Is Creation with an "Appearance of Age" deception by God?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In order to address this question with no misunderstanding, we first have to make the necessary distinction between "created with age" and "created mature", the latter meaning created fully-formed and functional, but with immediate youth. This is, of course, not a discrepancy--but a necessity! Anything created mature (in order to fulfill its divine purpose without delay) has to have two ages: (1) an ACTUAL (real, or revealed) AGE and (2) an APPARENT (observed, or scientific) AGE, the latter being determined by uniformitarian assumptions of natural process rates. In other words, true creation [Hebrew "bara"]--by definition--always results in two ages: an apparent age [Adam and Eve created functionally mature, appearing possibly 30 years old] and an actual age [Adam and Eve created with immediate youth, directly from the hand of God as adults rather than starting as newborns].

If God ["Who cannot lie"--Titus 1:2] reveals to us the actual age of what He created [and He did in Genesis 1 (!)], then He should not be judged guilty of deceiving us when our senses--and sciences--arrive at a seemingly contradictory apparent age due to its having a superficial appearance of history. It is we who have deceived ourselves by not taking His Word literally--the divinely-inspired, true revelation of His eyewitness testimony.

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

Q: How can we see distant stars (millions or billions of light-years away) in a young (6,000 year-old) universe?

Answer:

The model which bests answers this challenge to-date is the new cosmology proposed by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, well-known young-Earth creationist and nuclear physicist, employed at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) since 1979. His model is explained at layman's level in his popular book, 'Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe' [1994, (Master Books: Colorado Springs, Colorado), 133p./ISBN: 0-89051-202-7/~$10] which also includes three appendices: Appendix A--"Notes on Previous Related Creationist Theories"; Appendix B--"A Biblical Basis for Creationist Cosmology"; Appendix C--"Progress Toward a Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology" (a reprint of his technical work, complete with equations).

Dr. Humphrey's young-Earth relativistic cosmology: (1) is based upon physics and mathematics totally accepted by all cosmologists [General Relativity]; (2) requires no "manipulating" of data--the results easily issue forth from the equations [once the 'big-bang' assumption regarding an ever-expanding, unbounded-cosmos starting point is abandoned]; (3) accepts and explains all of the observations used to support the 'big bang', including the cosmic microwave background radiation, progressive red-shift, and the past expansion of space (though not from some imaginary infinitesimal point), without compromising the astronomical evidence or the clear biblical teaching of a young Earth; (4) has passed peer review, by qualified reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism; and (5) has successfully withstood the opposition of critics, with further development ensuing from its defense.

In summary, the model makes the opposite starting-point assumption of the 'big-bang' hypothesis, namely that the universe is bounded, with a center (near Earth) and an edge (beyond which matter is absent). This implies a net gravitational effect toward the center, with General Relativity (GR) [the theory that gravity distorts time] demanding that time near the edge be accelerated relative to Earth-based time near the center, a relativistic concept known as "gravitational time dilation." Scientific deduction based on GR necessitates the expansion of a bounded universe out of a past 'event horizon'--known technically as a "white hole"--a GR-permitted black hole running in reverse. This past expansion of space-time is supported not only by observational evidence from the astro-sciences but, more importantly, by the written Word of God in at least 17 verses of the Old Testament that refer to the Creator having "stretched (or spread) out" the heavens.

As matter passed out of this 'event horizon', the horizon itself had to compress--ultimately shrinking to nothing--enabling it to eventually touch the Earth. At that instant, relative to a point in distant space, Earth-time would have been virtually frozen with no effect whatsoever to the Earth-based observer at or near the center of this massive cosmic time-dilation event. In other words, while less than an ordinary day would be passing on Earth, millions (if not billions) of years would be registering in a deep-space frame of reference.

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

Q: Is there any evidence of Pterodactyls living today?

Answer:

Pterosaurs (flying reptiles) have been classified by paleontologists into two suborders: the smaller, long-tailed 'Rhamphorynchoid' pterosaurs and the generally larger, short- or no-tailed 'Pterodactyloid' pterosaurs. [This taxonomical difference is akin to the distinction between smaller, long-tailed monkeys and the larger, no-tailed apes.]

A growing amount of evidence is suggestive of the fact that flying reptriles have been known to be contemporaneous with humans before and since the Genesis Flood (~4,300-4,400 years ago). The Creation Evidence Museum has sponsored expeditions to Papua New Guinea which have resulted in eyewitness night sightings of bioluminescent pterosaurs (see Isa.14:29 & 30:6), the most recent being in August 1994 and 1996. The nationals (and missionaries) speak of flying reptiles with wingspans up to 25' across and those having the macabre habit of scavenging gravesites for food. Such grisly behavior of "winged serpents" is corroborated on p.132 of Bill Cooper's eye-opening book, 'After The Flood' (1995), published by New Wine Press, and by the "Companion Tape to 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'," hosted by Charlton Heston, and available from B.C. Video Inc./P.O. Box 97/Shelburne, VT 05482 (ph.# 1-800-846-9682).

