YEC and TE, both true?

[Tfbandie]

I recently heard a theory/idea which combined both YEC and evolution, and I wanted to hear some feedback. Now this idea (more idea than theory at this point) hasn't been fleshed out fully, but I'm interested in problems with it.

6000 years ago (or whatever generally agreed upon YEC age) God created the universe and the earth and all the species exactly as most YEC interperet Genesis. But in doing so he also created 'age'. Not the appearence of age, actual age. So during creation God created the past as well (since God is outside of time, 'past' means nothing). Thus dinosaurs did live 100 million years ago, even though God created everything only 6000 years ago

Alright, pick away (I'm half-expecting there to be a good one line criticism which takes the whole thing down)

[Minnesota]

You just might get a better discussion if you posted in a forum where non-theists can participate.

[Amazing Rando]

You just might get a better discussion if you posted in a forum where non-theists can participate.

:poke: I think there's a reason he posted it in a theist-only place.

[Amazing Rando]

I recently heard a theory/idea which combined both YEC and evolution, and I wanted to hear some feedback. Now this idea (more idea than theory at this point) hasn't been fleshed out fully, but I'm interested in problems with it.

6000 years ago (or whatever generally agreed upon YEC age) God created the universe and the earth and all the species exactly as most YEC interperet Genesis. But in doing so he also created 'age'. Not the appearence of age, actual age. So during creation God created the past as well (since God is outside of time, 'past' means nothing). Thus dinosaurs did live 100 million years ago, even though God created everything only 6000 years ago

Alright, pick away (I'm half-expecting there to be a good one line criticism which takes the whole thing down)

Woah, that's a pretty trippy theory there, Bandie. Where'd ya hear it? I'd be interested in reading more.

[A Beautiful Truth]

6000 years ago (or whatever generally agreed upon YEC age) God created the universe and the earth and all the species exactly as most YEC interperet Genesis.

Well, that would be "kinds" with evolution fleshing out species after the fall and after the flood...

But in doing so he also created 'age'. Not the appearence of age, actual age. So during creation God created the past as well (since God is outside of time, 'past' means nothing). Thus dinosaurs did live 100 million years ago, even though God created everything only 6000 years ago...

(I'm half-expecting there to be a good one line criticism which takes the whole thing down)


This sounds like Star Trek stuff. (I don't claim to be the best at one liners)

This sounds like that time dialation stuff from Humphreys (another one liner, perhaps a bit better than the first.)

Is Humphrey's the source? If so, I'll leave it to those here who can answer Humphrey's mistakes on General Relativity.

[Benster]

"6000 years ago (or whatever generally agreed upon YEC age) God created the universe and the earth and all the species exactly as most YEC interperet Genesis. But in doing so he also created 'age'. Not the appearence of age, actual age. So during creation God created the past as well (since God is outside of time, 'past' means nothing). Thus dinosaurs did live 100 million years ago, even though God created everything only 6000 years ago."

You must mean "the appearance of age". The only way to create "actual age", is to go back in time and actually create the universe 5 billion years ago, or whatever the true age is. And so, to us, the age of the universe is 5 billion years, as God created it. There is no middle ground.

The options are either: a) to accept that the bible is not literally true, or b) to believe that science is false and so to attempt the apparently now-popular descent into the dark ages.

[Tfbandie]

Woah, that's a pretty trippy theory there, Bandie. Where'd ya hear it? I'd be interested in reading more.

Sorry nothing to read, it was my roommate's idea that he's been thinking about. (he's a physics and philosophy major as well as son of two theologians so you can see how the theory is kinda out there).

And yes, this thread was intended for theist-only, for now. I just wanted some thoughts by fellow Christians.

[George Murphy]

Sorry nothing to read, it was my roommate's idea that he's been thinking about. (he's a physics and philosophy major as well as son of two theologians so you can see how the theory is kinda out there).

