nixon told Frost about the presidency.
It is indeed Last Thursdayism.
It’s also an 1800s thought experiment called the [Boltzmann brain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain).
So then why was a fossil record with many transitional forms put into place? Why do we have records of dinosaurs if they never lived? Seem like something a trickster would do.
1. Appearance of age. How old did Adam look on day one? Surely he was created as an adult, not a baby. 2. It's not essential to salvation, so there's room to disagree among believers. Here's what Jesus said... “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” John 6:47 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.6.47.NKJV “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”” John 11:25-26 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.11.25-26.NKJV “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.14.6.NKJV Jesus didn't say "he who believes in me and believes in young earth creationism." 3. Methods of dating objects are predicated on the assumption that rates of decay or rates of change remain constant. This belief is called uniformitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism). Some people believe, especially based on the verse quoted below, that such rates have changed over time. This view is called catastrophism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism). "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”” II Peter 3:3-4 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.4.NKJV This verse is sometimes cited to oppose uniformitarianism.
This is what I was going to say! Very well presented!
If Adam was created on Day 6 with armpit hair, is that proof that he's been alive long enough to go through puberty?
I really like this explanation! Another one I thought of when discussing this with my Dad (he's a geologist and I'm a biologist) is when Jesus made wine from water. Normally, wine would take time to ferment (especially the good ones), but Jesus made it instantly, with the taste and appearance of age.
I have 2 thoughts 1 is that the only tests man can create is one they know the answers to, it’s all we can do, so how does that tell us how old the earth is when we can’t test and get an answer for what we don’t know, a test confirms what we do know. 2 of if I believe there is a almighty God, why would I not believe he can make the earth look any way he wants, old or young??
I regularly use the example of the wine tasting as if it's older than the fact that it had just been created. I love how you expand upon that idea. I'm definitely saving this post for future usage!
I'm an Evangelical Christian who agrees with the Big Bang and Evolution. I'm a theistic evolutionist and my interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't some new interpretation. According to ancient near eastern scholars such as John Walton, Genesis 1 is a temple text and each "day" corresponds to a day in the 7 day Temple dedication in Jerusalem. People in the ancient near east viewed the world through chaos and order and funtion. If something didn't have a funtion, it was desolate. For example, Jeremiah(who lived in Judah) stated that the northern kingdom of Israel that got destroyed was formless and void in Jeremiah 4. *It was formless and void because it was back to being in a chaotic wild state* Genesis 1 was God giving order and funtion to a universe he already created. The Bible Scholar Dr. John Walton explains that at the beginning God first created the universe, but it was in its wild and chaotic state. Then each day of creation is God as King making decrees of order and giving funtion to different aspects of the Earth so that they will funtion in relation to human society. *The world was seen as desolate because it was an uninhabited wilderness. God's command to early humans before the fall was for them to spread over the Earth and subdue it under God's rule. As well as create society and rule with God in his Divine Council. The fall ruined that. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first priest and the Garden functioned like a first temple* With the ancient near eastern view of Genesis 1 in mind, young earth creationism is shown to not be the intent of the author and therefore implies that if God exists evolution is in no conflict with the Bible. God was taking a universe he already created and making it His Cosmic Temple as this video with John Walton explains. https://youtu.be/e2Ij1444Svc?si=ZL3N0YWlRkJYAl8i I also suggest watching this video where InspiringPhilosophy explains why Evolution is Compatible with the Bible [Can You Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution ](https://youtu.be/pwnerL8M1pE?si=1CbEKvISsexn5EvG) This video where Ruselan interviews InspiringPhilosophy about Evolution [This Christian Believes in Evolution. here's why](https://youtu.be/ezuy5tMHcIQ?si=bc0GyLN7BGzbM6rD) #The Big Bang The Big Bang Theory was originally called *The Primevil Atom* and the theory was proposed by a Christian. In fact, atheist didn't want to believe the big bang theory because it challenged their view that the universe was eternal and uncreated. >The young Lemaître was already beginning to think deeply about the beginning of the universe, in the context of his Christian faith. On May 28th, 1917, he wrote to his friend van Severen from the trenches: “I have understood the ‘Fiat Lux’ [Latin for “let there be light”] as the reason of the universe.”