Age Neutral Design

[Carbon]

For many years, I believed the earth was young. You know, young like 6-10 thousand years. I remember often trying to understand and fit dinosaurs and people together over the past 10,000 years. It never really made sense. I also bought some books; the "Genesis flood" and "the world that perished" to name a couple. To see if that would help me out. It did a little, well, kinda.
But it was always a weak and shaky ground trying to prove a young earth. Especially since hearing if anyone tries to prove the earth is more than 10,000 years old, they are secular scientists and are trying to prove secular evolution. I eventually found that to be nonsense. I found there were Christians who agreed with an old earth.

Then, many years later, probably about 14 (give or take a few), around the year 2014, a pastor of mine mentioned an old-earth view. I found it pretty interesting and decided to study this. I spent a lot of time and some years on this study. And I have to admit, I am not 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that the old earth is the correct biblical view. I don't believe anyone can be. If someone thinks they can prove without a doubt either view, I challenge you.

I do know one thing for sure that can be proven: intelligent design. But I also believe this design is age-neutral.
It affirms that life was created by an intelligent being. It does not confirm or affirm an age. It just does not.
Some have said, "well the bible proves a young age." Again, I say prove it. I say it does not.

The Bible does not teach a young earth. As one professor said, whether the sun and moon were created or placed on day 4 makes no difference in trying to prove an age. The days of creation have already been established, and we just do not have a way for measuring time, for example, days 1-3, from a human point of view. They are simply days of an indeterminate length from our human point of view; these days were established before there were even days of keeping time from a human point of view.

Personally, I believe there is a lot of evidence pointing to an old earth. Dinosaurs, fossils, and strata. Cambrium layer, etc... And more.

I have heard people say, God created the earth (universe) to look old. Well, I really do not think so. That reminds me of when I used to try to find something ridiculous to help me out to believe the earth is young and man and dinosaurs ran around together.

 

[Carbon]

In the book, on pgs 232-233 "The Genesis Flood," titled: Creation Of "Appearance Of Age." one of the two authors writes: one thing which is very significant is, plants in order to continue to grow, must have soil, water, light, and chemical nutrients, etc... He also says the soil requires a long period of preparation before becoming able to support plant life. But here it must have been created instantaneously, with all the necessary chemical constituents, rather than gradually developed over centuries of rock weathering, alluvial deposition, etc.
Thus, it had an appearance of being "old" when it was still new. It was created with an appearance of age.

Grasping at straws if you ask me.

Scripture reads: And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:10.
I don't see where God here explained how He prepared the ground. To say what he said above is grasping at straws, just plain guesswork.


Then God says,
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. Gen 1:11.

Now, how does anyone know how God prepared the soil for the plants? If one day is as a thousand years to God, would it have taken Him long? I don't think so.

Another quick thought. As far as creating the earth to "look" old. It just doesn't seem right for God to bury millions of fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago, especially since they are young, just to make the earth look old.


And it's amazing how so many young earthers can act like they know the creation story just fine and accuse other Christians of not being Christians (some have) or even call them heretics, because they believe in an old earth.



I would ask, where were you when God created the universe?


“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Job 38:4.

 

[makesends]

I have heard people say, God created the earth (universe) to look old. Well, I really do not think so. That reminds me of when I used to try to find something ridiculous to help me out to believe the earth is young and man and dinosaurs ran around together.

But, if I think you will admit that it is possible for both to be true, that the universe be (from one POV, according to relativity), billions of years old, and from another, 6000. That you can't explain it further doesn't prove it wrong.

 

[Carbon]

But, if I think you will admit that it is possible for both to be true, that the universe be (from one POV, according to relativity), billions of years old, and from another, 6000. That you can't explain it further doesn't prove it wrong.

But what would I be attempting to prove wrong if I admitted both could be true?

 

[makesends]

But what would I be attempting to prove wrong if I admitted both could be true?

Only that it necessarily is one or the other.

 

[John Bauer]

I do know one thing for sure that can be proven: intelligent design.

Okay, let's see the proof.

