You Say You Want An Evolution!

[mikewhitney]

The website provides newer discussions. On the time for light to travel, he has a post: https://www.creationastronomy.com/distant-starlight/

He notes that the theories are less in favor now concerning the change of the speed of light over time. But other aspects of this light travel are considered.

The fun thing in making videos on scientific stuff is that they can become outdated while also being hard to update.

[Sparko]

The website provides newer discussions. On the time for light to travel, he has a post: https://www.creationastronomy.com/distant-starlight/

He notes that the theories are less in favor now concerning the change of the speed of light over time. But other aspects of this light travel are considered.

The fun thing in making videos on scientific stuff is that they can become outdated while also being hard to update.

That article is just a bunch of "what ifs"

What if light traveled faster? what if it didn't have to travel all the way? etc.

[rogue06]

That article is just a bunch of "what ifs"

What if light traveled faster? what if it didn't have to travel all the way? etc.

Folks never stop to think of what sort of consequences there would be if light were to travel significantly faster, or possibly rely on their audience being unaware of them when they propose it

[Mountain Man]

Those are folks who are opposed to God not people simply seeking truth.

I see it like this: people claim that God creating the universe with an appearance of age would be deceptive, but it would only seem deceptive to those who reject the Genesis account either in whole or in part.

[seer]

I see it like this: people claim that God creating the universe with an appearance of age would be deceptive, but it would only seem deceptive to those who reject the Genesis account either in whole or in part.

In assume that Adam and Eve were created with the appearance of age.

[mikewhitney]

I see it like this: people claim that God creating the universe with an appearance of age would be deceptive, but it would only seem deceptive to those who reject the Genesis account either in whole or in part.

yes. such arguments don't help persuade the atheist. The seemingly better arguments in the video are where inconsistencies occur in the timelines.

[Cow Poke]

In assume that Adam and Eve were created with the appearance of age.

Hence, "did they have bellybuttons?"

[mikewhitney]

What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water?

Somehow, the what-ifs may matter when making scientific theories ... and understanding the limits of such theory-making.

[Sparko]

What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water?

Somehow, the what-ifs may matter when making scientific theories ... and understanding the limits of such theory-making.

sure, but they only count if you have some evidence to support it. "What if God is a kid with a computer and he created this universe in some SIMS game?" "What if God just created the Universe as it is last Thursday?" You can come up with all sorts of "what ifs" that don't help at all.

[rogue06]

I see it like this: people claim that God creating the universe with an appearance of age would be deceptive, but it would only seem deceptive to those who reject the Genesis account either in whole or in part.

Again, it is not rejecting the Genesis account but rather rejecting a particular woodenly literal interpretation of it. After all, nearly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 describe the firmament in a fashion, that if taken literally, make it out to be a physical structure. But science has shown this is not the case and virtually nobody accepts that reading today (although it was previously universally accepted as such for many centuries). Have they therefore rejected the Genesis account and as you posited earlier been given "up to their delusions and allowing them to believe the lies they so desperately want to believe"? Or do we now have a better understanding about the nature of God's creation?

For me the whole "appearance of age" issue hinges on the difference between it and an "appearance of history"

Creating a world that looks old is one thing. A certain appearance of age may be necessary for everything to function. But creating a world with an appearance of history -- including features that speak of age but are not necessary to function -- is an entirely different matter. These unnecessary features serve to do nothing but give a false indication of great age.

IOW, if something is provided a false history it has been designed to deceive.

An appearance of age, as noted, may be necessary. A oak tree, to be fully mature, has to at least be fairly tall with a full spread of branches. An appearance of history, however, is not necessary and this is where, IMHO, those who advocate such a thing makes God out to be a deceiver. That tree would have no need of such things as annual growth rings, woody knots (which exist at the site where a limb had previously broken off and was grown over) or signs of healed damage from insects, fire, lightning strikes or whatever. None of these are necessary for the functioning of the tree and only serve as a record of the history of the tree's existence.

Another example is a river. Today, the water gets to the mouth of the river by having flowed down from upstream. Now, if God were to create a river instantaneously, it would have water at its mouth (because it would by necessity have to be there for the river to be complete and fully functional), which suggests an age at least equal to the length of time it takes for the water to reach that point. That is a necessary appearance of age. However, and this is the part where those who propose such things again make God a deceiver, there would be absolutely no need for the river mouth to have any sediment that appears to have eroded from the headwater region of the river. That would be appearance of history.

There are many other examples.