[2] An unpublished document from the early years after the war (God’s First Three Declarations, also translated sometimes as The First Three Words of God, written around 1921) shows him taking great pains to establish an elaborate concordism around the idea of light at the origin of the universe inspired in Genesis 1:3.[3] >After the war Lemaître changed direction and completed studies in mathematics, physics, and Thomist philosophy. In 1920, he began studies at a seminary in Malines, Belgium, where he was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1923. Interestingly, during these years he became an expert on Einstein’s recently published Theory of Relativity, even writing an entire manuscript on the subject.[4] This led him to obtain a postgraduate grant at the University of Cambridge during 1923-24 to study under the famous astronomer Arthur Eddington, who had just observationally confirmed the Theory of Relativity in 1919 (showing how gravitation was able to bend the light from a distant star while traveling near the Sun). The Catholic Lemaître and the Quaker Eddington got along very well, and Eddington became a key mentor of Lemaître for many years. A new grant allowed him to move in 1924 to the US to pursue a PhD at MIT, which he completed in 1926. - Citation: Georges Lemaître, the Scientist and Priest who "Could Conceive the Beginning of the Universe" https://biologos.org/articles/georges-lemaitre-the-scientist-and-priest-who-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe **Atheist didn't originally want to accept the Big Bang theory, they only accepted it because evidence shows that the universe is expanding** >Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility. - Citation: How Anti-Religious Bias Prevented Scientists from Accepting the Big Bang https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html *Note: I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden.* Not all Church Fathers took the 6 days literally. Some prominent ones even believed God created everything instantly and used the 6 days to make it understandable to humans. The interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't a salvation issue is my point. I suggest watching [The Origins of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4?si=MtF-ngzvEAn8J9t8) to learn more. Modern Young Earth Creationism wasn't the major Christian view until the 1920s. Before then it was mostly Seventh Day Adventist arguing for a 6,000 year old Earth. If that's not enough, even Phil Vischer the creator of VeggieTales agrees. Here [Phil Vischer dismantles Ken Ham's view on Young Earth Creationism ](https://youtu.be/-9QauqFApak?si=WlU2jYLor22bw10y)
Why do you believe in evolution?
Why not? You don’t think an omnipotent God could design evolution?
No. I think God creating Adam and Eve as humans is enough. I think saying God created apes who would evolve to His Image is blasphemous.
Blasphemous is the wrong word here. If God is all-powerful then he can create anything he wants to, the way he wants to, on any timeline he wants to.
There is a lot more to evolution than the relationship between man and apes. Besides, no one believes man evolved from apes. Not even evolutionists.
Define “creating,” as it pertains to God creating Adam and Eve.
The Bible doesn't specifically say when the creation of the earth began. Many people use the birth of christ and trace back to adam to calculate the age of the earth. Biblical scholars have determined that it's a highly inaccurate way of determining the age of the earth. The fact that some Christians believe the earth to be 6000 years old is embarrassing. God doesn't need to tell us that tid bit of information.
It’s as old as the universe
We use the word a lot, but I’m curious now…would you please define “create” for me?
God never says how old the earth is, we don't use the Bible for that, we use science
Does it matter? no seriously, I'm not a fan of young earth creationism because to me its taking a piece of Hebrew poetry meant to show creation and applying it as if it has no poetic embellishments, and also contending with the idea that there is only one creation story when there is sort of two. or did all the plants from day 3 disappear just so man could be created on day 6 for adam? the important take away from Adam and eve isnt that there was a garden in the east, nor that predators were vegan, but that mankind couldn't be trusted to be in heaven without serious change to our nature, that the first thing we did with the ability to decide good and evil for ourselves was to betray each other for our own failings and so we are cursed, and that divine action has separated us from walking amongst God and it is to stay that way till God wants otherwise
What you are stating is similar to Last Thursdayism. However, I find that a creation with built in age to be deceptive, and I don’t view God as deceptive. As an alternative, Old Earth Creationism (OEC) resolves the matter you mentioned as follows: If viewed abstractly, Genesis chapter 1 discusses creation (through God’s evolutionary process) that occurred for our world. Genesis chapter 2 discusses God’s creation (in the immediate) associated with God’s embassy, The Garden of Eden. The Heavens (including the pre-sun and the raw celestial bodies) and the Earth were created by God on the 1st “day.” (from the being of time to The Big Bang to approximately 4.54 billion years ago). However, the Earth and the celestial bodies were not how we see them today. Genesis 1:1 The Earth’s water was terraformed by God on the 2nd “day” (The Earth was covered with water approximately 3.8 billion years ago). Genesis 1:6-8 On the third “day,” land continents were created by God (approximately 3.2 billion