Rejecting Six Literal Days - What's the Real Motivation?

[Bob Hayton]

Ron Bean wrote:

Bob Hayton wrote:

Ron Bean wrote:

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that God created everything with the appearance of age? After all the wine at Cana was created with the appearance and qualities of age.

This argument doesn’t work for the immense ages in question. Even Ken Ham doesn’t use this or prefers not to.

I don’t understand why the size of ages nullifies the argument. Could someone explain? Does that mean that God could create things with the appearance of a little age but not immense age?

Here is an answer from Dr. Tommy Mitchell posted at Answers in Genesis:

God is not a deceiver. He cannot lie. Numbers 23:19 states, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” So why would God try and deceive us by creating things with the appearance of “age.” Why would He make the universe look “old” when it is not?

Now the rest of the article says creation is mature, and no one knows what a young earth would look like so it is invalid to call earth old. But I think that is largely a dodge. We know what tree rings and ice cores are for smaller time frames and can extrapolate that out to longer ages.

But to answer your question, this is why. If the earth is meant to look old (and the universe, for that matter), but it isn’t really old, than it would be as if God was deceiving us — which of course, He isn’t. And to go back to my earlier point, since nature speaks, and God invites us to listen and use our senses to learn of Him, then this point about appearance of great age when in fact it is very young, would more clearly be deception. Hence I believe in an old earth.

To state it a little more clearly: God would only be deceiving you if you assumed He wasn’t there and all powerful. But if he is there and powerful there is no reason to be deceived because you don’t accept a naturalist framework.

So why would God make a world that has multiple pointers to its immense age, when in reality it isn’t old. What possible reason could there be?

The same pointers in nature that lead us to theorize and then realize the power of controlled electrical systems, are the kinds of pointers that lead us to theorize and then realize the truth of astrophysical predictions and experiments. It is these pointers which in numerous ways explain that the earth and the universe is old.

Turning water into wine was an express statement by Jesus indicating his power over nature - that is not deceit. Believing in an old earth does not diminish God’s ability to perform miracles - creation itself is the biggest miracle - something out of nothing - only God can do that.

To say that all evidence of earth’s age is just an act, a show, a way for God to claim supernatural power - is really to say that there is no evidence that we can learn from. If everything is miracle, nothing is miracle. In one sense God is revealed in all, but the definition of miracle is something contrary to nature or super-natural.

Bob,

To say that all evidence of earth’s age is just an act, a show, a way for God to claim supernatural power - is really to say that there is no evidence that we can learn from. If everything is miracle, nothing is miracle. In one sense God is revealed in all, but the definition of miracle is something contrary to nature or super-natural.

If you were going to carve a statue so that everyone would know how great of an artist you were, you wouldn’t get a block of granite, sit there and watch it. You would fashion it in such a way that it would preclude the statue happening by accident or process of time. I think that’s what God did. Any unblinded creature would look at the world and say what a world someone had made! And yes by consequence if you assume a naturalistic worldview, yes the world would have to be old. But it doesn’t follow from that that it is old. Christianity isn’t a worldview that makes sense if you put your foot partially in and wiggle it around. If you get in all the way, meaning you assume the supernaturalness of it more than the natural order, it gets really easy not to be deceived by a God that created a mature world. If you only step in part way, I can see how you might think God would have to be deceptive. I just don’t think that logically follows from the idea of creation with appearance of age. It seems like you have to take a lot of leaps in order to get there.

[Bob Hayton]

Here is an answer from Dr. Tommy Mitchell posted at Answers in Genesis:

God is not a deceiver. He cannot lie. Numbers 23:19 states, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” So why would God try and deceive us by creating things with the appearance of “age.” Why would He make the universe look “old” when it is not?

Now the rest of the article says creation is mature, and no one knows what a young earth would look like so it is invalid to call earth old. But I think that is largely a dodge. We know what tree rings and ice cores are for smaller time frames and can extrapolate that out to longer ages.

But to answer your question, this is why. If the earth is meant to look old (and the universe, for that matter), but it isn’t really old, than it would be as if God was deceiving us — which of course, He isn’t. And to go back to my earlier point, since nature speaks, and God invites us to listen and use our senses to learn of Him, then this point about appearance of great age when in fact it is very young, would more clearly be deception. Hence I believe in an old earth.

