[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can any of the posters who have commented here intelligently and reasonably explain why the Appearance of Age Theory canNOT work? From a scientific or philosophical or theological perspective.
What is there that says that the same God who created a fully developed, mature Adam, fully developed, mature Eve (yeah baby!), and fully developed, mature plants and animals of every sort per the Genesis account somehow could NOT have created a fully developed, mature universe (outside of the aforementioned biological life)?
That of course entails rocks with plenty of evidentiary daughter elements, photon beams from the sun and stars “in place,” an already expanded universe, etc.?
What is there in all of that that would cause a reasonable man to say, “Nahhhhh, that could never work, that’s way too improbable”??? How can it be dismissed? Tell me.
[edit] Someone mentioned Occam’s Razor several pages back so speaking of it…why could it not be employed in this instance, i.e., the A of A theory? The simplest answer might just be the most obvious - He simply spoke it into existence and was consistent by creating ALL things with an Appearance of Age…just like He said He did in Genesis 1 and 2.[/quote]
Not necessarily a reason why it COULDN’T work, but one issue with appearance of age would be that it implies a deceitful God. Many would argue that the God of the Bible is the opposite of deceitful - he is the Truth.
Of course, using the word day when it could possibly represent millions of years instead might also imply deceitfulness.
Just some food for thought.[/quote]
How could it be considered deceitful? Did you read my comments above about a mature creation and consistency?[/quote]
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what you’re proposing. What you’re asking is why couldn’t it be possible that He created a universe that appeared to be much older than it really is, correct?
While I don’t deny the possibility of that (I generally try to avoid denying the possibility of anything outright), what I don’t understand is why God would create a universe that He knew would appear to be several billions of years old to many of the instruments that we use to determine age, if in fact the universe was only several thousands of years old. This would seem like a deceptive practice to some.
If I’m missing the mark on what you’re asking here, let me know.
And again, I’m not trying to say that this idea is improbable or wouldn’t be possible. [/quote]
IF God created mature human beings in Eden and IF He created mature flora and fauna everywhere else on earth WHY wouldn’t it be inconsistent to create non mature non biological matter and energy?
Stated another way: it would be the opposite of “deceitful” if He was consistent.
His biological creation was specifically stated to have been created fully mature, with an appearance of age. That is crystal clear with no room for any disagreement.[/quote]
Could you perhaps refer me to the verse(s) that imply that fully matured Creation indeed had “evidentiary daughter elements, photon beams from the sun and stars ‘in place’?” Admittedly, my knowledge of Scripture is not as broad as it could be. If I am lacking here, then I can see your point entirely.
Or is this operating on the assumption that fully matured biologically was synonymous with chronologically matured in terms of “evidentiary daughter elements, photon beams from the sun and stars ‘in place’?”
[quote]
Tell me why it’s deceitful, or “manipulative,” for His non-biological creation to have been created fully mature, with an appearance of age.[/quote]
God is all-knowing. He knew that 6000 odd years from Creation we would be using the devices and methods available to ascertain the age of materials.
Bearing this knowledge in mind, he went on to create a universe containing materials which would all appear to be several billions of years old when studied with our devices.
You couldn’t see how this idea may seem deceitful to some?