# 6 day creation..could it appear as billions of years

An aircraft flying at the speed of sound has another object inside its cabin travelling at the speed of sound in relation to the air inside its cabin (eg a bullet fired in same direction of travel as the plane)

This means that effectively whilst both object are travelling at the speed of sound, the object in the cabin, if observed from a static location outside of the aircraft (and not attached to the aircraft), would appear to be travelling at twice the speed of sound. If we the extrapolate from that the earth is rotating at about 17,000km/hrâ€¦ depending on which direction the two are moving, the object inside the plane which is travelling at the speed of sound could in fact be travelling at + 19,000/hr or -15,000k/hrâ€¦or if travelling parallel to the earthâ€™s axis of rotationâ€¦2,000k/hr.

The point, why cannot 6 day creation appear this way if we use that same analogy?

Is there sound in space?

# Sound travels in waves like light or heat does, but unlike them, sound travels by making molecules vibrate. So, in order for sound to travel, there has to be something with molecules for it to travel through. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there.

I am not seeing the connection between the speed at which physical objects move with a literal 6 day creation.

If you are trying to get around the speed of light problem, as they say, that dog wonâ€™t hunt.

2 Likes

Superman flying around the Earth to reverse time makes more sense than what you are proposing.

4 Likes

I am not sure any of the above answers really address my question.

When we go back to my original statementâ€¦

the bullet fired inside an aircraft travelling at the speed of soundâ€¦this is a metaphor (EDITâ€¦my wife, the English guru in the family, tells me â€śillustrationâ€ťâ€¦its an analogy)â€¦anyway, the point is we are not talking about the speed of sound.

I am trying to propose an ideaâ€¦its a similar idea in that if we can have objects in the universe appear to break the restrictions imposed by the speed of lightâ€¦in that they appear to be travelling faster relative to the â€ścontainerâ€ť (if you like) that they are travelling within, then the container itselfâ€¦the fabric of inflation itself may also be expanding at the speed of lightâ€¦the real speed of the object inside the container is actually signficantly greater than the speed of light and yet not breaking any rules. That is the point.

So, if we look at the above premise, then i think one might be able to develop a theory whereby a 6 day biblical creation can be compatible with millions or even billions of years of time (according to observational data and theoretical claims/evidences).

Surely this idea should be something that Biologos would be very interested in exploring. It could solve a huge problem for both YEC and TEism . I feel that he most important thing is that it would bring them closer together fundamentallyâ€¦and surely that would be a good thing for all Christianity?

please note, i accept that the different views of the fossil record for example would be problematic (probably more for TEist than YEC)â€¦but perhaps this might lead to a solution to that issueâ€¦who knows? But thats the point of this isnt itâ€¦to explore and seek solutions?

From ChatGPT:

• "In logic, when you present an analogy as an example but then deny that your point involves the analogy, you are committing a logical fallacy known as the â€śfallacy of false analogyâ€ť or â€śfalse analogy.â€ť This fallacy occurs when someone tries to make an argument or draw a conclusion by comparing two things (analogies) that are not truly analogous. By denying that your point involves the analogy, you are essentially saying that the analogy you presented is not relevant to your argument, and therefore, your argument is not based on a valid comparison.
• In logical reasoning, itâ€™s important to ensure that your analogies are accurate and relevant to the point youâ€™re trying to make. If you deny the relevance of your analogy to your argument, you undermine the strength of your argument and make it less convincing. Itâ€™s important to use valid and sound reasoning when making analogies and presenting arguments to avoid logical fallacies like the false analogy.
2 Likes

my wife already beat you too that and my post was already edited before you posted thisâ€¦please can we stick to the topic instead of playing games.

If you are not interested in exploring a way of narrowing the chasm between YEC and TEism, then that merely shows that its not the YEC here who is the problem.

I am trying to find a solution and your interest appears to be focused on the kick you get out of posting untoward responses thus avoiding addressing the dilemma. See i dont work that wayâ€¦i like to problem solve and i will not be distracted.

