YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?)

Recently, on another thread, I was confronted with an argument from a YEC that read something like this:"How do you know for a fact how old the Earth is?"And, as many of you know first hand, if you start down the path explaining geology, radioactive decay, etc. you run into this comment:"Couldn't it just be that the Earth was made to look old, but in fact it's not?"It's an interesting question, but not the one I want to raise here. Instead, I want to give the YECs a taste of their own medicine.So, could one of you YEC step up and answer this please:"How do you know that the world wasn't created in 1348?"Seems like a silly question, huh? Here's the history behind it.In what we call "1348", God created the World as we know it. For reasons that are God's and God's alone, he decided that he didn't want the people of 1349 to feel like they were on a fresh world, so he carefully made everything appear to be much older.He even went so far as to create a false history leading up with 1348. Then, when he populated the world, he simply set everyone up to believe that the world had been cooking along for a while when they showed up.The Bible, also created in 1348, contains much of this backstory - Jesus, the Exodus, the Flood, etc. None of it actually happened, it's all part of the backstory.Since none of you were alive then, how do you "know" that this isn't in fact what happened?{Edit by Adminnemooseus on 12/27/05 - Added the "(false appearance of age?)" part to the topic title.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2005 11:30 AM

This is an interesting "take" on the age old arguments of age!
Where do you want this to go?(Add by edit) I took admin nwrs advice and moved you to Social issues-- creation/evolution.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-26-2005 10:57 AM

It's a good topic if it generates discussion. Unfortunately, creationists often fail to participate in threads soliciting their input.I would suggest "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution". It doesn't quite fit there, but it is the closest that keeps the thread within the faith based forums.

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

These are ALL very valid points, if a bit hypothetical! It appears to me that many creationists rely on their biblical beliefs and then attempt to prove them scientifically.Hypothetically, God could have fooled us and created the world yesterday, preloading everyone with memories of a yet uncreated scenario.

I thought he/she/it did.

---

Barb's Site
Exposing the radical right with facts

Just for the record, I don't share this idea that God would have created the "appearance of age." It has always seemed like a cop-out to me, but maybe I don't know all what reasoning it is based on. I suppose theoretically it is possible, but it doesn't seem to me to fit with the Biblical portrait of God, who condescends to the weaknesses of humanity in keeping his revelations within our ability to comprehend, and not just within the abilities of scientists but the average person.Randman has some interestingly complex science-based ideas about the appearance of age and alterations in space-time with the Fall and so on, but I can't follow him there. I certainly believe that God and hiw works are far beyond our abilities to comprehend, but I believe he has carefully given us only what we can make sense of, and the "appearance of age" doesn't fit that.

So the cores in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps don't really exist? The varves in the Cariaco Basin and in a couple of dozen lakes around the world aren't really there?

quote:

---

Randman has some interestingly complex science-based ideas about the appearance of age and alterations in space-time with the Fall and so on, but I can't follow him there.

---

Don't worry, nobody else, including professional Physicists, follows where randman leads them. He is in a spacial land where randman makes sense only to randman.He doesn't really use science, you see; he changes languages in mid idea and leaves all the scientists behind.

quote:

---

So the cores in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps don't really exist? The varves in the Cariaco Basin and in a couple of dozen lakes around the world aren't really there?

---

I don't think this is what Faith is saying.I think she ackowledges that they exist, but that any explanation of them that contradicts her particular narrow interpretation the Bible have to be wrong.IOW, old earth explanations are automatically wrong no matter what.

No, they exist, but there has to be another explanation than the uniformitarian explanation of annual deposition -- a previous time when the seasons weren't the way they are now probably. However, this is something I would simply chalk up for the evolutionists, a point on their side, as I don't see a good answer to it yet.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 04:06 PM

I'm intrigued here. From your statement I don't know which of the following you're advocating.1. The Earth appears old, but isn't
2. The Earth appears old and is old
3. The Earth doesn't appear old and isn't old.I think this takes us into the realms of defining "appearance of age".What's your take on this, Faith?

It does appear to be old but I think if it were understood better it would be shown not to be and that of course would end the appearance of age. So that this appearance is a function of some assumptions such as uniformitarianism and dating methods etc. So the answer is #1 for our current knowledge, but would become #3 with further knowledge.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 04:23 PM

Well, the young earth crowd certainly does have its plate full of 'splainin' to be done, then. Funny how everything found in the last two centuries points to "old," isn't it?

quote:

---

Funny how everything found in the last two centuries points to "old," isn't it?

---

Yes, and funny how, for the last 200 years or so, the more we have abandoned the "young earth" ideas and have begun to operate under the "old earth" scenario, the more accurate our predictions in geology have become.