And yes, this thread was intended for theist-only, for now. I just wanted some thoughts by fellow Christians.The idea is actually an old one. In the 19th century Gosse published a book titled Omphalos (Greek for "navel") presenting it in detail. The title comes from the belief that Adam was created as a full-grown adult with a navel even though he had just come into being. Similarly, all the other aspects of the world (geological strata, fossils &c) were created with features that made them appear old.

There is no scientific or philosophical way of refuting a throughgoing theory of apparent age. Bertrand Russell (who of course wasn't interested in defending Genesis) pointed out that there's no way to prove that the world didn't come into being at some recent time in the past with the appearance of a much greater age. (Thus this is sometimes called Russell's paradox.) The world could have come into existence 15 minutes ago with everything (including our memories) seeming as if it had been in existence for 14 billion years. (See, e.g., Malcolm Acock, "The Age of the Universe", Philosophy of Science 50, 1983, 130.)

Of course scientists don't take this seriously - except for desperate YECs. But the real problem for Christians is theological: It makes God the creator of a gigantic hoax. God would have carefully arranged the recessional speeds of galaxies, luminosities of stars in globular clusters, abundances of many different isotopes, geological strata &c in such a way as to give a consistent picture of a universe ~14 billion years old and an earth that formed ~4.5 billion years ago, but that would all be fake. Such a view is inconsistent with the idea that God cares about truth and with the goodness of creation.

Shalom,
George

[Tfbandie]

The idea is actually an old one. In the 19th century Gosse published a book titled Omphalos (Greek for "navel") presenting it in detail. The title comes from the belief that Adam was created as a full-grown adult with a navel even though he had just come into being. Similarly, all the other aspects of the world (geological strata, fossils &c) were created with features that made them appear old.

There is no scientific or philosophical way of refuting a throughgoing theory of apparent age. Bertrand Russell (who of course wasn't interested in defending Genesis) pointed out that there's no way to prove that the world didn't come into being at some recent time in the past with the appearance of a much greater age. (Thus this is sometimes called Russell's paradox.) The world could have come into existence 15 minutes ago with everything (including our memories) seeming as if it had been in existence for 14 billion years. (See, e.g., Malcolm Acock, "The Age of the Universe", Philosophy of Science 50, 1983, 130.)

Of course scientists don't take this seriously - except for desperate YECs. But the real problem for Christians is theological: It makes God the creator of a gigantic hoax. God would have carefully arranged the recessional speeds of galaxies, luminosities of stars in globular clusters, abundances of many different isotopes, geological strata &c in such a way as to give a consistent picture of a universe ~14 billion years old and an earth that formed ~4.5 billion years ago, but that would all be fake. Such a view is inconsistent with the idea that God cares about truth and with the goodness of creation.

Shalom,
George


See, the way I'm looking at it, while similar it is slightly, but importantly different. In this idea, God did not create with the 'appearence' of age, but actual history and age. Thus it's not a 'hoax' because the history actually did happen. In other words, God not only created in the 'present' but also created in the 'past' as well. Right now it's more a thought construct than theory but could be more with more prayer, reflection and reading

[Kenny]

Well, as long as we're on the subject of trippy theories, here's one I thought of (but do not endorsed). If you have ever heard of "delayed" decision experiments in QM, you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about. In some QM experiments, you have a superposition state between two possible paths that a particle could have taken and which path it "did" take (looking at it retrospectively as a particle instead of a wave) is not settled until a measurement event happens (of course, the metaphysical interpretation of what's actually going on here is up for grabs – is there backwards temporal causation involved here, or is our choosing to view the particle as having actually taken a definitive classical path just wrong – I actually favor the latter, but the theory I'm describing requires the former).

