A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Nimos]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

It theory I guess you could believe it. It would completely contradict everything we know about the Universe, ourselves and life on the planet. So it would need to be a hard sophilistic standpoint, which I think is arguable a pointless position and even self contradictory one.

To me, it would be a lot more relevant to ask oneself, how many things one are willing to believe on faith rather than what we as humans can collectively agree on based on what we can prove and what the evidence actually tells us to the best of our knowledge.

A good example of what I mean is this:

We could run with several ideas of the way this happened:
1. That someone painted the yellow stripe and some animal crawled under it and died.
2. Maybe the animal died and some god or aliens lifted the paint and put it on top of it.
3. Maybe the animal was dead and the guy painting the stripe simply painted over the animal.

I can't prove that (1) and (2) didn't happen, but I would be able to prove that (3) at least is possible and also the most likely explanation, given what I would be able to demonstrate.

But you could choose (2) and I wouldn't be able to disprove it and you wouldn't be able to prove it either, because you wouldn't be able to find support for such thing. If you reason like this enough times, meaning that you simply take it on faith, I would argue that eventually your view of reality is so wrong that, you have no basis for your beliefs at all, I would also argue that for you as human this is not healthy as it could hurt relationships and cause depressions etc. when one constantly have to find alternative explanations, whenever new discoveries are made about reality, which can be demonstrated to be the most likely explanation, but doesn't fit with your beliefs.

This is exactly the same with a young earth believe and I would assume that there is close to 50/50 chance that you also believe that the Earth is flat? So when we find rocks and fossils and stuff far older than 6000 years, obviously I can't prove to you, that God didn't make it appear like that for whatever reason. But I could argue that you have no foundation for your belief. I could ask you a lot of question such as why you think God would make it appear like that? And why you would believe the bible which was written by humans as well, if you don't believe in humans now?
But ultimately it would be up to you to make the call, of whether or not you are interested in what the evidence and methods we have and use to determine right from wrong. Compared to simply believing in whatever you feel like based on faith.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it deceptive in itself, or do we as people decieve ourselves?

If it's young but looks old then it is deceptive in itself.

 

[Nimos]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

Just as a suggestion, I would strongly suggest that you watch this and really pay attention to what they say:

 

[ElishaElijah]

You're suggesting that the creation story was an allegory rather specific for the Hebrew people, am I correct? This concept I'll explore more. I'm a Biblical Literalist personally, so I'm prone to take the events literally. That's not to say I won't explore the concept of creation being an allegory. Some brief research I did right now shows that Jesus never explicitly stated the creation concept of six days. Christian apologist websites use Mark 10:6 in which JEsus says that "God created them male and female" and say that this proves Jesus taught Young Earth creationism, but I think that may be a bit of a stretch. However, it seems Moses states the matter of creation as literal days. I dont know! Intersting to think about

If I cut down a hundred year old tree, mill the wood and build a house, the completion date is was 6/24/2000. When the wood is tested for age it’s going to be how old? But how old is the house?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I cut down a hundred year old tree, mill the wood and build a house, the completion date is was 6/24/2000. When the wood is tested for age it’s going to be how old? But how old is the house?

Must have been a really big tree. How did you test the age to know it was 100 years old when you cut it?

The house is 21 years old. You told us that. Or at least told us by providing the build date.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I cut down a hundred year old tree, mill the wood and build a house, the completion date is was 6/24/2000. When the wood is tested for age it’s going to be how old? But how old is the house?

Or a really tiny house.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It theory I guess you could believe it. It would completely contradict everything we know about the Universe, ourselves and life on the planet. So it would need to be a hard sophilistic standpoint, which I think is arguable a pointless position and even self contradictory one.

To me, it would be a lot more relevant to ask oneself, how many things one are willing to believe on faith rather than what we as humans can collectively agree on based on what we can prove and what the evidence actually tells us to the best of our knowledge.

A good example of what I mean is this:

We could run with several ideas of the way this happened:
1. That someone painted the yellow stripe and some animal crawled under it and died.
2. Maybe the animal died and some god or aliens lifted the paint and put it on top of it.
3. Maybe the animal was dead and the guy painting the stripe simply painted over the animal.

I can't prove that (1) and (2) didn't happen, but I would be able to prove that (3) at least is possible and also the most likely explanation, given what I would be able to demonstrate.