Creation ex nihilo requires creating with an appearance of age. The animals, trees, fish, rocks, light that came into existence via the breath of God were all created as mature, fully functioning entities. The chicken came before the egg. God says that he did it this way in his Word. If we examine the data of the resulting creation and come to a different and erroneous conclusion than what God said, how is that being deceptive by God? Being deceptive would be God saying he did something one way in his Word but then not actually doing it that way.

[GregH]

That being said, one thing that seems clear here is that both sides don’t like the “created to look old” idea. As just a normal person, throwing out that theory presents a big problem when I look at something like this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Here is my perspective on this. I see Ham try to attack carbon 14 dating because of a few obscure mistake it made and what it appears like is something akin to trying to put out a forest fire with a teacup when you consider that there are 30+ other methods of dating that conflict with YEC.

No, it is not as plain as 2+2=4 but you have to admit that the level of faith required to accept YEC in light of that is pretty high and the more you know, the higher the faith required.

Greg,

LIke I said in my previous post, I don’t see how you can have creation ex nihilo without an appearance of age. I expect the dating methods to give old earth numbers. That’s why those things don’t bother me. It doesn’t mean I understand everything or that there are no difficulties with a YEC position, but I don’t see anyway around it. Creation is a faith issue, just like Heb 11:3 says it is. Apologetically, I would say that the truth of YEC is not to be confirmed by evidentialism (science) but by our highest and most reliable authority - Jesus Christ and his Word.

[Ron Bean]

Is it possible to hold to both an old earth and a literal six day creation?

Ron, I start with Ex 20:11 and read, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” This is a pretty comprehensive statement regarding the scope of what was created by God in those 6 days. IF you believe that those were 6 literal 24-hr days, then the only wiggle room you have regarding the age of the earth would be possible gaps in the genealogies. We know there are some gaps, or at least there probably are some gaps, but millions of years of gaps? I don’t know of anyone who would seriously entertain that idea.

I am not a fan of that word. It means “out of nothing”. IMHO it is wrong….and not for the reason you might think. It is wrong because it is not true. God did not use nothing to make the universe. He used His word and His power. He spoke. That is not nothing. Now, I assume the origin was to say that God did not use pre-existing matter to make the universe, but how many people in 2015 have a worldview that allows eternal, pre-exisiting matter?

So, if anyone cares, I say God created the universe by His word and power.

No. God could have made spoken energy and electrons and quarks and neutrinos into existence in just the right amount, and then set it into motion so that 13.7 billion years later we are here. He could do that and do it out of nothing but his power and word.

The question is “did He do it that way not can He”?

Let me try to sum all of this up in one post.

Dgszweda, AndyE, and a few others seem to “want their cake and to eat it too” when it comes to astronomy. Here is the problem. They want uniformitarianism to work when it works for them, but then to reject it when it doesn’t. They personally see no problem with fusion being the power source for stars, or their being different ages for stars, or their being dead stars and newly forming stars, or measuring distances in the universe, etc.

But here are some problems I will list just to highlight the issue:

1-Nuclear fusion was developed as the power source for stars for one reason and one reason only… you need a power source that lasts billions of years. That is why it was developed. It is true that today we have other reasons and verifications, but it is all based on this necessity of time and it is all based on uniformitarianism.

2- Appearance of age works for wine and people, for example, but what about the universe? People live 70-80 years, wine depends upon the conditions it is kept. But either way the lifetime is something we experience. With the universe the proposed lifetimes for stars is billions of years! If the universe is only about 6000 years old, then there is no such thing as a normal lifetime star that has been born, lived, and died. That is not the case with people and wine. Do you see the problem?

3- How do you explain so many dead stars? Did they live a normal life then die, but all of this was done very fast during the creation week, or were they made dead? How would you test for this?

4- If appearance of age is the answer, and the universe really is big so that God miracled the light somehow so that we can see things from the distant corner of the universe, how can I do science with that light? Science assumes the light comes from a source that we understand, travels the distance, then we measure it. Appearance of age corrupts that chain.