So say that God really did create the universe 6000 years ago, but it also contained a potential extended past which itself was (along with everything else outside Adam and Eve's sphere of observation) in a superposition state rather than already defined. And let's say that there were two possible paths the past of the universe could have taken up to the point at which Adam and Eve were tempted in the Garden, one in which the past (and everything outside the garden) had always been such that the Earth was a paradisiacal place and the other past is the one we know, full of suffering and death, where evolution driven by natural selection had occurred. Both of these possible pasts converged with respect to the presence of Adam and Eve in the Garden being tempted, but neither of these pasts were "actual" yet. When Adam and Eve choose to disobey God, their action constituted the "measurement" event which collapsed the superposition state, and our past, and the rest of the universe as we know it, fell out. Had they not eaten the fruit, the alternate paradisiacal past and paradisiacal universe would have fallen out of the superposition state instead.

Now, the above is really bizarre (and I don't believe it; I'm TE and not a YEC in any sense), but it seems to give YECs most of what they want, a metaphysical sense in which the universe was literally created 6000 years ago, animal suffering and death of all sorts at all times literally being caused by the fall, but it is also perfectly consistent with scientific observation.

I think the above theory is coherent, but, of course, the problem with theories like the above is that they would require us to radically readjust our understanding of the nature of time and the nature of the past, and I don't think that there is sufficient evidential or theoretical motives here for doing that.

God Bless,
Kenny

[Kenny]

You must mean "the appearance of age". The only way to create "actual age", is to go back in time and actually create the universe 5 billion years ago, or whatever the true age is. And so, to us, the age of the universe is 5 billion years, as God created it. There is no middle ground.

Unless our linear ordering for time is merely a subjective construct that does not reflect the objective metaphysical reality of the situation. Maybe we just string together our temporal ordering by connecting the dots between states of the universe which, objectively speaking, are not temporally ordered at all (some physicists have proposed that our sense of the direction of time may merely be psychological or somehow entailed by the way we process information rather than an objective feature of the universe itself). On this account, perhaps there is one equally valid way of stringing things together in which the "beginning" of the universe might be regarded as taking place 6000 years ago instead of at the Big Bang, and maybe there is some metaphysical fact (perhaps simply because that's how God chooses to see it?) that privileges that ordering as the "correct" one, or maybe it is just no more or less correct than any other way of seeing it.

Of course, the above would seem to entail that what we regard as "time" is largely just a psychological construct, but it wouldn't be the first time someone has proposed that (e.g. Augustine and Kant).

God Bless,
Kenny

[Amazing Rando]

See, the way I'm looking at it, while similar it is slightly, but importantly different. In this idea, God did not create with the 'appearence' of age, but actual history and age. Thus it's not a 'hoax' because the history actually did happen. In other words, God not only created in the 'present' but also created in the 'past' as well. Right now it's more a thought construct than theory but could be more with more prayer, reflection and reading

I think this may actually be a pretty tenable position. It sure is interesting, anyhow. If you allow that God can and does create all of reality, then it only stands to reason that could create actual time and age instantaneously, not just the "appearance of age." For me, this is the only conceivable way that the earth could possibly be only 6,000 years old or whatever.

The only problem with this theory is it simply is not falsifiable. We cannot test it one way or another, and thus it must be accepted or rejected on the basis of faith alone (which is, as we Christians know, not nessesarily a bad thing!)

[Tfbandie]

Well, as long as we're on the subject of trippy theories, here's one I thought of (but do not endorsed). If you have ever heard of "delayed" decision experiments in QM, you'll have an idea of what I'm talking about. In some QM experiments, you have a superposition state between two possible paths that a particle could have taken and which of those possible paths and which path it "did" take (looking at it retrospectively as a particle instead of a wave) is not settled until a measurement event happens (of course, the metaphysical interpretation of what's actually going on here is up for grabs – is there backwards temporal causation involved here, or is our choosing to view the particle as having actually taken a definitive classical path just wrong – I actually favor the latter, but the theory I'm describing requires the former).