Here it is againâ€¦

**

I am trying to propose an ideaâ€¦its a similar idea in that if we can have objects in the universe appear to break the restrictions imposed by the speed of lightâ€¦in that they appear to be travelling faster relative to the â€ścontainerâ€ť (if you like) that they are travelling within, then the container itselfâ€¦the fabric of inflation itself may also be expanding at the speed of lightâ€¦the real speed of the object inside the container is actually signficantly greater than the speed of light and yet not breaking any rules.

**

Could this idea be used to resolve the dilemma of a 6 day creation and the interpretation of millions or billions of years?

• YECs who argue in Biologos are only playing games.
• YECs are not interested â€śin narrowing the chasm between YEC and TEismâ€ť and neither am I. Any honest person would acknowledge that
• People who continue to sit in bumper-cars when the electric power to each car is turned on and complain when anyone bumps into them ought to get off the court.
• In what world is a YEC interested in narrowing the chasm between YEC and TEism?
• Chasms are irreconcilable differences; what prevents them from being â€śnarrowedâ€ť, is not the fact thatt thereâ€™s a difference, itâ€™s the fact that they are irreconcilable.
• Things move in the Universe.
• Moving things in the Universe do not all move in the same way.
• Sadly you seem unwilling or unable to recognize that sound requires a medium, such as air, to move through, and light does not.
• Hereâ€™s your analogy the first time:
• â€śAn aircraft flying at the speed of sound has another object inside its cabin travelling at the speed of sound in relation to the air inside its cabin (eg a bullet fired in same direction of travel as the plane)â€ť
• A bullet is fired at a typical muzzle velocity of around 2,700 ft. per second
• The speed of sound about 1125.33 feet per second.
• Obviously, a bullet traveling in an aircraft that is traveling at the speed of sound must travel at about 3,825.33 feet per second. So what do you think would happen to the bullet and gun?

That doesnâ€™t happen. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to attain that speed. Also, the speed of light is the same for everyone no matter how fast they are moving towards or away from any other person. If you are speeding at me at half the speed of light and shoot a laser at me we will both measure the light travelling at the same speed, the speed of light. The only difference we will see is the color of the light. The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. This is at the heart of the theory of relativity.

The only way you are going to get something approaching what you are proposing is if we are close the event horizon of a black hole. I think we would notice that.

6 Likes

Is this idea supported by a literal reading of Genesis?

1 Like

Could God have used magic to make the world appear billions of years old despite being just a few thousand years old? Yeah. But there is no theological or scientific reason to consider it.

3 Likes

Are you trying to say from Godâ€™s perspective creation took 6 days but from ours 13.8 billion? First off,

*the chronology is Genesis is all mixed up.
*There are two creation accounts that contradict if both are factual
*The Bible gets so much other science wrong (e.g. firmament)

• Genesis make better sense theologically in it ANE context rather than from the reference point of a global earth in a modern scientific one.

So for relative velocity, If a transparent (glass) see-through van with a very long back is moving 60mph to the right and a ball inside is rolled forward 5mph to the right an outside observer would see the ball moving 65mph. The ball could be rolling the opposite direction and it would be seen at 55mph.

Or, as the video on YouTube shows (myth busters I think), a truck moving 60mph east fires a ball 60mph west and a stationary observer sees it fall straight down). I show a few of these in my class.

What does this have to do with you imagining some sort of â€śrelative time?â€ť Time is relative but itâ€™s precisely for the opposite reason. You canâ€™t add or subtract the velocity of light this way. Its speed is constant.

As the thought experiment goes, if you are in a fast car in space and pulse the headlights while stationary, the light beam speeds ahead of you at 186,000 mi/s.

If you are in a that same car traveling at 75% the speed of light and do the same thing you still see the light moving ahead of you at c (186,000 mi/s).

So you seem to be mixing up two scientific concepts and trying to force them into an exegetical mess.

1 Like

It is sort of interesting that to a photon, no time passes during its journey. So from its perspective, I suppose it is instantaneous. But you try to ask them about it, and they just wave you off.

7 Likes

4 Likes

Adam was made mature in scripture. There is plenty of theological reason to consider it. What is magical about God making light in transit? Or making trees with rings?