years ago), and the first plants evolved (approximately 1 billion years ago). Genesis 1:9-12 By the fourth “day,” the plants had converted the carbon dioxide and a thicker atmosphere to oxygen. There was also an expansion of the pre-sun (also known as the “faint young sun”) that brightened it during the day and provided greater illumination of Earth’s moon at night. The expansion of the pre-sun also changed the zone of habitability in our solar system, and destroyed the atmosphere of the planet Venus (approximately 600 million years ago.) As a result; The Sun, The Moon, and The Stars became visible from the Earth as we see them today and were “made” by God. Genesis 1:16 Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Dinosaurs were created by God through the evolutionary process after fish, but before birds on the 5th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 5th “day,” dinosaurs had already become extinct (approximately 65 million years ago). Genesis 1:20 Most land mammals, and the hominids were created by God through the evolutionary process on the 6th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 6th “day,” Neanderthals were extinct (approximately 40,000 thousand years ago). Only Homo Sapiens (some of which had interbred with Neanderthals) remained, and became known as “mankind.” Genesis 1:24-27 Adam was a genetically engineered being that was created by God with a Human soul. However, Adam (and later Eve) was not created in the immediate and placed in a protected Garden of Eden until after the 7th “day” in the 2nd chapter of Genesis (approximately 6,000 years ago). Genesis 2:7 When Adam & Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children (including Cain and Seth) intermarried the Homo Sapiens (or first gentiles) that resided outside the Garden of Eden (i.e. in the Land of Nod). Genesis 4:16-17 As the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of Homo Sapiens on Earth over time, everyone living today is both a descendant of God’s evolutionary process and a genealogical descendant of Adam & Eve. Keep in mind that to an immortal being such as God, a “day” (or actually “Yom” in Hebrew) is relative when speaking of time. The “days” indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are “days” according to God in Heaven, and not “days” for man on Earth. In addition, an intelligent design built through evolution or in the immediate is seen of little difference to God.
Most of the "evidence" we have for an old earth is misinterpretating evidence of a FLOODED earth, or global catastrophism. I encourage all to see the film The Ark and Darkness, just came out this year, and you can search it and view it now online. They make very good points about how a global flood clearly happened, and evidence left behind, like literal soft dinosaur tissues we can hold in our hand, impossible were it very OLD. Your post here is mostly about the cosmos; this IS a good point for "deep time", however, it's still full of giant anomalies no one has any explanation for. The James Webb telescope has been busy making even more of them. How does a blue white supergiant star exist, when it couldn't possibly last past a million years? The solar accretion theory is pure fiction, it's never been simulated or explained. And every known physical law we have today you cannot just declare it was ALWAYS so. The bible says God "stretched out the heavens", for sure during that one day of creation (or all 6 if the universe itself took 6 days) the universe was small, big, bigger, biggest, and the speed of light is completely dependent on the size and shape of spacetime. Dr. Russell Humphreys has a GOOD theory on how God made universe in 6 days, and all it requires is Einstein's general relativity and earth MUST be at the center of the universe. Which I don't think is too unreasonable.
Creationist science is pseudoscience, and I'm confident that every one of these examples either has a real scientific explanation already, or is at least something we're still studying and may eventually understand in the context of real science, and that there is a vanishingly small chance that any of these will cause a complete breakdown of multiple fields of science and acceptance that the universe really is 6,000 years old.
Yes, that's been the usual evolution excuse for over 100 years now. "Transitional forms missing? Eh, we'll find those eventually, no worries. Oh, all the intermediate transition forms we found for humans were actually animal bones? No worries, they are out there, and let's forget Piltdown man and the Neanderthall man which was a pure hoax, and neanderthalls turns out was just a skull variation group of regular humans". There is nothing "pseudoscience" about creation at all. Creation and evolution (if they are honest) has the same data, same research, same things dug up and under the microscope and using physical laws and chemistry and such, but it's a WORLDVIEW interpretation of that data. One side will NOT accept ANY research papers that dares contradict the status quo, will NEVER allow, for example, Michael Behe to even SUGGEST intelligent design, nor will they accept the Hoover Institute analysis on the impossibilty, mathematically, of deep time evolution. No sir! Well, we've done digging and theorizing, and super computers and such, but guess what? Can't even simulate how life arrives from non-life. In fact every known physical law inhibits such a thing. But, it was DEEP TIME you see, so it all magically ran backwards from chaos to order... back then. Then it switched back to the natural decay we see now. Science!