Another great resource is the Christian children's book by Paul S. Taylor entitled, 'The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible' [see pp.44-45 of 1st ed., 1985], available at www.creationevidence.org. or your local Christian bookstore. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR.org) and Answers in Genesis (AiG.org) websites should be able to connect you with further leads and resources.

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

srsly dude what is the matter with you.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

dudes I just noticed this the other day, this is awesome:

When Saul's servants told him what David had said, Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

1 Samuel 18:24-27

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

says a woman married to a man who mainly uses ilx for calling jon williams a fat homosexual

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

haha, when did Morbs become Jon?

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.creationevidence.org/ban_5.gif

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

God is very skilled at pwning scientists.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

ethan, i'm not sure what other people's activities on ilx have to do with me, or with the fact that you basically seem to use ilx to repost spam and "zing" puppies, but i'm glad you're keeping up on the "jon is a fattey" meme.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

"illiterate literalists" strike again!

― kingfish, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

i started this thread to answer some questions about creationism

― and what, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:15 (nineteen years ago)

snow crabs

― JW, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

I am sending you and curtis both all the Brick Testament print editions for xmas

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

do you go hunting for this shit or do you have a family member that fwds you this stuff or what?

― gff, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:22 (nineteen years ago)

ok well i'll take this seriously for a minute

i've said this kinda stuff before, but: what's so WIERD about creationist stuff like this is how completely irreligious it is. faith is dead, it's faith-less, there's no mystery at all, nothing even to be faithful about. the argument against "science" is done in the language of science ("requires no "manipulating" of data" wtf?!)

it also reminds me of comic book fandom (not being one myself, no offense). as increasingly incompatible data piles up, as the explanatory power of science annexes more and more of the mysteries of Creation away from God, creationism can't simply put up its hands and say WRONG, it has to provide these increasingly elaborate schema to make it all make sense; it's A PREDATOR SHIP etc. they have been forced to give up some things but they can't surrender: evolution is out but biological change can't be denied anymore. the big bang is out too but carbon dating and the red shift are in.

it's a huge exercise in story management, to shore up a creaking network of lived-in memes, to keep an increasingly adrift and paranoid people feeling happy and powerful. which i guess is profoundly religious, after all.

ok now back to call jw a fat homo

― gff, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

i absolutely adore all this mad creationist retconning. It sounds like the best job in the world to sit about inventing stuff that fits in with a biblical world view, whoever wrote this is a more imaginative than most science fiction authors.

― Slumpman, Thursday, 8 March 2007 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

"retconning," that's the word i was looking for, yes!

― gff, Thursday, 8 March 2007 22:40 (nineteen years ago)

I am sending you and curtis both all the Brick Testament print editions for xmas

wait why do I get one?

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 8 March 2007 22:42 (nineteen years ago)

How can I get a creationist pet pterodactyl?

Maybe PTEVA, the convert-seeking Pterosaur could help me find one:

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxMTlfRi5qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLmNhZmVwcmVzcy5jb20vaW1hZ2UvNjg5NjA5M180MDB4NDAwLmpwZ3x8c2NhbGU9TDAsNDg2LDQ4NixXaGl0ZXxjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLEwwLEFkZCw0OSw0MXxsb2FkPW1hc2ssYmxhbms6MTE5X0ZfbWFzay5qcGd8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxtYXNrLE1hc2ssMCwwfGNwPXJlc3VsdCxibGFua3xzY2FsZT1yZXN1bHQsMCw0ODAsV2hpdGV8Y29tcHJlc3Npb249OTV8

― Abbott, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:38 (nineteen years ago)

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/fathersonpterosaur.png

― Abbott, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:39 (nineteen years ago)

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/adamevepterosaur.jpg

― Abbott, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:40 (nineteen years ago)

I was pretty amused to read a recent science book that used OBJECTIVE: Ministries as an example of "crazy creationists." Um, hello.

― Abbott, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:41 (nineteen years ago)

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e391/marthasminions/oldwestdino.jpg

― Beth Parker, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:43 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/images/cottingley-fairies.jpg

― Abbott, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:47 (nineteen years ago)

curtis you get one because you know you want it

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:59 (nineteen years ago)

well yeah but still, it's awfully gracious of you!

― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 9 March 2007 02:18 (nineteen years ago)

I love you but I've chosen atheism.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 9 March 2007 02:27 (nineteen years ago)

The relevant questions are:

How do we know that the Bible isn't a complete work of fiction?

Why should some written things be regarded as divinely inspired and others not?