So say that God really did create the universe 6000 years ago, but it also contained a potential extended past which itself was (along with everything else outside Adam and Eve's sphere of observation) in a superposition state rather than already defined. And let's say that there were two possible paths the past of the universe could have taken up to the point at which Adam and Eve were tempted in the Garden, one in which the past (and everything outside the garden) had always been such that the Earth was a paradisiacal place and the other past is the one we know, full of suffering and death, where evolution driven by natural selection had occurred. Both of these possible pasts converged with respect to the presence of Adam and Eve in the Garden being tempted, but neither of these pasts were "actual" yet. When Adam and Eve choose to disobey God, their action constituted the "measurement" event which collapsed the superposition state, and our past, and the rest of the universe as we know it, fell out. Had they not eaten the fruit, the alternate paradisiacal past and paradisiacal universe would have fallen out of the superposition state instead.

Now, the above is really bizarre (and I don't believe it; I'm TE and not a YEC in any sense), but it seems to give YECs most of what they want, a metaphysical sense in which the universe was literally created 6000 years ago, animal suffering and death of all sorts at all times literally being caused by the fall, but it is also perfectly consistent with scientific observation.

I think the above theory is coherent, but, of course, the problem with theories like the above is that they would require us to radically readjust our understanding of the nature of time and the nature of the past, and I don't think that there is sufficient evidential or theoretical motives here for doing that.

God Bless,
Kenny



That's pretty cool stuff. And i agree with your limiting effect (the whole reconstruction of idea of time). As a thought experiment both these are interesting in seeing how they reconcile visible universe and the traditional, literal reading of Genesis, and seeing the limitiations provided when thinking these out to logical conclusions

[Sparko]

well if God did create the actual past 14 billion years of the universe only 6,000 years ago, and it was actual past and not just the appearance of age, then to us, who are within the time stream, there is absolutely no difference than if God really just did create everything 14 billion years ago. It is still real.

For all you know God could have created the universe 1 million years in the future, and we are part of the created past. Or he could have created everything including our past, only 1 second before you read this post.

Since God is outside of time it makes no sense to say he created all of time x many years ago.

[brett]

well if God did create the actual past 14 billion years of the universe only 6,000 years ago, and it was actual past and not just the appearance of age, then to us, who are within the time stream, there is absolutely no difference than if God really just did create everything 14 billion years ago. It is still real.

For all you know God could have created the universe 1 million years in the future, and we are part of the created past. Or he could have created everything including our past, only 1 second before you read this post.

Since God is outside of time it makes no sense to say he created all of time x many years ago.

Yeah, I was going to say. If He did do this, then the B theory of time must be true. But if the B theory is true, then it makes no sense to say God created something 6,000 years ago. If God is outside of time then He creates outside of time and therefore, creates all times simultaneously from his perspective. Whoh, that’s deep! :xavier:

[Kenny]

Yeah, I was going to say. If He did do this, then the B theory of time must be true. But if the B theory is true, then it makes no sense to say God created something 6,000 years ago. If God is outside of time then He creates outside of time and therefore, creates all times simultaneously from his perspective. Whoh, that’s deep! :xavier:

It could be, though, that some times are "privileged" to God in a way that others are not, if God chooses to attach more significance or value to them for some reason. Maybe, for example, the six days of creation represent the initial "outline" God had for creation in the "order" (of course this would have to, on this view, be some sort of logical or causal order rather than a temporal one) of His thoughts, and perhaps God decided that the six day creation week would be part of what He would do "before" His mind filled in all the rest of the details about the past and the future. Furthermore, the very fact that God had made such a decision may have been enough to make the creation weak real, in some meaningful sense, "before" all the other details were filled in. It would be like a novelist writing out a scene that she definitely wants to incorporate into her story, but her doing so before she knows how exactly she will set up that scene in the rest of the novel. Even if in the chronology of the novel this scene ends up happening in the middle or even at the end, it was still, from the novelist's vantage point, the first scene written, and so, in some way it could be said to be the very first thing that happened in the novel (the very first part of the story to become "real" via its being written down before all the other parts).