 

[Carbon]

Okay, let's see the proof.

There is lots, much more that I can present, that’s for sure. But a couple quick for now.

Consider DNA , or the complexity of the universe, consider gravity, physics, oxygen all fine tuned to support life. Even a beginning of the universe is confirmed.

Later when I have more time it will be enjoyable looking into more. God is awesome!

 

[makesends]

Carbon said:
I do know one thing for sure that can be proven: intelligent design.

Okay, let's see the proof.

My proof of it is by long-chain causation, and, again by axiomatic statements. One such is that Mechanical Fact cannot be self-existent, cannot be uncaused to exist. Thus, a willed causer, is First Cause.

A willed first cause is particular, if there are particular effects. We see that there are indeed particular effects, all caused either directly, or by means of other effects-become-causes. And if they are particular, the effects are not accidental, but intended.

If they are intended, and particular, and orderly (not accidental, nor chaotic, but following principles and laws and systems), then they are made ("designed") intelligently. They are indeed orderly; therefore, these effects are of intelligent design.

 

[atpollard]

Let’s set aside Genesis 1 to 3 for the sake of argument (to remove planetary evolution and dinosaurs from the discussion). Genesis 4 through the end of Revelation (taken as “God-breathed scripture”) are clear of two claims:

1. Adam and Eve were real people (Jesus and Paul both spoke of them as real people).
2. They gave birth to their first children about 6000 years ago (rounding off).

What are we to do with all the “science” (including archeology) for “homo Sapiens) existing prior to 6000 years ago? [30,000 years ago for the most recent and 400,000 years ago for the oldest]

Is Genesis (genealogies) and Jesus and Paul just non-literal?

 

[makesends]

Let’s set aside Genesis 1 to 3 for the sake of argument (to remove planetary evolution and dinosaurs from the discussion). Genesis 4 through the end of Revelation (taken as “God-breathed scripture”) are clear of two claims:

1. Adam and Eve were real people (Jesus and Paul both spoke of them as real people).
2. They gave birth to their first children about 6000 years ago (rounding off).

What are we to do with all the “science” (including archeology) for “homo Sapiens) existing prior to 6000 years ago? [30,000 years ago for the most recent and 400,000 years ago for the oldest]

Is Genesis (genealogies) and Jesus and Paul just non-literal?

Is your question---since it assumes Adam and Eve were literal people, and responsible before God---what were their ancestry, and when did the lineage become morally responsible? Not sure what you are asking.

Are you presupposing that Adam and Eve had no ancestry?

 

[Carbon]

Let’s set aside Genesis 1 to 3 for the sake of argument (to remove planetary evolution and dinosaurs from the discussion). Genesis 4 through the end of Revelation (taken as “God-breathed scripture”) are clear of two claims:

1. Adam and Eve were real people (Jesus and Paul both spoke of them as real people).
2. They gave birth to their first children about 6000 years ago (rounding off).

What are we to do with all the “science” (including archeology) for “homo Sapiens) existing prior to 6000 years ago? [30,000 years ago for the most recent and 400,000 years ago for the oldest]

Is Genesis (genealogies) and Jesus and Paul just non-literal?

Who said there were humans before Adam and Eve?

 

[makesends]

Grasping at straws if you ask me.

Scripture reads: And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:10.
I don't see where God here explained how He prepared the ground. To say what he said above is grasping at straws, just plain guesswork.


Then God says,
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. Gen 1:11.

Now, how does anyone know how God prepared the soil for the plants? If one day is as a thousand years to God, would it have taken Him long? I don't think so.

Another quick thought. As far as creating the earth to "look" old. It just doesn't seem right for God to bury millions of fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago, especially since they are young, just to make the earth look old.


And it's amazing how so many young earthers can act like they know the creation story just fine and accuse other Christians of not being Christians (some have) or even call them heretics, because they believe in an old earth.



I would ask, where were you when God created the universe?


“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Job 38:4.

Several thoughts come to me here, neither in favor nor against old nor young earth notions.