Why should the so called holy works of one tradition be given precedence? There are hundreds of different creation stories - why pick that one?

I share Dawkins's exasperation at the idea that things which don't make sense scientifically should be awarded respect. "You must respect other ppl's beliefs" Why? And where do you draw the line? If an adult still believes in Santa should s/he be respected rather than laughed at or gently 'put right'?

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

respect their belief based on how many people have been killed for it duh!

― blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:18 (nineteen years ago)

the interesting thing as a child of church-going parents is that I *didn't* immediately go "well, if *that* impossible thing can't happen then *all* impossible things can't happen, ergo religion is fals" upon working out (rather than being told) that Santa didn't exist. Why i wonder?

I remember a conversation I had with my dad (possibly at the age of 10 or so) when I basically said "So, do you mean to say that these other religions like Hinduism and that are a load of rubbish?" and he gave a embarrassed little laugh and said "well, yes".

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

OMG the position of that pterosaur head in relation to Adam!

― Hurting 2, Friday, 9 March 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

Once it was established that Superman could reverse time by spinning the Earth backwards, all these silly questions about the age of the universe should have been put to rest.

― Aimless, Friday, 9 March 2007 16:56 (nineteen years ago)

I dispute the "oh the shit looks old, i know, but it was like built that way or sumfin" on religious grounds, since I don't believe in a trickster God.

That being said, this kind of overly convoluted mental wankery(using scientificky language to try to justify particular issues of particular dogma) is only going to get worse as we understand more about the universe.

― kingfish, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, if God can lie to mankind about the age of fossils and the dinosaurs and stuff, what's to stop Him from going all HA HA, I WAS JUST KIDDING ABOUT HEAVEN, TOO!! when you die?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

Hush, MB. You mustn't ask that.

― Aimless, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

Practical Joke God doesn't seem to be much different to Predestination God tho. Plenty of Protestants seem happy to believe that God's already decided who he's going to let into Heaven on a completely random basis. What kind of douchery is that?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

No worse or better than Indulgence God who lets the Virgin Mary rack up so much extra Grace that the Vatican can hawk it out their back door like hot car stereos.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with God. It's the douchebaggery of humans and their warped interpretation of the Divine.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah kingfish otm - the more complex scientific discourse becomes, the easier it will be to sufficiently confuse those who already want to believe

― Hurting 2, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

But that argument - humans know nothing about God - kinda undermines the idea of religion, yes?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

good thing there were pterosaurs in eden to keep us from seeing cooter and shlong

― gff, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

fig leaves = papist lies, i expect

― gff, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

Did pteranodons really have pointy dicks?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

If the purpose of religion is to promote ease and certainty, then yes, it undermines religion. If religion is more about awe and worship, then, no. I prefer to take a more middling course, and conclude that all the information we need to know is right there in the universe, because everything is ultimately hidden right out in the open where we can find it. What is undiscoverable, such as what happens after death, is irrelevant. But that's me.

― Aimless, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

Did you mean: "cooter and schlong"

No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - "cooter and shlong" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.

― Aimless, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

there's no c in shlong! i don't know how i know this but it's true.

― gff, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

btw god doesnt exist

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

Saying that God doesn't exist is like saying an idea doesn't exist - completely misses the point in a really self defeatist way. Like saying Liberty doesn't exist. The *idea* certainly exists, and is a very powerful thing in and of itself.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

You know, Love doesn't exist. Show me love, show me a single actual Love, out there in the world. Love is an idea, an emotion. You can not believe in it, but that doesn't stop an idea from being powerful.

That said, I think anyone who claims to personally know the mind of God is either lying or delusional. All we have is human interpretation. God is an idea, there are a million different interpretations of an idea.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

it doesn't miss the point at all; the power and durability of an idea has no relation to its truth value.

― gff, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

Existence != Truth.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

what?

i have no idea what your arguing other than there being something "divine" out there, inarguably, and there can't be any further argument about what that is.

― gff, Friday, 9 March 2007 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

you can pretend that 'existence' or 'the universe' = god in your own crazy cat lady dictionary but for normal people it refers to something that doesnt exist

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

Kate, you probably want to distinguish between "an idea" and "an abstract" here.

Love = an abstract term people have come up with to describe actual empirical sensations and experiences, however vaguely or approximately.

"A cross-dressing orange dolphin" = an idea that currently exists in my head, but not a thing that actually exists (or even makes sense), which is obviously how E is using the term.

(Not to say that the IDEA of the cross-dressing orange dolphin in my head might not have a profound influence on me or on the world in general, and be worthwhile as such.)

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

thats what i was gonna say, the analogue to "love" isn't "god", its "feelings inspired by belief in god"

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

Please describe influence of psychedelic tranny dolphin.

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:33 (nineteen years ago)

No Ethan, GOD is LOVE, it's right there in the quadratic equation. IIRC.