From my own perspective, though, if I were to adopt such a view how God created, it would not be the creation week that I would place in the" beginning," but the eschaton.

In Christ,
Kenny

[jason]

6000 years ago (or whatever generally agreed upon YEC age) God created the universe and the earth and all the species exactly as most YEC interperet Genesis. But in doing so he also created 'age'. Not the appearence of age, actual age. So during creation God created the past as well (since God is outside of time, 'past' means nothing). Thus dinosaurs did live 100 million years ago, even though God created everything only 6000 years ago

Alright, pick away (I'm half-expecting there to be a good one line criticism which takes the whole thing down)
The first thing I should note that I don't think anybody else did note, was that this would still be a problem for the YEC approach to things, if that is what you are trying to rescue.

After all the YEC's definitely claim that observation fits with the biblical account (well that is ICR & AiG's line unless they have changed in the last week), yet this idea would claim that observation would definitely not fit with the biblical account.

Leaving aside the whole, "God as deceiver" angle, the main YEC claim still goes out the window.

BTW, I think the explanation is far simpler than this. The YEC is reading the text of genesis incorrectly. It is 100% accurate, but it is the "biblical" (in the loosest sense of the word) glasses they are using to read it that is causing the problems.

Nice idea though. Although I am not sure how God can create "age" in the sense you mean without that age being real. Which gives me an idea, perhaps you could constrast real age with reel age, as the reel age (the created aged as it where) is in some sense not exactly real.

Jason

[Benster]

"Although I am not sure how God can create "age" in the sense you mean without that age being real."

You managed to delete my post, for what reason I can't imagine), and then plagiarize the ideas within! Wow! In what state is your conscience, Jason?

[Amazing Rando]

"Although I am not sure how God can create "age" in the sense you mean without that age being real."

You managed to delete my post, for what reason I can't imagine), and then plagiarize the ideas within! Wow! In what state is your conscience, Jason?

You're an atheist posting in a theist-only area. Read the rules.

[Benster]

Oh, sorry. I get it. This place is a bit hard to navigate. And I have an issue with being barred from a discussion, just because it is assumed that I have a certain belief system. How do you know I am really an atheist? Maybe I just said I was, 'cos I wanted a Darwin fish next to my name.

[NeilUnreal]

I don't have a problem with the theory from a philosophical. From a scientific standpoint, however, one has to apply parsimony and treat the age as real. It seems to me that this also applies to theology: if it was made old, it must be for a reason, and that implies that I should treat it as old.

-Neil

[brett]

The first thing I should note that I don't think anybody else did note, was that this would still be a problem for the YEC approach to things, if that is what you are trying to rescue.

This is true. YECs claim God created the heavens and earth in 6 ordinary (not 6 seconds, not 6 billion years). We believe creation to be a miracle, not a naturalistic event. So it’s not about the quantity of time but rather the sequence of the creation miracles in proximity to one another.


Leaving aside the whole, "God as deceiver" angle, the main YEC claim still goes out the window.

Yeah, let’s. It’s funny that OECs are so concerned about scientists being “deceived” by modern dating methods, but have not problem with God fooling theologians for thousands of years with the grammar He actually inspired. And it’s even more ironic that you think atheists would be more attracted to your version of God.


BTW, I think the explanation is far simpler than this. The YEC is reading the text of genesis incorrectly. It is 100% accurate, but it is the "biblical" (in the loosest sense of the word) glasses they are using to read it that is causing the problems.

:sigh: Why not just be honest? You don’t believe the creation of the universe was a miracle. That’s why you feel the need to reinterpret Genesis which conveys the opposite.

[jason]

We believe creation to be a miracle, not a naturalistic event.
I'm not sure why you are insinutating that I think otherwise.

So it’s not about the quantity of time but rather the sequence of the creation miracles in proximity to one another.
Which this idea entirely demolishes.