I find some just reject a mature creation because they read their own modern scientific understanding of nature back into the text and they (incorrectly) feel a mature creation would make God dishonest. Even liberal Christians want certitude and the fact that we canâ€™t disprove that God made the universe with light in transit, trees with rings, etc., so we try to argue itâ€™s deceptive to do so. Kind of an odd stance for evolutionary Christians who already believe a large portion of what is actually narrated on the pages of scripture didnâ€™t happen the way they are reported. YECS are 100% correct to point out this inconsistency. God canâ€™t make a tree with rings but he can inspire a sacred text with so much, accommodated material falsehood? Itâ€™s a â€śpick your poisonâ€ť scenario and conservative Christians stick with scripture.

Iâ€™m also not buying the nature is deceptive line when in that framework (worldview) God told us precisely how He did create Adam. He spoke and things appeared (mature), as they exist fully formed and developed.

Science discovers how the world works moving forward after God created it mature and He told us He did so in scripture. Where is the problem aside from that making us a little uncomfortable? Cancer in creation makes me far more uncomfortable than light made in transit. They arenâ€™t even close to be honest.

I donâ€™t believe the universe was created mature but itâ€™s one of those ideas that just canâ€™t be refuted.

I see your point, but have a problem with being made mature, as we read in scripture that creation expresses the nature and glory of God, in Romans 1 and Psalm 19 as well as elsewhere. To me, a mature creation that does not represent an accurate history by what we observe, would be an attack on scripture as well. And, as you state, that is due to my looking at is from a modern scientific perspective, so there is that.
I really like Waltonâ€™s idea that scripture references some things, but does not affirm them, In Genesis, it is referencing the common ancient creation stories, but its affirmation is of the one Godâ€™s creation and his relationship with us.l. I am not sure that solves much of the debate, and then we just argue over what is referenced and what is affirmed, but it does help me personally in finding meaning in scripture.

2 Likes

Well I agree it canâ€™t be refuted just like I canâ€™t refute that a giant unicorn actually made it .

But when looking at science, there is absolutely no reason to believe it was magically made to appear older. Then again, and itâ€™s ok if you disagree, but I donâ€™t see a single bit of reason to believe that from the Bible we come to the conclusion that itâ€™s made to appear older as well. All evidence is against it. Even in simple ways like the fossil record. Either animals evolved at a hyper rate before and it slowed down, or either god made a bunch of animal skeletons and fossilized them to create an impression of evolution and so on. Each field would have massive issues.

Genesis 1 and 2 is not even the same creation story. Itâ€™s two separate origin stories. Everything is against taking genesis 1-11 literally and then using that to support pseudoscience.

1 Like

And again, that does not meet the mature Adam theory on its own ground. The argument might run like this:

• God told us very plainly he made the world and humans in the very recent past (see very obvious genealogies in Lk 3 and 1 Chronicles going back to Adam that make little sense as fictitious lists).
• God is ordered and rational so Godâ€™s creation reflect the order and rationality of God. The laws of nature as we see them reflect their creator. As you say, Rom 1 and Psalm 19.
• God clearly made a mature Adam and Eve. Scripture says nowhere God made the sun and it took 8 minutes for the light to reach us. He makes things and they presumably appear whole and complete.
• Scientists extrapolate the laws of physics back past a point where God told us was the beginning of the universe.

Nothing in this description is deceptive. God told us many thousands of years before the advent of modern science how old the earth was and exactly how it was created. Maybe itâ€™s deceptive for an atheist who doesnâ€™t believe in God. But so too maybe is Rom 1 and Psalm 19. Should scripture be changed or watered down to accommodate â€śthe fool who says in his heart there is no Godâ€ť?

Not to mention scripture teaches reality was corrupted by sin. Do we still expect it to accurately reflect God? We can go another direction entirely with this whole discussionâ€¦

Yes, what scripture assumes vs teaches or what it intends to teach. But if it turns out science is wrong and the earth is young Christians will just go back to a literal Genesis. We are remarkable adept at making the Bible fit with whatever we believe. Slavery? Letâ€™s quote the Bible. Abolitionist? letâ€™s quote the Bible.

