"Appearance of Age" Theory?

[Josh]

We got into this subject on another thread, but I think it deserves it's own. Here was the main kernal of the discussion so far:

Christopher wrote:

I will say for my part though, I have no problem believing that God might create an earth and a universe "ex nihilo" that appeared old from the get go. That is, I can see him placing the light from the stars (spanning billions of light years) in place at that same time the stars were created if He so chose. I can see Him placing all the elements (excess argon, radioactivity, etc.) that would give the appearance of age even though it's young. There may even be a hint of that in Adam and Eve. My impression is that they were created as fully grown adults. A doctor (without that information) who examined them "scientifically" would likely give them an age much older than a few hours based on the the physiological evidence. But I don't have a problem seeing OEC either.

Josh wrote:

"God could have created with an illusion of age".

To me that implies a deep-seated deception on God's part (and it would be a very elaborate hoax on God's part) Whether or not some things in creation appeared fully formed, if the illusion is on such a grand scale, then what that means is that ultimately, science (and logical deduction itself) cannot be trusted to be valid test of truth. And it is no longer a tool which can reveal the Creator.

Also, the other thing about the "appearance of age" thing is that it virtually disqualifies the "young earth" perspective from doing any real science. If anything can be a total illusion, then how can we trust the scientific claims of young-earth teachers?

[Josh]

All in all, I dislike this thoery because it's a cheap way out of the evidence.

It reminds me of (though I'm not suggesting that you would directly say something like this, Chris) a quote from a young-earther I read in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion today:

"if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand" (Kurt Wise)

Aside from the pathetic attempt to sound like Martin Luther, this whole way of thinking disturbs me deeply. Whatever happened to the Pauline insistence on "testing all things and holding on the good" and "examining things to find the truth" and "if Christ has not been raised we are of all men most pitiable and might as well just throw in the towel and eat, drink, and be merry" that western science is ultimately founded upon? This is just as bad as any other current incarnation of the relativism.

Our faith may call us to think beyond logic at times but certainly not below it.

[christopher]

All in all, I dislike this thoery because it's a cheap way out of the evidence.

That doesn't invalidate the theory at all. It's still a reasonable possibility because it is possible and there is special revelation in its favor.

This is very close to creating a false dichotomy. You are putting artificial natural restrictions on the super-natural. Surely you must see that. What if you're wrong? Is it still cheap?

As you know, I'm neither YEC or OEC (I'm agnostic), what makes you think we are supposed to know the truth about this issue at all? The best we can get to IMO is a leaning one way or the other. Many very intelligent Christians have sharply disagreed on this issue. I'm not prepared to say one camp has ignored the facts. Of course, this is just another case of us fickle Christians 'believing what we want to believe'...right?

[Josh]

It's still a reasonable possibility because it is possible and there is special revelation in its favor.

How is special revelation in it's favor? If anything, special revelation is neutral, though I feel it's actually in favor of an old-earth.

Also, just because something is possible doesn't put it on equal footing with other possibilities. Some possibilities are more reasonable to bank on than others.

what makes you think we are supposed to know the truth about this issue at all?

What makes you think we're supposed to know the truth about anything in science? Evidence.

Would it be reasonable for me to argue that gravity is merely an illusion? That history is all one big illusion, time actually began in 2003?

It's conceivable, but if you hold that it's probable you cast all scientific knowledge into darkness.

[Josh]

Some quotes from a relevent website by a guy named Rich Deem. On appearance of age vs. appearance of history:

According to appearance of age advocates, God created Adam with the appearance of age, since he seems to have been created as an adult. The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Didn't this wine have the appearance of age? There are two major problems with these analogies. First, neither the body of Adam nor the wine of Cana is available for inspection. The creation is still here. Second, the analogies confuse appearance of age with appearance of history. The creation appears to have a long history, not just an appearance of age or maturity.

Did Adam have an appearance of history? Did he have a navel from a birth that never happened? Were his teeth worn at his creation, even though he had never eaten? Did Adam have calluses on his feet even though he had never walked? The Bible does not address these issues, and since Adam's body is not available, we have no idea of the answers to these questions. Does the Bible compare Adam's body to the creation? No! The analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.

