A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Nimos]

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.

You are on dangerous waters, I would say

At least I would advice or strongly suggest not to get to deep into claiming that science support or confirms the bible. because it will not be pretty

One thing that young earth creationists should have credit for, is to at least stay true to the bible in that regard when making their claims. There is a reason why they meet so much backlash.

The bible in my opinion, obviously not saying that you should agree with it, only if I should personally defend it. Is by far best done completely leaving science out of it, as I believe it will fail almost in everything single thing, if put to the test or you have to really do some interpretations to get around it.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

Yes and if an unknown humans birth and death was the catalyst for the repeated rise and fall of existence then that would be the cherry on the deceitful cake. Lol

 

[Tiberius]

nah

Why not?

 

[blü 2]

Yes and if an unknown humans birth and death was the catalyst for the repeated rise and fall of existence then that would be the cherry on the deceitful cake. Lol

You appear to be saying that a human caused the universe to come into existence last Thursday. Is that right?

It raises the difficult question where that human was before Last Thursday, and how he or she got there, no?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would find it a bit odd that God would do such a thing and then let humans find out the illusion - via their science - unless all such could be arranged to support this. If such was possible and hence our understanding of God's little or big joke. In which case I hereby applaud God - just in case - so get in line all the rest of you.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

There are objects far older than 6000 years, my avatar is 22000 years old. There is too much archaeology, too much evidence to say the earth was made on a Thursday afternoon some 6024 years ago. You are however completely free to believe what you want.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No, the solution to crazyness and irrationality that is YECism, is not by adding some Last Thursdayism sauce on top.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what I mean though, since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

About as much as sense as believing everything was created 5 minutes ago, together with all our memories of having lived our entire lives.

 

[Brian2]

You are on dangerous waters, I would say

At least I would advice or strongly suggest not to get to deep into claiming that science support or confirms the bible. because it will not be pretty

One thing that young earth creationists should have credit for, is to at least stay true to the bible in that regard when making their claims. There is a reason why they meet so much backlash.

The bible in my opinion, obviously not saying that you should agree with it, only if I should personally defend it. Is by far best done completely leaving science out of it, as I believe it will fail almost in everything single thing, if put to the test or you have to really do some interpretations to get around it.

I just like living dangerously, and it is true that much of science agrees with the Bible imo even if interpretation is involved. Nothing wrong with interpretation. Science helps us see what the Bible was saying. For example science helped Christians and Jews,,,,,,,,,,and everyone else,,,,,,,,,,see that the earth was not the centre of the cosmos in location and was not standing still motion wise.
There is no controversy about the Bible and those thing now (except from some who want to keep attacking what is already known and accepted of the Bible).
When it comes to creation that one will go on for some time no doubt because science keeps looking for a naturalistic answer and any answer that may be proposed will not be real science anyway, it will be real speculation only.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

Though there is no reason to believe you are correct, your idea is logically possible, and if it were correct, we wouldn't find any evidence that it was.

Of course, infinitely more is logically possible than actual, so logically possible in and of itself is only slightly interesting.

I don't personally think or believe by faith, and therefore don't consider the Bible the word of a deity or a reliable source of science or history, but if I did, I might be attracted to your solution, which has the virtue of not contradicting science. The comment is unscientific (unfalsifiable), and it contradicts experience and common sense, but not science.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I just like living dangerously, and it is true that much of science agrees with the Bible imo even if interpretation is involved. Nothing wrong with interpretation. Science helps us see what the Bible was saying. For example science helped Christians and Jews,,,,,,,,,,and everyone else,,,,,,,,,,see that the earth was not the centre of the cosmos in location and was not standing still motion wise.
There is no controversy about the Bible and those thing now (except from some who want to keep attacking what is already known and accepted of the Bible).
When it comes to creation that one will go on for some time no doubt because science keeps looking for a naturalistic answer and any answer that may be proposed will not be real science anyway, it will be real speculation only.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Consider this, God created an old universe and a young Earth. If Earth is near or at the center of the expanding universe, relativity tells us events near the "outside" are much further in spacetime than events near the center.