Yep and we probably all argue inconsistently. Why do we take Rom 1 and Psalm 19 at face value but not 1 Timothy 2:11-15? What that is teaching and affirming is extremely obvious to me. Yet many want to make that mean something else and twist and contort. I just disagree with it. Not the best way to deal with scripture but I am not sure what else to do. What I canâ€™t do pretend it doesnâ€™t say exactly what it says. Because that would actually be dishonest. But why do we get to proof-text hunt Psalm 19 and Rom 1 but not other passages? Does cancer really reflect the glory of God?

A mature Adam/creation is just another part of this debate. I donâ€™t agree with a mature Adam idea but I think the â€śdeceptionâ€ť argument is just logically faulty. It doesnâ€™t meet the argument on its own terms. If a person wants to use methodological naturalism to trace history back to a time past where God plainly told them it began, that is just them illustrating a lack of faith in God, not Him being deceptive.

Irrelevant point. Scripture doesnâ€™t teach mature unicorns but it plainly and unequivocally has a story of a mature first human couple and has genealogies in several places that trace the history of humanity back to them.

Who said science does? We are talking about interpreting scripture. If you think scripture has nothing to say about the physical world that is your business.

Can you cite Biblical evidence against it? The fossil record is not biblical evidence and if God made the universe mature then he probably made all those fossils too for whatever reason. Maybe to give us something to do or argue about. I donâ€™t know, but logically any evidence for any ancient earth, like tree rings, fossils or light in transit can be created that way instantaneously by God. The fossil record existing or light in transit says nothing about that or whether or not the whole universe, memories and all, was made two minutes ago.

God made creation mature it and moved forward from 6000 years ago with a set of rules underlying reality. God created things mature using those same rules in hind-cast. You can come to the conclusion that the earth is old on account of them but in this framework, God told us very plainly the universe is not old. He told the age of the universe up front to us. That you choose to not believer him is your business.

I agree and that is the correct argument against a mature universe. That and probably how the sequence as we discover it does not match Godâ€™s order in creation so his hindsight creation seems off.

It might be a strange view but throwing cancer and major natural disasters at Godâ€™s feet, a creation built on the destruction of other life and believing humans are the end result of a â€śrandomâ€ť evolutionary process and not â€śexactlyâ€ť what God planned for is also very foreign to the Biblical image. God knows exactly what He wants and make it in Genesis 1. He doesnâ€™t just hope a random process spews out humans he can put a soul into. Unless he made a multiverse to ensure He gets it right. I donâ€™t know. Above my pay grade.

For those of us who take both science and the witness of the Bible seriously, itâ€™s a tough issue. Theistic evolution is compatible with Christianity but we should never ever pretend like itâ€™s an easy fit with the Biblical witness or Christian worldview. We didnâ€™t go looking for this. We are forced into it by the evidence.

It might make some people feel better to be able dismiss a mature Adam out of hand for poor reasons, but I am only interested in truth, wherever it leads. If you donâ€™t think both scripture and science are modes of knowledge of learning about the world we inhabit we are just talking past one another.

I find the mature Adam theory wrong because of the reasons I listed above:

• the chronology is Genesis is still mixed up.
• there are two creation accounts that contradict if both are factual
• the Bible gets so much other science wrong (e.g. firmament)
• Genesis make better sense theologically in it ANE context rather than from the reference point of a global earth in a modern scientific one

Deception doesnâ€™t come into play because it doesnâ€™t meet the argument on its own terms.

But let us not pretend that we donâ€™t have genealogies going back to Adam or the NT doesnâ€™t view Adam/Flood as historical/literal. Or that cancer and nature thatâ€™s the way itâ€™s always been (and not really corrupted by sin) is easy to reconcile with the Bible.

Itâ€™s also a tad inconsistent to take so much scripture non-literally and make all these distinctions about teaching/intending and then disagree with someone for believing in a mature Adam based on deception. Find a better argument because a conservative might counter-argue nothing is more deceptive than scripture if the liberal view is correct.

Vinnie