Stellatic writes:
I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.
What you seem to be proposing is the idea that the universe could've been created with
apparent age. In which case, yeah... there'd be no way of determining a difference between models (1), (2) and (3).
But the idea that the universe was created with an apparent age is not a valid scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be tested.
What test could you possibly device that would differentiate a 6000 year old earth created with an apparent age of 4.5 billion years from a world that really is 4.5 billion years old? (you yourself admit that there is none)
If we were to allow such a hypothesis to be seriously considered then we'd also have to seriously consider the possiblity of Last Thursdayism - the idea that the Universe was created with apparent age, last thursday.
So if you view models (1) and (2) as both being based on creation with apparent age, then the difference between (1), (2) and (3) is that(3) requires that you believe in what you can observe, while (1) and (2) require that you
don't believe in what you can observe.
(3) would be a valid scientific hypothesis, (1) and (2) would not.
"tellement loin de ce monde..."
™ Version 4.2