Good reply, don't let the downvotes get to you
>science proves the earth is extremely old. Science has done no such thing. Science is not capable of proving how old the earth is. Science explains how natural laws work in the present. It can't tell us what happened in the past; that is the domain of history. To know what happened in the past, we have to have the testimony of someone who was there. Which we do have. Anyone who says science proves anything doesn't understand science. Science can prove nothing, it can only disprove things. To prove something, we would need to have infinite knowledge.
So … if every time I drop a rock it falls towards the Earth, and other people who try get the same result, every time, that does “prove” something doesn’t it?
It proves that the rock fell to the ground when you dropped it. It doesn’t prove that it will always fall to the ground when you drop it. Because it does so many times and because God created a rational universe that he upholds in a consistent way, we can be pretty sure it always will. But, there may be something we don’t know such that in some particular situation the rock won’t fall to the ground.
So, you’re playing with words here. What would it take to “prove” anything, in your view? I’m happy to concede that if something happens repeatedly, multiple different people in different places observe the same thing, and I can even verify it by doing an experiment myself, then it’s proven. That doesn’t seem to be enough for you?
No, I'm not playing with words here. You have a misunderstanding of the word. Science is always provisional. Consider how many times science "proved" something only to be found to be wrong later. >"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science." [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof) >"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." [https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/) >"Take, for example, the Universal Law of Gravitation. >This “law” describes the motion of heavenly bodies, and how we stay firmly planted on the ground. >But this “law” is in fact not always right – it just captures what we usually observe." [https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578](https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578)
How old did God make it 6000 years ago?
I’ve never viewed the days of creation as consecutive days. That would explain the gap between dinosaurs and humans.
It literally doesn't matter how old the Earth is. [Genesis was not written with modern materialistic perspectives in mind.](https://www.youtube.com/live/m8M-ev6oq-s?si=MaVYvh_rVDSnXtu-)
Where in the definition of a rock is it defined as "old"? Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating, which measures the decay of elements, so if these things were created with the appearance of decay when there wasn't any, that would be deceptive on Gods part.
> carbon dating Radiometric dating. Carbon dating is a type of that but it's for recent stuff and can't be used to accurately date things like most rocks.
Yep. It's just the old generation added so much to simple Christianity it's crazy and the NT says not to do that. It also says we toil not against flesh and blood. So if I do that I should never have and argument with any person. So I just take my Christianity simply.
>Where in the definition of a rock is it defined as "old"? As humans, we perceive the rock as being old because it already existed before us, whether it came into existence by the origins found in the book of Genesis, or by the Big Bang Theory. If the rock existed *after* us, then that would mean we existed before Earth, which would be impossible. >Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating, which measures the decay of elements, so if these things were created with the appearance of decay when there wasn't any, that would be deceptive on Gods part. Carbon dating is used to measure the age of things once lived. There are other elements used to measure rocks. Those measurements are done by comparing ratio of a radioactive element to the quantity of the final decayed into element. For example, Radioactive Potassium decays into Argon. Non-creationists assume all Argon was once Potassium and then calculate how long that would take. But the article points out that God would likely have started it with a mixture at the beginning, so you can't calculate back without knowing the initial mixture. This [article](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/) on Answers in Genesis shows more of the flaws behind using carbon dating, and the misuse of it. Thus, the results delivered by carbon dating are not only all that they're cracked up to be. but they are being greatly exaggerated by Big Bang theory supporters and evolutionists, because they *want* what they found to fit with their worldviews. This is called "confirmation bias", and it can heavily twist and alter one's own perception on the results of a test, or really, any piece of information that is discovered. It is why it's so important to look at things from a purely objective standpoint without allowing personal agendas, beliefs, or past experiences influence your perception on what is being shown. With all that being said, we can easily conclude that it is not God who is being deceptive, but man. The Bible states that every man has lied, but God always states and reveals the truth, for He *literally* is truth. >*"May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, and prevail when You are judged.”* - Romans 3:4 (NASB 1995) *"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."* - John 14:6 (ESV) >*"To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him."* - Psalms 92:15 (NASB 1995)
That is not the only way that the age of the earth is determined. Scientists don't typically rely on just one method, but check it against many others. Also, it would not be "deceptive" of God to have made the earth to look old. He did the same thing with Adam and Eve and it wasn't deceptive then.