Yeah, let’s. It’s funny that OECs are so concerned about scientists being “deceived” by modern dating methods, but have not problem with God fooling theologians for thousands of years with the grammar He actually inspired.
Actually the only people I think that are deceived by anything are the YEC's and the "glasses" they use to interpret scripture.

And it’s even more ironic that you think atheists would be more attracted to your version of God.
Given the insinuations you make about what I believe and your apparent lack of any idea about what I do believe makes me wonder why exactly you are trying to read my mind in making pronouncements like this. You are aware that evidence of such implicit claims to read minds would suggest that you are in fact involved in some demonic practices :wink:

Why not just be honest? You don’t believe the creation of the universe was a miracle.
Well I guess this is proof you cannot read minds at all. As for accusing me of lying, that is not appreciated and warrants an apology.

That’s why you feel the need to reinterpret Genesis which conveys the opposite.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, again this assumption that you know what I believe just because I am not a YEC is at best foolish ignornace and at worst prideful arrogance.

Jason

[learning]

I've got a link I'll try and put up on Sat to do with this.
It has to do with a Jewish interpretation of time, and it's really interesting. In fact, I may just print part of the post, since I printed it off from a web site I can't find anymore. It has to do with the days of creation being created in 24 hours, each thing, but that they have expanded in time, and the math works to come up with 6 24 hour first days of creation, but that with the universe expanding, the time does too. Kinda like a balloon expanding, I think. I find it hard to get a hold of mentally, but it appears to make sense, and then it doesn't. :) but as they do the math, it works that however they expand each day, and what was created for each day, that works out in their math for what science says they are in age this day (or close to it, anyways) Kinda interesting. Someone told me it was nonsense, but I'll post it Sat when I've got more time to print it up. :)

[brett]

I'm not sure why you are insinutating that I think otherwise.

I think the whole YEC verses OEC debate in most cases comes down to differing definitions of miracles. OECs believe science proves the age of the earth. Therefore they reinterpret the text to make it fit with modern scientific theories about the age of the earth (in fact, I think most admit this quite openly). Yet science can’t tell us anything about miracles, in fact it assumes miracles (supernatural interventions) haven’t occurred. So when you try to investigate origins through science, you must assume nothing outside of natural process has occurred. Now I realize you still believe the Genesis creation was a miraculous event, but I’m simply saying that this is an illogical conclusion based on your view of long ages. By saying “why don’t you admit it?”, I’m challenging you to examine your own thinking on the issue. Yeah it was a bit provocative, so sorry if I offended you. Of course it followed your little jab about YECs believing in a deceiving God, but hey, I’m sure you’re sorry about that too.


Which this idea entirely demolishes.

I’ve already agreed with you on this.


Actually the only people I think that are deceived by anything are the YEC's and the "glasses" they use to interpret scripture.

Yes Jason I’ve heard you make this point several times here on TWeb.


Given the insinuations you make about what I believe and your apparent lack of any idea about what I do believe makes me wonder why exactly you are trying to read my mind in making pronouncements like this. You are aware that evidence of such implicit claims to read minds would suggest that you are in fact involved in some demonic practices :wink:

You wink, but I'm sensing an ounce of truth in that gesture.


Well I guess this is proof you cannot read minds at all. As for accusing me of lying, that is not appreciated and warrants an apology.

Sure I’ll apologize. But understand I was speaking in regards to honesty with one’s self, rather than a conscience deception of others. Asking one to be honest with themselves is just a figure of speech. I'll bet you've used it yourself. But if that was too strong, I’ll search for other less offensive ways of putting it. How about this? I think you’re ignoring the implications of your views about origins. Better?


I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, again this assumption that you know what I believe just because I am not a YEC is at best foolish ignornace and at worst prideful arrogance.