But you could choose (2) and I wouldn't be able to disprove it and you wouldn't be able to prove it either, because you wouldn't be able to find support for such thing. If you reason like this enough times, meaning that you simply take it on faith, I would argue that eventually your view of reality is so wrong that, you have no basis for your beliefs at all, I would also argue that for you as human this is not healthy as it could hurt relationships and cause depressions etc. when one constantly have to find alternative explanations, whenever new discoveries are made about reality, which can be demonstrated to be the most likely explanation, but doesn't fit with your beliefs.

This is exactly the same with a young earth believe and I would assume that there is close to 50/50 chance that you also believe that the Earth is flat? So when we find rocks and fossils and stuff far older than 6000 years, obviously I can't prove to you, that God didn't make it appear like that for whatever reason. But I could argue that you have no foundation for your belief. I could ask you a lot of question such as why you think God would make it appear like that? And why you would believe the bible which was written by humans as well, if you don't believe in humans now?
But ultimately it would be up to you to make the call, of whether or not you are interested in what the evidence and methods we have and use to determine right from wrong. Compared to simply believing in whatever you feel like based on faith.

I rather enjoyed your response and found it inciteful. However, I would urge caution in speculating on alien striping technology. I suspect they have developed means to separate, elevate and manipulate the painted coating from the substrate.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

wouldn’t that be a very strange god, who makes you a home that is designed to deceive you?

do you look at the Bible as being literal?

wouldn’t it be a strange god who demanded that he be our science teacher, our history teacher, etc?

just wondering

 

[Nimos]

I rather enjoyed your response and found it inciteful. However, I would urge caution in speculating on alien striping technology. I suspect they have developed means to separate, elevate and manipulate the painted coating from the substrate.

Thanks for the warning, I should have been more careful talking about aliens. I can sense a probe heading my way...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for the warning, I should have been more careful talking about aliens. I can sense a probe heading my way...

No worries. That sounds like the topic of another thread I was posting on.

 

[Tiberius]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

That makes God a liar.

 

[rational experiences]

Evolution is a teaching that form changes form as a known science human observation. In cooling. Humans as humans making all claims.

Evolution is therefore only based on thought. Cooling is a condition of causes.

Hence humans said we healed when changed DNA attacked in heated radiating conditions. As cooling removed radiating conditions as evolution.

Taught the saviour status about saviours as gods term that allowed us to heal.

Which is not evolution as we are not hotter radiating bodies.

Why it was said as a correct scientific analogy biological only. Healing.

Earth is not early earth. Earth changed dramatically in heated radiation converting. Comets. Asteroids. Meteors. Volcanic earth hell eruptions giving earth a new face.

Changing heavenly balances ice the new saviour involving flooding water over mass on top of ground body moving changed. With extreme space pressure snap froze the new earth.

Then lying satanic scientists rebuilt pyramid science nuked life nearly destroying us. Moses.

Only because the base was in Egypt and not America scene of first man criminal AcrimeA. America first science.

Thesis God first man in first science God thesis. Not God not cosmic history just a lying man.

They removed evolution about 13000 years ago by new mass removal. Moses nuclear sink hole gain. Mass God gone.

Why a theist using data says healthy natural human genesis bio life is round about 6000 years survival....yet as Genesis was not updated in Jesus DNA attacked would be calculating by facts wrong.

But his thesis our living life existing would equate about 6000 years of healthy life.

As a natural human bio consciousness is equating self new life.

Reason a healthy DNA life body natural is imposing the research by biblical time factors.

A human whose self status is of utmost importance would then argue biological human medical advice about life age in nature of humans......so that Satanists liars looking back to the earths face theorising it by power themes millions of years old as energy mass on the face to react aren't allowed to falsify reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

Where's the supporting evidence for that?

That info has to come from somewhere.

 

[firedragon]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

If one really really wants to reconcile anything, they can reconcile anything.

The earth is old. Some believe its young. To reconcile one would say "GOd created an old earth".

Thats an attempt at reconciliation between scientific discovery and a YEC theology. But, its internally contradicting. In my opinion, it is all just an attempt to reconcile by hook or crook. Its almost as if someone spoke to God directly, asked him "Why God is the earth so old but you say it is young", and he replies "I am telling you because I made it seem old but it was made like yesterday". But no one spoke to God, so they are coming up with an argument to reconcile.

 

[rational experiences]

It theory I guess you could believe it. It would completely contradict everything we know about the Universe, ourselves and life on the planet. So it would need to be a hard sophilistic standpoint, which I think is arguable a pointless position and even self contradictory one.

To me, it would be a lot more relevant to ask oneself, how many things one are willing to believe on faith rather than what we as humans can collectively agree on based on what we can prove and what the evidence actually tells us to the best of our knowledge.