Google evidence for Earth near the center and the "problem of our young sun paradox"--evidence that the Sun is thousands, not billions of years old.

And consider that while life on Earth evolved over billions of years, the younger, larger Sun would be beyond Mars's orbit!

 

[blü 2]

Consider this, God created an old universe and a young Earth.

That's partly because we're in the second generation of stars and of heavier elements. A lot had to happen for that particular sun and this particular planet to form.

If Earth is near or at the center of the expanding universe, relativity tells us events near the "outside" are much further in spacetime than events near the center.

It's a while since I looked at the question, but as I recall, our universe has no 'center', because however you define 'center', the lack of boundary, the boundlessness of space, makes it impossible to define or locate.

Google evidence for Earth near the center and the "problem of our young sun paradox"--evidence that the Sun is thousands, not billions of years old.

Nothing I found suggested the sun was thousands of years old. They all agreed on a figure of about 4.5 bn years. But I was looking at the science pages.

And consider that while life on Earth evolved over billions of years, the younger, larger Sun would be beyond Mars's orbit!

I don't know who made that yarn up, but it's pure fiction. But again, I was looking at the science pages.

Anyway, trust you're well and vaxed and all things are good with you.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's what I mean though, since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

If God is timeless and ageless, why would God do that? Seems a bit deceptive, doesn't it?

It also seems like you're making excuses for a preferred narrative, instead of accepting what you must obviously observe around you as an old Earth, else you wouldn't be asking the question.

When your preferred worldview runs into consistent and observable evidence to the contrary, it's time to reexamine the worldview - not create mental hoola hoops.

The Earth and the Universe can be billions of years old, and God can still exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Tiberius]

For example science helped Christians and Jews,,,,,,,,,,and everyone else,,,,,,,,,,see that the earth was not the centre of the cosmos in location and was not standing still motion wise.

But the thing is that the church denied this until the scientific evidence was simply too overwhelming.

It seems it's always a case of science and religion disagreeing until the evidence for the scientific position is undeniable, then religion abruptly changes it's tune and says, "And our religious texts say the same thing, just goes to show that science and religion both speak of the same truth." It's just not true. It's just religion denying science in favor of it's own mythology, then changing that mythology and claiming it agree with science all along.

 

[74x12]

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.

"earth" in Genesis chapter 1 is not meant to refer to the planet. It refers to the land according to Genesis 1:10. The idea of "earth" being a planet is a modern concept. Even if ancient Hebrews somehow knew they were on a planet; yet they still wouldn't call it earth ... at least not necessarily.

My point is the planet earth could be older than 6000 years.

 

[Brian2]

But the thing is that the church denied this until the scientific evidence was simply too overwhelming.

It seems it's always a case of science and religion disagreeing until the evidence for the scientific position is undeniable, then religion abruptly changes it's tune and says, "And our religious texts say the same thing, just goes to show that science and religion both speak of the same truth." It's just not true. It's just religion denying science in favor of it's own mythology, then changing that mythology and claiming it agree with science all along.

There is not changing of the Bible. That remains stationary. What is changed is our understanding of what the Bible is saying. If the divergence is too great then it can be seen that the interpreters of the Bible have gone too far.
Sceptics always claim that interpreters of the Bible go too far to agree with science.
Science is always right even though it keeps changing.
I know that science is not always right and that looking into what happened in the past can be a source of many errors and imo is not real testable and repeatable science anyway.

 

[Justanatheist]

There is not changing of the Bible. That remains stationary. What is changed is our understanding of what the Bible is saying

Can any understanding of the bible be relied upon then?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Can any understanding of the bible be relied upon then?

Yes

 

[ecco]

A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

That's what I mean though, since science suggests that the Earth is very old, I suppose I'm wondering if a creationist holding the view that God created an old, evolved universe makes sense.

You have not proposed anything new.

In any case, it is just one more way literalists go through mental hoops to maintain their beliefs in the face of the reality of science.