Does the wine of Cana have an appearance of history? According to the biblical account, Jesus ordered waterpots to be filled with water and, immediately, the water had become wine.1 Did it have an appearance of history? If the wine had been in wineskins (like the original wine) then one might say that it appeared to have been aged in the wineskins. However, the wine was still in the waterpots. It had no appearance of history. Does the Bible compare the wine of Cana to the creation? No! Like Adam's body, the wine of Cana analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.

On God's motives for an "appearance of age":

In examining our Solar System, one needs to ask why God created Mercury, the Moon, and Mars completely covered with craters whereas there are almost none visible on the earth. Did God feel it was necessary to make these worlds look like they had been bombarded for millions of years with meteors? Was God so bored that He decided to throw millions of rocks at these bodies? Why did God feel the need to create the 110 mile diameter Chicxulub crater beneath Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula? On what creation day did He do this? Why are there large amounts of iridium in this crater, which is also found in meteors and in the sedimentary layers that demark the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods?

On appearance of age and the Bible:

If one is teaching that God created the universe and earth to look old, shouldn't he be able to cite some sort of biblical evidence detailing that God actually did this? On the other hand, if God created the universe to testify of His truthfulness, then one would expect to be able to find biblical support for that position. It turns out that there is zero biblical support that God created any part of His creation to merely look old. In contrast, David tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and speak to the entire universe of this glory:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalms 19:1-4)

Job says that the creatures of the earth and the earth itself declares that all creation is the work of the hand of the Lord:

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11)

Paul says that God has revealed the reality of his existence and attributes through His creation. The testimony is so strong that unbelievers are without excuse in rejecting God, even with only the testimony of creation.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Does the creation declare that one of God's attributes is that He likes things to look old, even though they are young?

I can't vouch for the rest of the website I found this on, and I disagree with his conclusion that "appearnace of age cannot be tolerated", but I'm in agreement with all the rest of this article, which is worth a read: Appearance of Age: A Young Earth Problem. I really would love to have the time to make these arguments myself, but I don't, so why re-create the wheel?

[Josh]

It seems to me that those who deny a billions year old universe and earth cannot, in an attempt to explain their position, hold simultaneously to both:

1. A denial of the accuracy of common dating techniques and
2. The idea that God created the universe and earth with an “appearance of age”

for the following reasons:

Acceptance of “appearance of age” is a tacit admission that dating techniques (of rocks, at least) do work. We wouldn’t know that there was an appearance of age without the dating techniques in the first place.

And if one argues that dating techniques are flawed and that the evidence really should point to a young earth, then presumably one is saying that there really is no evidence for an “old earth”. Such folks should be spending their time trying to gather positive evidence for their assertion that the earth is only around 6,000 years old.

Back to those who hold to the “appearance of age” theory. Since they do accept dating techniques on rocks, what do they do with evidence of a different kind: namely, evidence for events in early human migratory history, which tests date well back beyond 10,000 years ago? If God began the world with an appearance of age before He created humanity, what accounts for the testable history of at least (conservatively) 25,000 years of human migration all over the globe? Would these folks who accept dating techniques when it comes to rock now have to doubt other dating methods such as photoluminescence, etc..?

[christopher]

Wow, I totally missed that last few posts on this thread from a few days ago. How did that happen?

I really have to restrain myself from arguing a position I don't hold.

That temptation can be so powerful when you're agnostic about something. Why is that?

I'll go back and consider some of the things your wrote here. I think some of them are very good points.

But I have to say that this is hardly a good comparison:

Would it be reasonable for me to argue that gravity is merely an illusion? That history is all one big illusion, time actually began in 2003?

1. Gravity can be immediately proven. All I have to do is climb up on my roof and jump off (don't say it ).
2. History is recorded by intelligence (so-called), not natural processes. So it's much more able to communicate something reasonably accurate than say potassium-argon or radio-carbon IMO. Especially when it comes from multiple sources.

The dating of the universe is exceedingly more difficult it seems to me. But, of course, I'm no expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination.

That's really the only thoughts I have at the moment. I'll ponder and return at some point.

[Josh]

2. History is recorded by intelligence (so-called), not natural processes. So it's much more able to communicate something reasonably accurate than say potassium-argon or radio-carbon IMO. Especially when it comes from multiple sources.

The dating of the universe is exceedingly more difficult it seems to me. But, of course, I'm no expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, I think one has to choose (at least for the sake of playing devil's advocate) either appearance of age theory or attacking the science of dating methods. Your comments above seem to be flirting with option 2 while you're trying to defend option 1.