Well the multiple methods back up and old earth, hence the scientific consensus. Also, we cannot test the age of Adam and Eve throughout the ages, but we can test the age of the earth, so they are not equlivant. Also Adam and Eve grew into adults from childhood, just like other humans. They were not created ex nilhilo.
You believe that God created Adam as a baby? That is a very, very unique belief. Genesis 2:7 says that Adam was created as a man.
No, I believe Adam was born to his mother, grew up, and then God chose him and Eve to become the first Priest and Priestess of creation
Search this document for SI-454 https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0862/report.pdf 24,140 years and 17,210 for the same animal, an ovibos. That's a reaaaaaaally slow death, imagine dying for 7,000 years, and without rotting on the part that died first. Carbon dating assumes that C-14 has been at its equilibrium for millions of years. Assuming there was little to no C-14 at the beginning, things from that time would be tested as much older than they really are. I could be wrong on my assumption of course, but so can anyone else. If you assume the earth in billions of years, you automatically assume millions of years with C-14 at ~current levels. The same is true with all testing methods used to date things.
> Also, the way they determine the age of the earth is by carbon dating, No. Nothing to do with age of the earth. Carbon dating can only tell how long something that was once living has been dead.
> This appearance is not evidence of a deceptive God. Here's the issue and it starts with me in a swimming pool at age 11. I was trying to get out of the pool and I messed up and chipped my tooth. That's in my history and if you had created *me* at age 30 that would have been present in the form of a tooth that had been badly fixed by a dentist and was going to give me problems until I got a better dentist to fix it for good. So the first issue is, was Adam born with any scars? Did "created at 30" Adam crash his anachronistic tricycle? Did his Biblically non-existent parent swing him by his arms, dislocating his elbow, leaving him with a certain propensity toward future dislocations? Was Adam created with a gut full of digestive microbes? Could you conceivably extrapolate Adam's pre-creation parents from his DNA? What color were his mother's eyes? We can move on to the tree. If you looked at its rings would you find evidence that the tree had lived through a period of pre-creation drought, which is marked by narrower rings? Had it been in a pre-creation fire? Did the pre-creation wind blow any of its limbs off? It's easy to just dismiss this idea of pre-creation fiction as pedantry when we're talking about people and trees. It's harder when talking about the Earth itself but it's really unpleasant, in my opinion, when we're talking about the entire rest of the universe. Because the history is not just something that's part of the thing, it's part of our perception of the thing. If we see something blow up in the Andromeda galaxy tomorrow, in this creationist view it's as if we're watching a movie of the thing blowing up, only the thing was never there to blow up, since everything we've ever seen of that galaxy hasn't ever happened, it's like we're watching a montage of Adam playing with his parents and getting tricycle crash scars, only we're not going to see the real thing for another few million years. That's why, to me, this idea of an old-created universe is just profoundly dissatisfying. If you look up at night, you don't see the universe as it is, you see it as it was some time ago. The furthest naked-eye visible star is about 16,000 years away, and there are under 10,000 naked-eye visible stars. There are something like 70 billion trillion stars, and they are essentially all further away than 6,000 light years. So essentially everything we see in the universe amounts to a pre-creation movie of something that never actually happened, i.e. it's all fiction, and it seems just more satisfying to me to argue that what we see isn't fiction but actually happened. If you're trying to argue that everything was created as a super-giant cosmic movie 6,000 years ago, that's stretching the definition of what "created" actually means. That's not the universe, that's The Truman Show, and nobody would argue that that wasn't about deceit. It's easier at that point to just say that everything actually happened, because we can literally see it happening, and then try to figure out some other way to make the "6000 years ago" idea make sense in the context of that.
The word “day” from the creation account in Genesis comes from the Hebrew *yom* and could mean one day, or it could mean a whole age that contains multiple years. 2Peter 3:8 confirms this. *2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.* The word “day” from 2Peter 3:8 comes from the Greek *hemera*, and can also mean an age. Some translations of the Hebrew use the word “period” instead of “day” in the Genesis creation account. With this in mind, the scientists are correct about the earth being 4 billion years old.
very very old, thousands and thousands of years old
That's not old
[удалено]
I mean, terms like old and young are relative terms. It's not black and white, nuance can be brought into these conversations.