A good example of what I mean is this:

We could run with several ideas of the way this happened:
1. That someone painted the yellow stripe and some animal crawled under it and died.
2. Maybe the animal died and some god or aliens lifted the paint and put it on top of it.
3. Maybe the animal was dead and the guy painting the stripe simply painted over the animal.

I can't prove that (1) and (2) didn't happen, but I would be able to prove that (3) at least is possible and also the most likely explanation, given what I would be able to demonstrate.

But you could choose (2) and I wouldn't be able to disprove it and you wouldn't be able to prove it either, because you wouldn't be able to find support for such thing. If you reason like this enough times, meaning that you simply take it on faith, I would argue that eventually your view of reality is so wrong that, you have no basis for your beliefs at all, I would also argue that for you as human this is not healthy as it could hurt relationships and cause depressions etc. when one constantly have to find alternative explanations, whenever new discoveries are made about reality, which can be demonstrated to be the most likely explanation, but doesn't fit with your beliefs.

This is exactly the same with a young earth believe and I would assume that there is close to 50/50 chance that you also believe that the Earth is flat? So when we find rocks and fossils and stuff far older than 6000 years, obviously I can't prove to you, that God didn't make it appear like that for whatever reason. But I could argue that you have no foundation for your belief. I could ask you a lot of question such as why you think God would make it appear like that? And why you would believe the bible which was written by humans as well, if you don't believe in humans now?
But ultimately it would be up to you to make the call, of whether or not you are interested in what the evidence and methods we have and use to determine right from wrong. Compared to simply believing in whatever you feel like based on faith.

Isn't a fossil like stone yet not as much mass?

So if you say not much mass existed first on earth as it was cooling into owning mass you would be falsifying info yourself!

Life is living alive. As consciousness when someone tells me my living life is 6000 years old I straight away know it is a lie.

So like the lying theists you all are I then am forced to think what I never personally needed to think about.

Why you said it as a theory.

Self presence
Self biological age with God.

With God means in my life God is only as old as I am.

Rationally.

As only a human is making any one self claim.

Why old humans say I am wiser. Yet not rationally true.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps instead of "old" I would say "fully evolved" which I think gives off different implications. So it just doesn't look old, it is. But at the same time it's only been existence for a short time

But all the evidence, from dozens of disciplines, shows that Earth's changed; life's changed.
What evidence do you base your deceptive god, Young Earth Creationism on, if I may ask? Where did you get the idea?

 

[an anarchist]

That makes God a liar.

nah

 

[Nimos]

Isn't a fossil like stone yet not as much mass?

So if you say not much mass existed first on earth as it was cooling into owning mass you would be falsifying info yourself!

Not a 100% sure I understand you. But yes I believe you are correct in that a fossil is "sort" of like a stone. But it doesn't really matter in this case, because apparently it takes a minimum of 10.000 years for a fossil to form to million of years, which would kind of disprove a 6000 year old Earth idea.

 

[Brian2]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

That's one way to do it.
I see science as giving us an understanding of what was meant in the Bible stories.
But of course when push comes to shove it is the science which has gone too far because of it's presupposition that everything has a natural explanation and not allowing the possibility of a creator and life giver in science.
That is understandable but should be understood as a reason there seems to be conflict between science and the Bible.
In the end it is the science which is not real science.
That said, I can incorporate evolution into my understanding of the Bible and many more localised floods in Noah's time.
It is amazing how science seems to be showing the Biblical narratives to be true imo.

 

[blü 2]

What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth.

It's a version of a well-known idea called Last Thursdayism.

This postulates that the universe came into being last Thursday exactly as we see it, together with the extremely distant stars and their light reaching the earth, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the astronomical evidence of the formation and age of the sun and solar system, the geological history of the earth, all the fossil evidence for evolution and the history of life, and of course us, and our complete and interlocked memories of a past that didn't exist till last Thursday.

The notion is unscientific because expressed in that form it's not falsifiable,

Nor does it address the question of who or what caused this, nor if caused by a supernatural entity, what 'supernatural' might meaningfully denote, nor if a god, what a god actually is, nor which god, or gods, nor whether it was done by nature and chance, or gods, or superscientists, nor how such a thing might be done at all in reality, nor what [his] or their motives could possibly have been, nor why that particular history &c &c.

So Last Thursdayism can't be shown to have happened ─ that's built into the design of the claim ─ and it can't be shown to be possible, and even were it true it would shed no light on whether and if so what a god might be or how the trick could be performed.

And if we postulate that God did it, then (assuming we know what a real God is, which I don't) it follows that God's foremost quality is deceit and subterfuge, a huge and determined effort to conceal and mislead.