Let’s be real here Jason. I do know a great deal about what you believe because you’ve posted your opinions for everyone to read. So if you want to call me foolish, prideful, arrogant, ignorant, etc., have at it. In fact I’m sure you could come up with a few more names. But don’t you dare call me a churchian! :glare:

BTW, if we are going to tackle this subject of miracles and science, I suggest we begin another thread. It wouldn't be right to pursue it here.

[Amazing Rando]

Honestly, I like the theory presented in the OP. It's the only conceivable way that I can see that the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old.

[brett]

Honestly, I like the theory presented in the OP. It's the only conceivable way that I can see that the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old.

I think the point Jason and I are trying to make is the age of the earth (in and of itself) really isn't the where the disagreement lies. The YEC interpretation of Genesis holds that the creation days were literal days and the creation week was like our work week and that everything in Gen. 1 was created in that week. So even if God did create history (which has all kinds of philosophical problems) it still demands an alternative interpretation of Genesis (especially 1).

[Amazing Rando]

I think the point Jason and I are trying to make is the age of the earth (in and of itself) really isn't the where the disagreement lies. The YEC interpretation of Genesis holds that the creation days were literal days and the creation week was like our work week and that everything in Gen. 1 was created in that week. So even if God did create history (which has all kinds of philosophical problems) it still demands an alternative interpretation of Genesis (especially 1).

Perhaps. But who's to say that God is nessesarily reigned in by what we believe are "philosophical problems?"

[brett]

Perhaps. But who's to say that God is nessesarily reigned in by what we believe are "philosophical problems?"


Fair enough but that wasn't my point. That was just a side note I added.

[jason]

I think the whole YEC verses OEC debate in most cases comes down to differing definitions of miracles. OECs believe science proves the age of the earth. Therefore they reinterpret the text to make it fit with modern scientific theories about the age of the earth (in fact, I think most admit this quite openly).
See this is where I disagree wth you. I don't think I am "reinterpreting" the text as you claim, I think it points quite clearly to something other than a 144 hour creation week.

Yet science can’t tell us anything about miracles, in fact it assumes miracles (supernatural interventions) haven’t occurred. So when you try to investigate origins through science, you must assume nothing outside of natural process has occurred.
This isn't true, science can investigate a miracle, the problem is that naturalist philosophy masquerading as science cannot investiagate a miracle.

Now I realize you still believe the Genesis creation was a miraculous event, but I’m simply saying that this is an illogical conclusion based on your view of long ages.
This is the bit I do not follow. Why do you think that is the case ? Why would you conclude that miracles are incompatible with a long age view ?

Yeah it was a bit provocative, so sorry if I offended you. Of course it followed your little jab about YECs believing in a deceiving God, but hey, I’m sure you’re sorry about that too.
It is not that YEC's believe in a deceiving God, it is simply that I cannot see any other explanation to make everything fit together.

You wink, but I'm sensing an ounce of truth in that gesture.
Not really, just that mind reading is an occultic practice, I don't think you involved in such things though.

I think you’re ignoring the implications of your views about origins. Better?
Faie enough, how exactly. What implications am I missing ?

But don’t you dare call me a churchian! :glare:
:lol: That is a YEC reserved word isn't it :wink:

Do you want to move this conversation to a new cosmogony thread ?

I'm interested to know what you think are the problems with my view and its incompatability with miracles.

Jason

[brett]

Do you want to move this conversation to a new cosmogony thread ?

I'm interested to know what you think are the problems with my view and its incompatability with miracles.

Jason

Alright. I'll start a new thread shortly (by the end of the weekend). I just don't want to squash Tfbandie's thread with something totally off topic.

[Starkman]

Ok, wait, wait a sec here...

Is the original poster suggesting that, like watching time-laps photography (which looks like it's going real fast, but it isn't), that the real age of the universe could be due to a very fast "day"? Am I reading this correctly.