I could be wrong....

[christopher]

Again, I think one has to choose (at least for the sake of playing devil's advocate) either appearance of age theory or attacking the science of dating methods.

That's the beauty of being agnostic about something...you don't have to choose or prove anything. The whole burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion.

How's that for the lazy way out? ;D

[Josh]

Not so fast...

You can choose either stance, but not at the same time because the stances are contradictory. Pick one, let's exhaust it, and then go on to the next.

[christopher]

Refresh my memory (I'm getting old you know)....when did I choose either side (let alone both)?

[Josh]

Playing your devil's advocate role you've mentioned both kinds of challenges to an "old earth"/ "universe".



But to have a coherent strand of conversation about it, I need to know which independent line of reasoning I'm arguing against.

2. History is recorded by intelligence (so-called), not natural processes. So it's much more able to communicate something reasonably accurate than say potassium-argon or radio-carbon IMO. Especially when it comes from multiple sources.

The dating of the universe is exceedingly more difficult it seems to me. But, of course, I'm no expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination.

This argument, imo, is out of place on a discussion of appearance of age, because "appearance of age" assumes that dating methods are generally accurate.

[christopher]

Ok, after talking to you today, I think I see the confusion here. The assumption is that the appearance of age theory comes out of scientific data that shows age (i.e. dating methods).

However, I would argue that it is not necessary to have an all or nothing approach here and lump all dating methods together.

For example, I believe that astronomers can fairly accurately calculate the distance of a star and as a result, determine how long it takes for the light of said star to reach earth. This is based on some pretty well established methods using the speed of light, etc.

Now what if I said that it is possible for an omnipotent God to not only create the star, but the light waves between the star and earth for some reason. Does that mean that I also must accept all the current methods of dating rocks also? Can’t I have some suspicions about say… kA dating (such as excess argon already present when a rock is formed) and still hold the age of appearance theory as possible? I’m no geologist or astronomer, but do I have to accept all their methods without question just because I buy into some of them?

Does that make sense? Or is there still a problem with not picking one side or the other? I guess I'm still not understanding the contradiction here. I can be a little dull and slow to understand things, so bear with me.

p.s. modifications were for grammar purposes. my fingers are working faster than my numb skull.

[erik]

Josh said:

Whether or not some things in creation appeared fully formed, if the illusion is on such a grand scale, then what that means is that ultimately, science (and logical deduction itself) cannot be trusted to be valid test of truth. And it is no longer a tool which can reveal the Creator.

Josh, I think you have some good points. But I take exception to how you apparently equate science with logic and also that you (perhaps) make the implication that science fully bounds the only valid tests of truth.

Science and logic are very different. For one thing, we uncritically accept logic and use it to do science, not the other way around. For another, logic can lead us to trustworthy conclusions that are not scientific (i.e., can't be repeatedly tested though still producing reliable knowledge). Last, if reality is in fact composed of a material nature and a non-material supernature, there would be no reason to suppose that science, addressing only the material, can tell us anything about supernature.

Imagine a computer simulation like The Sims™. Let's say the simulation and the AI behind it were so good that the people in the simulation attained sentience. As they began to explore their world, they could come to understand some fundamental rules of their universe. Only, what they would be exploring is nothing more than the programming of the software physics engine. Their science could happily address how one object collides with another, but it would be hard pressed to deduce anything about the computer hardware the physics engine was running on.

Similarly, these little simulation people would see that due to the logic of the rules engine, the world they are standing on must be of a certain age. I mean, it has history, man--craters and everything. They might even believe that for the programmer to have started his simulation partway through and given everything the mere *appearance* of age (rather than running the simulation all the way from an initial "Big Bang") would be deceptive, which is clearly wrong as the programmer wouldn't do that, being pure truth.

But step back for a minute. Is it not the right of a programmer to start his simulation with objects already intact, craters and all? How good of a programmer would he be if his people had to start with no hair or belly button, just because the little sims might see this a history and be deceived?

I agree that the universe appears to be billions of years old. I haven't come to a real conclusion on everything yet, and I'm thinking and listening.

But I also don't think that a queasy feeling about how God "wouldn't do something so deceptive" is really that strong an argument. Go back to the Sims again. They're going to dictate to the programmer that he mustn't start the simulation partway through because they might not like it? That's a tad presumptuous, isn't it?

