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

Not funny or surprising at all, since data are simply automatically subsumed within the OE framework. That is, you "know" that such and such a layer of sediment is so many MY old, so you don't have to do anything but assume that anything found there is that old, and so on. Once you have the OE assumptions in place, the uniformatarian assumption, everything else automatically follows. ACTUAL evidence for OE is reduceable pretty much to radioactive dating methods and the dating implications of varves and ice cores.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 04:56 PM

or last thursday, for all we know?

---

אָרַח

1. Adam was created, an adult, with the appearance of age. He, for an undetermined period of time was the only living human, so he had to be created with the appearance of age.2. (AbE: From the Biblical fundamentalist's Genesis viewpoint), the sun was evidently created with the appearance of 30,000,000+ years old, because it had to have looked more than that age to have been advanced beyond what age scientists figure a protostar becomes a star by what they consider to be natural means.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-26-2005 05:20 PM

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

In that sense only, there is an "appearance of age" but that's merely a way of answering the uniformitarian assumption that assumes such an appearance and is always asking questions like did Adam have a navel? If God put the sun in place already burning then it was brand new fully burning, any appearance otherwise is an artifact of human presuppositions. If God put Adam in place as an adult, he was brand new fully adult. No age, brand new.

Faith, thanks for participating on this thread. It's appreciated.For everyone: The intention of this thread is not to have the same discussion of why the YEC crowd thinks the world is 6000 years old when there is X amount of evidence saying that it's older.Faith's position, as I understand it, is that science has misinterpreted the evidence. I disagree, but that's fine.The intention is is to ask why the YEC crowd doesn't think the world is much YOUNGER than 6000 years old.Since YECs believe that uniformitarianism is false, meaning that all the calculations we use to come up with a date for the Earth are likewise messed up, why don't they believe that the world was created in 1348?The evidence for the 1348 creation is equally valid as any other random date we pick, since it all hangs on the belief that God set it up to look this way when it all started.Throwing out uniformitarianism sets everything on the same playing field. There is now no evidence which supports any date - or there is equal evidence supporting every date.So, I'm just interested in why the YECrs have choosen a specific date at random to be their official date as opposed to any other random date.

I did'nt say he wasn't brand new or that he had age when created. I said he would have looked like a man, that is a human, having had been grown up from a new born baby, i.e. with the appearance of age. If it were possible for us to have a photograph of Adam the day he was created, he would look like a grown man of some age. That's how I always understood the term, appearance of age.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

chapter and verse on that please?

You put it like God purposely set it up for the express purpose of looking old or to deceive. That's not it at all. The Genesis record says he created Adam from the dust, a man and breathed the breath of life into the lifeless being which he fashioned. He did this, not to deceive or for the purpose of looking old, but because he purposed to create an adult human to be the first human rather than to evolve him or to begin with a baby, which would require special nurturing of the babe.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

Context implication. Nothing suggested that a baby was created with the need of a process of special care. To suggest otherwise doesn't make sense. Also the 'image of God' suggests a grown man more so than a baby. No proof......just common sense.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

It isn't a random date, it's determined by counting the years between events of the Old Testament, from one event to the other. I can never keep the numbers in mind but you count the years of the ages of the Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, etc., on up to the present. Or you count backward. Taking all time statements literally, it is determined that the earth is roughly only 6000 years old, the Flood occurred around 4500 years ago, Abraham lived about 1900 BC, Moses about 1500, David about 1000 and so on. The OT was finished some 400 years before Christ. These are rough numbers, ballpark numbers, because I haven't done the computing myself in a long time.{AbE: It is interesting that contemporary Judaism doesn't affirm this literal dating scheme, IIRC, but the Jewish Calendar counts from Creation and is only up to 5700 and something.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 07:01 PM

That's how I understand it too, Buzsaw, but it's only an issue for answering evos I think, that's all I was trying to say.

there's no mention of an amount of time between when god makes man, when god makes eden, and when god sets man in charge of eden. surely the gappists could find something here just easily as anywhere else.you're also suggesting that god could not care for a baby. i'm sorry, but i don't follow.are you saying that we are only in the image of god at a certain age? clearly we grow and change -- does god change and grow as well? does the verse mean we physically look like god? and if so, does that only apply to adam and no one else?

---

אָרַח

So God looked how old the day he made Adam? Did he have His trademark white beard yet, as Michaelangelo seemed to think?And Faith has given precisely the answer I thought she might: whatever chronology the Bible suggests must be correct, so 1348 AD is right out.

quote:

---

but the Jewish Calendar counts from Creation and is only up to 5700 and something.

---

Actually the Jewish calendar starts counting at the creation of man. So it doesn't start from the first day of creation, but from the sixth. The Jews accept that the world is much older than mankind. They don't consider the days before the creation of man to be actual 24 hour days.According to Rabbi Benjamin Blech in "Understanding Judaism"

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Buz, I think you are misunderstanding the idea.Forget humans / human evolution for this thread.The question is not if God created man/the world.The question is why he made it look so old, and since he made it look so old, how do we know the real date of creation?