But so what? I don’t think there is any reason to believe that science and technology won’t bring new perspectives that we can’t currently imagine. How is that related to your original question?
You mean scientists no longer believe the earth orbits the sun?
But who is saying this? Not me. More importantly, how is this actually related to your original question? If it isn’t, then please address what I wrote regarding your original question. If it is, then please describe how it is related to your original question.
As a comparison, do you expect new perspectives to demonstrate that matter is not made of atoms, the Sun really does orbit the Earth, or that DNA is not the molecule involved in heritable traits? I think these things are absolutely settled. The age of the Earth and the Universe is as settled as heliocentrism, atoms, and DNA.
You may be right, but the first two don’t seem like the same category to me as the last three. Moreover, I just don’t feel comfortable when an expert in a field with which I am not familiar tells me that if I don’t trust what he’s saying, then I’m saying God is deceitful. Sounds like a false dichotomy, and feels like coercion.
I’m not completely rejecting what you’re saying. I’m just saying it’s not the kind of thing I can swallow without chewing.
God would be considered being deceitful if he created but left clear evidence in a variety of fields that the creation didn’t happen in the way he actually acted. The idea that he created and left false evidence is called The Omphalos Hypothesis. The link is to the Wikipedia article if you haven’t heard of this before.
Good points. I would just like to piggyback off of @T_aquaticus that the same physics that underlies DNA, atoms and heliocentrism is underlying measurements of the age of the universe. All of these ‘settled’ sciences if you will work with the same four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force) acting upon two types of particles (bosons and mesons). An example of this would be radioactivity. We can accurately date stars to be even billions of years old, for example the star HE 1523-0901 dated to be 13.2 billion years old. Radioactivity works via the weak nuclear force and to change it or claim it was different (despite no evidence to the contrary) also instantly makes all atoms unstable and fly apart thus destroying all of the elements on the periodic table and all matter instantly also flies apart or collapses in on itself. The point is that all of these are greatly connected and cannot be separated in any sense. Here is a small image of the star itself that was calibrated using 5 different clocks:
The only way that this actually makes God a deceiver is if the universe really is just 6,000 years old but scientifically is 13.8 billion years old. This star for example would have meant that God created the star to appear 13.199994 billion years old such that when we measured it 6,000 years after it created, we would get tricked that it matches up perfectly with 5 different radioactive elements (uranium, thorium, europium, osmium and iridium).
But in all this, God is not a deceiver if we don’t insist the universe is 6,000 years old. All of this trickery goes away if we don’t force the Genesis texts to make the universe very very young despite looking old.
I don’t quite understand your dilemma, Mike. You say yourself that adopting an Old Earth stance wouldn’t affect your theology or your salvation by a whit!
And yet, despite the fact that acknowledging the 5 billion year age of the Earth would put God in the clear as far as cheap aspersions by those who point to the inevitable dilemma regarding the perception of God’s ways - - you pretty much would rather risk portraying God in less than favorable light - - because of your unwillingness to accept Old Earth evidence.
If you think of the first thing that comes to mind … surely you must be able to isolate the “why” that has put you in this unenviable position!
Don’t feel pressed. There are multiple ways to think about this.
Some of the ways would be:
Accept that the earth is old and change my interpretation of Genesis
Accept that the earth is old and change my interpretation of Genesis but exclude evolution.
Accept the earth is young based on the Bible and just ignore the evidence that says it is old
Accept the earth is young based on the Bible and embrace the YEC science that supports this
Accept the earth is young based on the Bible and say the science that says it is not is based on false evidence (this would be where The Omphalos Hypothesis and deceitful would come in) Many people here make the assumption that this is the default YEC position which explains some of the responses that you get.
Accept the earth is young based on the Bible and hope that in the future the evidence will support this
Probably a lot more combinations where these came from, but do any fit with your current state of thinking?
You have written that either you accept the Earth as being billions of years old, or “… or God is deceitful.”
So, you must feel very very strongly that Geology and Physics are wrong. Otherwise, you would simply accept the Earth as being very old so you don’t have to worry about God being a liar. Right?
Then my suggestion is to learn the basic facts of geology yourself. Learn how radiometric dating works. Learn about astronomy. At worst, you will have learned some new things.
However, the situation I discussed earlier shouldn’t require you to learn all that stuff. If you are saying that the rocks scientists say are millions and billions of years old were created on the day that God created the Earth, then you also have to conclude that God created the Earth with fossils already in them because the fossils are found below those rocks. I would certainly think of that as being deceitful, but perhaps you view it differently.
Then it is a bit strange that you would be repeating that hypothesis in your opening post. The evidence for an old Earth and an Old Universe is equivalent to God creating Adam with scars from wounds he never suffered, or bone calluses from breaks he never suffered. You are proposing the Omphalos Hypothesis.
The rocks they are dating include things like volcanic ash layers and lava flows. If these events happened in the recent past then they would date young, not old. You are saying that these rocks date old because they were created in place with age already in them. We find fossils below these rocks. This requires God to create the Earth with fossils already in the ground.
You’re inadvertently giving credence to my sense that the “Either Earth is 4BYO or God is deceitful” choice is a false one. I have read enough of the Omphalos Hypothesis to know that I don’t hold to it, and said so above (though you may not have seen this). I do not think God would have given Adam and Eve navels to make it look like they had been born and not created.