I recognize that this does play into the argument that if everything has the appearance of age, then everything does in fact look that old and dating methods likely should work. It would be one thing for a programmer to start a simulation partway through, and another thing entirely for him to do such a bad job that some things look old and some things look young (as if he was less than an absolutely omnipotently perfect programmer).

Before I forget, I'd also like to point out how my little analogy works well for explaining miracles as well. Just because the programmer started running the simulation 10,000 or 100 million years ago (take your pick) and that it generally runs along on its physics engine just fine doesn't mean that he can't alter the runtime state at his whim--injecting objects, rewriting objects, removing them, placing knowledge directly into a Sim's brain, and so on. He could even hook up some virtual reality apparatus and enter into the simulation!

I realize the analogy breaks down because God is more than a programmer ordering the code of some pre-existent computer outside himself, he is more of a magician, being the creator of the computer from nothing, no raw materials available. But I hope that you get the idea.

Let's say I go out in the forest and encounter a giant bear. The bear tears my leg off and then leaves me for dead. I pray to God and he miraculously heals me, restoring my leg. For any atheists rrading this, just for a moment let's suppose that God exists and this actually did happen. If I'm not so hard-hearted or idiotic as to deny what I'd experienced, wouldn't I have a pretty good reason to believe God is real? Could my leg-healing incident be repeated? Hardly. Even if it could be attempted to be repeated somehow, do you think God is going to participate? His purposes are his own, and he isn't going to perform on command. If God wanted us to have all possible doubt removed, He could have made this happen miraculously. He hasn't done that (I don't know about you but I don't get regular miracles to prevent me from doubting Him), so why are we taking exception to Him doing something that could possibly seem deceptive? Isn't it deceptive for Him to NOT act in many other ways when we expect that He should?

Remember, the person with a hard heart won't believe even after seeing miracles. There's always a way for someone desperate to genuinely resist God to (though dishonestly and foolishly) doubt Him. Mo matter what evidence is presented.

[Josh]

But I take exception to how you apparently equate science with logic and also that you (perhaps) make the implication that science fully bounds the only valid tests of truth.

In case it was unclear, I'm not equating science with logic. Science uses logic, but logic is the broader discipline. And of course logic has vehicles other than science. When I said "science (and logical deduction itself)" that should be read as a statement that the two are separate but inter-related.

But I also don't think that a queasy feeling about how God "wouldn't do something so deceptive" is really that strong an argument. Go back to the Sims again. They're going to dictate to the programmer that he mustn't start the simulation partway through because they might not like it? That's a tad presumptuous, isn't it?

The thing is, though, that the age of the earth isn't neutral information. It has implications.... even spiritual ones. If there were no philosophical implications to the question of whether the universe/ earth is truly ancient, then I'd be quicker to say that God wouldn't be deceptive in creating with appearance of age. Also, if we are created as rational creatures who are designed to go where the evidence leads, then at least we must say that God should expect us to conclude the world is old.

I agree that the whole deception thing isn't the best argument against appearance of age. Probably better, in line with what you said, to make the argument that once someone assumes appearance of age, then they've already sold the farm on debating/ challenging the science of dating.

[erik]

Well, I'm not so sure about how assuming the appearance of age completely sells the farm on challenging the science of dating.

The earth could younger than other parts of the universe. Time dilation is not such a far-fetched idea. If space can be curved, why not time as well? And the gradient/slope of the curve could be changing over "time" (though if we're dealing with time I'm not sure how one analyzes its derivative).

I do want to listen to the evidence, I do give science credence, and I do believe that all truth is God's truth, meaning ultimately that if the Bible appears to contradict science then they both aren't right (though we may be talking about *our* interpretation of what they say rather than discrediting those items themselves).

I'm also radically committed to a willingness to shatter my old Traditions or What I Always Knew in favor of truth as it shows up...

[Josh]

Well, I'm not so sure about how assuming the appearance of age completely sells the farm on challenging the science of dating.

I didn't say "completely". However, it was in reference to your comment that:

I recognize that this does play into the argument that if everything has the appearance of age, then everything does in fact look that old and dating methods likely should work.

It seems one can't have it both ways: either the dating methods work but there is appearance of age, or the dating methods are faulty and the earth actually does give evidence for being young.