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

Trickster god is the only conception of a god that makes sense to me, big laffing ass who loves his Schaudenfruedes. Also is 200-feet tall and wears sneakers. I hate him so.

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

'...and it was good...' fuck you, you pompous ass

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Artist: 116 Clique
Album: The Compilation Album
Song: Fanatic
Typed by: Byg_Balla

[Chorus]
I'm a F-A-N-A-T-I-C, Fanatic
I rep Christ till I D-I-E, Fanatic
I'm not extreme, I'm redeemed with faith
To serve a God whose extremely great
I'm a Fanatic

[Verse One]
The world's trying to tidy up, exfoliate they skin
but only Christ can come and exfoliate they sin
And they fate look grim, If they don't take him
As the high priest he is to mediate they sin
The world's got to many Gods, man we choose the one
From hebrews, he rules, he bruised his son
He moves the sun
So if we prayin and our schools call us fools
Cuz our God's too true to shun
Channels two in one
Man it looks insane
TV make a lot Christians seem dramatically strange
Though we may be looked upon as one and same
We will not turn in shame, we proclaim the name
Christ Jesus, believe us, you ain't gotta recieve us
but we gon' follow our God wherever the bible lead us
And you can call us dramatic, fanatic, emphatic
But hate while you at it, take a look at our mathematics

[Chorus]

[Verse Two]
What can I do to make it simple, make it plain
Christ came, emptied himself and let out sin hang him
You couldn't blame him for any sin
While they singing many men
The crucifixion was pretty grim
But when we state the fact that God resurrects
We get funny looks from a world that doesn't get
We are not David Koresh or Krishna
Or the people on TV who glorifying their bishop
From Edwards to Piper, MacAurther to Spurgeon
From Dallas to France, From Cali to Berlin
As Christians all over who getting the word in
We ain't crazy we just understand the truth and we burdened
The world sees us as evangelical Christians
As narrow-minded fanatics with a mythical mission
Labeled extremists for sharing out faith
But thats cool, we can carry the weight of persecution
Cuz earth is losing
And if we yelling the truth
We honored to be the people that our God is using
So keep it moving
Cuz if we yelling the truth
We honored to be the people that our God is using

[Chorus]

[Verse Three]
They thought Jesus was out of his mind
they laughed and mocked him
Called him a cult leader and they tried to stop him
Pharisees said Christ got his power from Satan
Hatin', on the very one that came to save 'em
Even after he rose, man the world ain't changed
They still rejecting the name, still look at us strange
Still tell us without shame that our faith's insane
and, "it don't take all that to be a Christian man"
And its hard when you tryin to reach your family and stuff
They say man, "you too spiritual, you doing to much"
So we show them the love of Christ and live in the light
So they can glorify our God when they look at our life
And we win for sharing the truth and hearts get changed
We win if we're rejected because of his name
We win if seeds get planted and watered and grow
But even if we lost, we still be Fanatical though

[Chorus]

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:46 (nineteen years ago)

tho i believe in a Supreme Sense of Humor, i don't believe God to be lazy enough to go, "y'know what? I'm going to deliberately violate My own rules in just this little area alone to make these people feel better."

i.e. The Maker ain't going to start some great system in motion, w/ more or less coherent rules, and then be so arbitrary as to let that coherent system break down in a very select handful of cases(e.g. carbon rate of decay/age of universe, etc). Now, The Flying Spaghetti Monster might touch things with His Noodly Appendage, but these guys don't like to hear that.

― kingfish, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:46 (nineteen years ago)

http://logo.cafepress.com/4/97217.1298964.jpg

ethan were you talking abt me or elmighty lorbd?

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

mmmmm zealot ice cream treats (judging from that design)

― kingfish, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:01 (nineteen years ago)

hahah i meant the doctorb lorbd

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

the extra b is for bargain!

― and what, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

I can't quite picture the dolphin, because part of my brain starts dressing it up in drag, and then another more boring part keeps going "hey, dolphins don't wear clothes, therefore it's impossible for them to cross-dress, they are totally unisex about non-apparel and you are just projecting your western-human notions of gender blah blah" and then the first part is like "SHUT UP & LET ME IMAGINE TRANNY DOLPHIN IN PEACE."

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

I just imagine it with ridiculous human boobs grafted in front of its flippers, a tiara, huge fatty fake lashes, glitter wll around its little eyes, and maybe some ostrich plumes coming out of its blowhole. No need for clothes proper.

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

In order to determine the sex of dolphins, you must be able to see their bellies. The males have a genital slit closer to their umbilical scar (belly buttons). Females have a genital slit closer to the tail and have mammary slits on either side.

Okay so: orange dolphin, Magic Marker mammary slits?

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:35 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe lined with glittery fringe?

― Abbott, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:40 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.