5- Adding in Danny Faulkner specifically all of the above draw into question whether astronomy as a science is even possible in this framework. Why do you think you can make an H-R diagram? WHy do you think there are “dead stars”, “old stars”, “middle age stars”, “young stars”, and “forming stars” if they all were miracled into their present condition and none of them formed by natural processes. Who can even say age is even relevant to a star?

Get the idea?

I believe that God could in theory handle all the complexities Mark raises with ease while creating an “old” earth.

The big question is why he would. Because there are probably millions of people who look at the overwhelming and constantly mounting evidence of an old earth (and yes it is overwhelming) and end up rejecting God as a result. I have a friend who was a former preacher who turned away from God because of this stuff. He for example looked at the research where there are 30,000 layers of ice in a core pulled out of one of the poles and that shook him up.

Just speaking frankly, it is hard for me to reconcile why God would choose to go to that level of deception (yes I agree with Bob) to drive people from himself. If in fact the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows his handiwork, why would he intentionally go to such great lengths to obscure his handiwork?

I am a creationist who does not take a position on the age of the earth but these are things that honestly bother me about the YEC position.

[Mark_Smith]

I say this as a theologically YEC person. OK.

If the age of the universe is something like 10,000 years maximum, then that by its very nature destroys the basis of most astronomical assumptions. The only out in that is something like relativity (but as already discussed on other threads the people here at SI dislike relativity and what that means about the universe).

That then means that astronomy is pointless as a physical science to YEC believers. If the equation distance = speed * time doesn’t work, THERE IS NO ASTRONOMY!

You and I have circled this argument several time before. What I have never understood is why you feel compelled to equate distance and time. If I take a road trip and drive 30 minutes at 5 miles an hour, then 30 minutes at 100 miles an hour I have traveled 52.5 miles. I have not traveled that distance over a uniform period of time, but I can still definitively measure the relative distance between my starting point and my finishing point. The same is true of the stars. The relative distance can be measured today between stars without knowing how long it took the stars to get to their present relative positions or if they were created ex nihilo with part of the distance already in place. The problem YECs have isn’t with the study of astronomy as a descriptive science of the way the universe is but with the attempts of astronomers to hypothesize about the origins of the universe based on the way things are perceived today. As a person who readily accepts the miraculous claims of scripture (something you have done repeatedly unless I have misunderstood what you have been saying), I would think the appearance of age provides a better hypothesis for your studies since you have already conceded that uniformitarianism is not a universal law of nature. Every miracle in scripture, from creation (which you have publicly accepted as true) to the resurrection, violates the laws of physics and nature by definition as a miracle.

Good to hear from you!

Well, let me say a few things as clear as I can. I hate to repeat myself with these examples, but I feel it demonstrates why YEC as most people present it destroys astronomy as a science. Which is ok… I just want people to realize it and admit it, then do things a better way!

1- Let me not be coy here and fully reveal my cards. I believe YEC is the correct reading of scripture. I am also a scientist. I believe God used natural processes to create the universe (other than the initial creation of energy and matter from nothing by His spoken), and used other natural laws that we know of (like relativity) and perhaps ones we don’t know of, to speed things up. BUT IT IS STILL NATURAL PROCESSES BEING FOLLOWED. I prefer this over “appearance of age” arguments.

2- Science, to be useful, assumes natural explanations for natural events. What that means is the light from the Sun comes from natural processes going on in the Sun, for example. Claiming miracles that supersede natural causes undermines this basic idea.

**By the way, several YEC physicists that I know of admit this fact, and rather than just say “a miracle did it” they look for ways to use relativity, for example, to speed things up rather than whip out the miracle card.

3- If one appeals to miracles to explain why we see the stars, we have undercut the basis of science. It would be like pouring water in an engine and expecting to fire it up! You are using the wrong inputs but expecting the same outputs.

As a result of this undercutting, we can’t assume laws of physics, like d=s*t work anymore. We can pretend they do and go with it. That is what some YEC people do. In my opinion the only reason that works is because God did use natural laws to grow and “evolve” the universe. So the bad assumptions of some YEC beliefs aren’t important.

4- If you can’t assume the laws of physics work out there like they do here because God miracled it all up, then there is no way to categorize, hypothesize, etc. There is no way to do science.