There was a guy--forget his name--who was considering the days of Genesis as literal 24 hour days...depending on where you were in time to see it, because lightspeed would alter time calculation. We're at the end of the creation, so we think in terms of 24 hours, but if we were at the beginning, the speed of the creation would slow down, thus warping time, thus giving the YECs their cake and the ability to eat it too.

Anyway, I'm trying to digest here what exactly is being posited as literal age. If the age of the earth is old, but it's old because God fast-fowards through the first day, then the second day, then the third day, etc.--thus creating an aweful lot in literal days but in fast motion, then we still have to deal with the "living out" of the years of animals and such. In other words, this theory wouldn't account for the natural time it takes for animals (and other living things) to live out their life spans.

Thanks,

Starkman

P.S. If anyone can make sense out of my post, would you mind explaining it to me!

[Amazing Rando]

Ok, wait, wait a sec here...

Is the original poster suggesting that, like watching time-laps photography (which looks like it's going real fast, but it isn't), that the real age of the universe could be due to a very fast "day"? Am I reading this correctly.

There was a guy--forget his name--who was considering the days of Genesis as literal 24 hour days...depending on where you were in time to see it, because lightspeed would alter time calculation. We're at the end of the creation, so we think in terms of 24 hours, but if we were at the beginning, the speed of the creation would slow down, thus warping time, thus giving the YECs their cake and the ability to eat it too.

Anyway, I'm trying to digest here what exactly is being posited as literal age. If the age of the earth is old, but it's old because God fast-fowards through the first day, then the second day, then the third day, etc.--thus creating an aweful lot in literal days but in fast motion, then we still have to deal with the "living out" of the years of animals and such. In other words, this theory wouldn't account for the natural time it takes for animals (and other living things) to live out their life spans.

Thanks,

Starkman

P.S. If anyone can make sense out of my post, would you mind explaining it to me!

What TfBandie was postulating was a theory he heard that said that God really did create the Universe only 6,000 years ago, but at the moment of creation, he also created time and age. Real time- like the 14 billion years of time scientists believe the universe has existed. So in summary, 6,000 years ago, God created 14 billion years. Make sense? :dizzy:

[learning]

I found another link to the article, it is a little smaller than the one I printed out, which is good, but here it is
www.geraldschroeder.com/age.htm

So what do you guys think of this? And does anyone understand or see that the mathematical calculations make sense?

[Sparko]

I found another link to the article, it is a little smaller than the one I printed out, which is good, but here it is
www.geraldschroeder.com/age.htm (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.htm)

So what do you guys think of this? And does anyone understand or see that the mathematical calculations make sense?

Well, in short: :lolo:

I am YEC, but I am sure the OEC and even the Evolutionists all will agree with this assessment.

[kofh2u]

What TfBandie was postulating was a theory he heard that said that God really did create the Universe only 6,000 years ago, but at the moment of creation, he also created time and age. Real time- like the 14 billion years of time scientists believe the universe has existed. So in summary, 6,000 years ago, God created 14 billion years. Make sense? :dizzy:


No.

Because, he has Relativity backwards.

As things speed up, like in the initial Big Bang acceleration of mass, time slows down. Bango!!!
But, then, all velocity is constant as things move away from all other things, like bullets. So, earth is still moving @ the same time frame.

His point may have been, on some other moving frame of reference, an independent reader of Genesis there, moving way, way slower than earthlings would see time zooming millions of yrars while we experience thevone "yom" or Hebrew word falsely translatered as a 24 hour day.

[Lion]

The problem, as I see it, is trying to harmonize evolution with creation and the two are opposite poles. The long ages idea is what the evolutionists need to postulate the idea that there was no divine creator. Any other idea denies the existence of an eternal creator.

I don't agree with the idea of a big bang. I really don't know how the starry heavens came into existence. God hasn't revealed that. I have come to the conclusion that the planet may have been here for a long time before God decided to form it into the habitable earth we see today.

All attempts to synthesize the chemicals into life forms have become incomplete, and even if they did, they would not be alive. They would be just dead meat.