One is that God is perfectly capable of making something actually old, in a very short time. Already the science community has even admitted to the relativity of time. Can't the inventor of time do as he pleases with it? Time depends on God, not on our science. The science of prehistory need not abide by what we consider natural.

Another is that science is so far assuming quite a bit in its age-proving methods, such as constant rate of decomposition, and even, as I have witnessed myself, the growth of stalagmites and stalactites in caves, where they claim a century or more per inch, it is false as it can be. In less than 10 years, I've seen an inch of growth, in one place. I'm not saying that it can't take a century. I'm saying there's a lot of assuming. I've heard that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for a tree to begin to petrify in the deeper layers, millions of years for the complete tree, depending on species and size and environment. They've dug up petrified fence posts in Greenland.

Granted, that is just me talking about what I've been told. It isn't science, but what I have been told by proponents of old earth often sounds like that. But worse, (to me, anyway), is the assumption that God can't do it however he pleases---(and THAT is something often ignored by both sides of the debate). It is a little like when people scoff at the Bible, because there is no such thing as unicorns, and snakes and donkeys can't talk.

To put it simply, I don't trust the fantastic numbers and sequences that seem to be built on scientific evidence. "That picture of Lucy in National Geographic looks just like la Senora de Sanchez who lives down the street.." Well, it's true. It does!

 

[Carbon]

By God creating Adam and Eve 6-10 thousand years ago does not interfere with an OE. Therefore, even the existence of fossils 1,000,000 years old or more does not interfere with Adam and Eve being a recent creation.

 

[Carbon]

Several thoughts come to me here, neither in favor nor against old nor young earth notions.

One is that God is perfectly capable of making something actually old, in a very short time. Already the science community has even admitted to the relativity of time. Can't the inventor of time do as he pleases with it?

Absolutly He can.

Time depends on God, not on our science.

Amen.

The science of prehistory need not abide by what we consider natural.

But does it really make sense to create a bunch of fossils and place them underground to look like they may be millions of years old? Maybe I'm pretty dumb but, it does not seem consistent or logical to do so. Why would God try to make the earth look old? Or make it look young? What's wrong with it looking its age? It's quite possible the earth is 10 billion or more years old, that does nothing to God's word, or if it's 6, 000 years old, it also does nothing. But why make it look older if it isn't? I think thats silly and grasping at straws. The YE community is just (or was) so worried about evolution.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
The science of prehistory need not abide by what we consider natural.

But does it really make sense to create a bunch of fossils and place them underground to look like they may be millions of years old? Maybe I'm pretty dumb but, it does not seem consistent or logical to do so. Why would God try to make the earth look old? Or make it look young? What's wrong with it looking its age? It's quite possible the earth is 10 billion or more years old, that does nothing to God's word, or if it's 6, 000 years old, it also does nothing. But why make it look older if it isn't? I think thats silly and grasping at straws. The YE community is just (or was) so worried about evolution.

To me, the "why" is inconsequential. I've heard that asked concerning Job, "Why did God have to prove anything to Satan?" or concerning further blinding those who blind themselves, etc. ---why? If for no other reason, so we'd have this conversation, in which both of us admit that God can do whatever he wants, and that our interpretation, view and use of it is of little consequence. Or, maybe so we can consider that he is not making something LOOK old, but to our reasoning and presumptions.

I can't answer those questions. But to me, the dependence on accepted science for either position raises more questions than it provides answers.

 

[Carbon]

makesends said:
The science of prehistory need not abide by what we consider natural.

To me, the "why" is inconsequential. I've heard that asked concerning Job, "Why did God have to prove anything to Satan?" or concerning further blinding those who blind themselves, etc. ---why? If for no other reason, so we'd have this conversation, in which both of us admit that God can do whatever he wants, and that our interpretation, view and use of it is of little consequence. Or, maybe so we can consider that he is not making something LOOK old, but to our reasoning and presumptions.

I can't answer those questions. But to me, the dependence on accepted science for either position raises more questions than it provides answers.

Well, brother, I can't argue that.