For instance, a deeply buried impact crater from a meteor strike that displays all the signs of having lithified and later eroded doesn't have an ecological function or purpose but it unerringly leads to conclusions that for all of this to have taken place implies a great deal of time – far more than a few thousand years.

The same thing goes for things like buried river channels, valleys, signs of prolonged extensive volcanic activity, the erosion of high mountains and even the appearance of billions of years of radioactive decay in rocks. They have no function and serve no purpose other than to provide false testimony concerning the age of the planet if it is indeed only a few thousand of years old.

We can also look at the heavens for even more examples.

For instance, look at SN1987a. It was, as Wikipedia puts it, "a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud" and is roughly 168,000 light years away from earth (this distance has been confirmed by basic trigonometry). Now being 168,000 light years from earth means that based upon the speed of light it took 168,000 years for the light to travel to earth and for us to see the supernova taking place.

If you argue that the earth and the rest of the universe is merely 6 to 10,000 years old then there was no supernova 168,000 years ago because nothing existed outside of God. So the evidence that we see for such a supernova is false and misleading. It is deceptive^[1]. This event is not necessary in order for the universe to function so its only purpose is to provide a false sense of history if it didn't actually take place. It is for all practical purposes designed to deceive^[2].

Until those who support an appearance of history that never took place can explain why God would have created the world with a false history, the only conclusion is that God must have lied to us in the fingerprints He left in the real world. To me, as a Christian, that is an untenable position.

And that is why I reject the concept that God created a young creation that bears the marks of an ancient one in that this would be deceptive and God does not deceive those who believe in Him. To the contrary, God invites us to know Him and seek Him out through the natural world, and this invitation makes no sense if we would arrive at the wrong conclusions doing so. Why would God tell us to go look at natural history to learn about His Godly nature and power if natural history didn't record real history?

From Romans^[3] we find that we are held accountable by the evidence of nature:

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse --Rom. 1:20

God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we’d have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”(Psalm 19:1-2). Job says that the creatures of the earth, and the earth itself, declares that all creation is the work of God (12:7-10). The psalmist also declares that, “truth springs from the earth.” (85:11), and that “the word of the Lord is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness” (33:4). Finally, the Psalmist tells us that the universe declares God’s righteousness (Psalm 50:6; 97:6). The Bible says that God does not lie to us (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Therefore, from the Bible, we can conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record in nature. A false appearance of history must therefore be rejected.

There is a reason that Philip Henry Gosse's idea was soundly rejected by every Christian denomination when he proposed it back in his 1857 book Omphalos. It makes God out to be a deceiver.








1. The noted theologian, philosopher and apologist Norman Geisler made some insightful observations concerning the appearance of history argument (or "embedded age" as AV1611VET calls it) specifically with how it relates to distant starlight. Geisler, who I might add is not exactly open to evolutionary theory, responded in a column called "When Skeptics Ask":

Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. [Current indications are that the Big Bang took place approximately 13.7 billion ago, but the number varies to approx. 15 billion. Most stars in existence are 1-10 billion years old, though some are over 13 billion years old.] To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us.

We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed � because they would have died before Creation.

Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible."

2. As food for thought here is an example not involving nature per se. Let's say for a minute that Adam was created to be the equivalent of being a fully grown human, although the Bible is certainly moot about this point. Still, God could have done this for whatever reason He decided. He is after all God.

But if Adam was created with a navel indicative of being connected to an umbilical cord that never existed, this would be an indication of a false history that Adam never experienced especially since having one would serve no purpose and merely serves to give a false impression.

The same thing would be true if Adam was created with callouses, worn teeth, scars or any other indication of having lived a life that he didn't.

And that is what we observe in nature. Things that would serve no functional purpose whatsoever and would therefore deceive those who see them into thinking that events that never actually took place did indeed happen. This is deceptive at its very core.

3. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be “understood from what has been made.” The appearance of history (or "embedded age" if you prefer) claim says that we can’t trust what he made!

[rogue06]

What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water?

Somehow, the what-ifs may matter when making scientific theories ... and understanding the limits of such theory-making.

Did you realize that increasing the speed of light means that the universe is actually older than we think?

[rogue06]

Hence, "did they have bellybuttons?"

See footnote #2 in my post #40

[Cow Poke]

See footnote #2 in my post #40

no

[rogue06]

no

Aw, come on. Ya know you always look forward to my footnotes

[Cow Poke]

Aw, come on. Ya know you always look forward to my footnotes

I do. And, yes, I looked.