Does that explain what I am thinking, Chip?

So, my answer is to NOT APPEAL to miracles other than the source of the initial energy/matter, then explore the universe to find the way God did by natural laws that He put in place.

[GregH]

I believe that God could in theory handle all the complexities Mark raises with ease while creating an “old” earth.

The big question is why he would. Because there are probably millions of people who look at the overwhelming and constantly mounting evidence of an old earth (and yes it is overwhelming) and end up rejecting God as a result. I have a friend who was a former preacher who turned away from God because of this stuff. He for example looked at the research where there are 30,000 layers of ice in a core pulled out of one of the poles and that shook him up.

I struggle with the idea that individuals are rejecting God because the belief being taught doesn’t mesh up with their view of science. We could get into a whole other discussion at this point on redemption, definite atonement and other things….., but I often find it challenging to believe that someone has wholesale rejected God, because of a particular issue. But like I said we could easily go off scope here.

[GregH]

Just speaking frankly, it is hard for me to reconcile why God would choose to go to that level of deception (yes I agree with Bob) to drive people from himself. If in fact the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows his handiwork, why would he intentionally go to such great lengths to obscure his handiwork?

I am a creationist who does not take a position on the age of the earth but these are things that honestly bother me about the YEC position.

Why do you feel it is deception? Could it not be that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways? Could it be that one of the most definitive and miraculous events of God (the Creation) is truly beyond our understanding? It is clear no matter which side you pick that 1 Chapter in Genesis hardly fills in the blanks as to the details. In fact you could argue possible that the entire event could not even fit in the Library of Congress if it was definitively and exhaustively detailed out. Could it not be that the very act was not only outside of the physical realms of science, but that it had such a profound impact as to not be able to be discerned naturally? We don’t even know if all of the laws of nature were even established at the very moment of the first act of Creation.

Why did Jesus tell his disciples not to reveal who he was? Wasn’t that deception? Why did Jesus only appear in Galilee and Judea, why didn’t the people of Africa get a fair chance to experience Him? You could go on forever.

The part I struggle with your position, is that the vast amount of science goes against the Bible. So where do you, Greg draw the line? Anthropology clearly indicates that evolution took place, that there were no Adam and Eve in which the nations were formed, there was no world wide flood, people did not live vast ages of time before a flood, that there wasn’t even a distinct nation of Israel during the time of David and was never as glorious as described during Solomon’s reign, the Bible is a collection of stories that can easily be traced to other Near Eastern writings and it goes on and on. So where do we draw the line between faith and science when they are in contradiction. The Creation account is hardly the only area where this is the case, and it could be argued that there are even more definitive disagreements than Creation. Forget astrophysics, when I studied archeology at a secular university, the Bible was ridiculed.

Remember, the ridicule that Biblical scholars received in the 1800’s on how the Bible was wrong because how could there be this vast Hittite Kingdom, yet no trace of them in any archeological record. Then in the later half of the 19th Century, they not only began finding evidence, but eventually found enough evidence to declare that they were one of the most powerful nations at the time, possibly surpassing Egypt in its dominance and glory. So do we go with science for the Creation account, but go with the Bible on the Flood? I am more than happy to consider science when there is wiggle room in the Bible. I just don’t see the wiggle room. Even such sites as Biologos would agree that the writers really did mean literal days, but that the message was written to accommodate the understanding that people had during that time. So even when many of the critics and even secular professors agree that it really was written as 6 literal days, why should I force something into a clear Scriptural account to accommodate science. We have to at least entertain the idea that an all knowing God who clearly wrote a Scriptural account, and was the only individual who witnessed the act and understood every single element of the act, and documented it to reveal something about himself for all generations might be right compared to man, who was not a witness, has no knowledge of the act, is tainted in all ways by sin, has an extremely limited view and understanding of his surroundings, naturally rejects God and has no comprehension of the beginning, might possible be wrong.

I am a physicist, so I sometimes get so focused on that I forget other things. Let me clarify. I do not think life started with natural processes, nor do I think it evolved. That was a special creation that the bible specifically mentions.

What I meant by my natural processes comment was that the universe expanded, stars formed, then galaxies, light traveled to us, etc. all by natural processes and they weren’t miracled into being individually.