New genetic research allegedly time periods for YEC

The wine was wine. You would get drunk if you drank too much. It has no history that could be detected.

If the world was created in 6 days it should likewise leave no history that could be detected. However there is a history that anyone can see. That is what would make this a lie.

Why? You are placing limits on a limitless being. God is certainly capable of creating in whatever fashion He so desires. The study of creation is natural revelation. What we see in creation speaks of God. So any history we see in creation has to come from God and it has to be true.

Which means God actually created the universe last Thursday but we just donā€™t know it. What say you?

2 Likes

It is the superfluous aspects of false history in the observed world which cause people discomfort with this idea. Are fossils of dinosaurs and trilobites necessary to have instantly created lions and horses? What purpose does gas streamed thousands of light years between galactic collisions serve? Could mankind get along fine without supernovae which appear, but never happened? From radioactive decay to magnetic reversals, why all the extraneous detail indicating time but serving no present purpose? Does a ā€œrealā€ world really require all this false history, none of which took place in ā€œrealā€ time?

Back to tree rings. It is sensible that a tree brought into existence in a particular moment would be endowed with rings, to look like a normal tree. But dendrochronologists are not just interested in counting rings for age. Examination of rings reveals seasonal variations - wet years, dry years, early onset of frost, prevailing temperature, wildfires, insect and fungal attack, the lean of the tree, and other details which are normally attached to the life of the tree. An omnipotent being can instantly create such a tree, and have it in every way identical to a tree which grew in actual time.

Taking this further, the entire universe could have been created last Thursday, and it would be to us just as we lived our whole lives complete with memories of 9/11 and our first kiss. But can it then be said that God did not intend to mislead?

5 Likes

Well, I remember 9/11.

3 Likes

Would the newly created wine have DNA from yeast that never fermented it? Would the newly created wine come in a bottle that said it was bottled 1 year prior? Would the newly created wine have a slightly lower carbon-13 content as if it was produced by sugars derived from plants?

It is entirely possible to supernaturally create a wine that tastes identical to natural without needing to mimic the evidence of a history that didnā€™t happen.

Interesting thoughts. Ultimately, those qualities were unknown, and thus the people experiencing the wine would have thought those qualities were irrelevant, as they only knew wine and water. And perhaps it was different in analysis as they wondered why the best wine was saved for last. Ultimately, the point was not how the water was changed, but that it was. To focus on the material change misses the point. Although I admit the point of that particular miracle sorts of escapes me.

1 Like

The Omphalos hypotheses says yes. C-13 can be measured in a lab and, as sugar is required for wine making, could be expected to match. In principle, there would be less C-14 as well. Adam would bear the scar of the umbilical cord. The telomeres in his cells would be consistent with adulthood.

Absolutely. Answers in Genesis holds to creation ex nihilo, and they reject the Omphalos hypothesis and the notion of false history. But it seems to me to be very arbitrary and devoid of guiding principle.

Letā€™s say you want to create a tree, identical to natural without evidence of history. Well, temperate climate tree species have rings, so do you give it rings? Normal rings are just growth patterns under seasonal weather, what does an ā€œidealizedā€ ring even look like? The branching of many trees are also seasonal. You could keep the branching, and dispense with the rings, and it still look like a tree from the outside. So do you provide idealized, platonic rings or not? If yes, do the inner rings have less C-14 than the outer? What matters or not in defining a idealized tree? Gosse attempted to bring a level of consistency to the question. Most found his approach to be not very satisfying, but I do not think that an alternative model of ex nihilo creation which has any similar guiding principle has been proposed. Of course, God can do as He pleases and need not be bound in His workings in nature. From our perspective, it can be ad hoc and appear fickle. Jason Lisle of AiG looks at the debris of galactic collisions and just says no problem, they were created that way. That cannot be falsified, but I do not find it very persuasive.

2 Likes

Photosynthesis slightly favors 12C over 13C which results in sugars derived from plants having slightly lower 13C than what is found in the atmosphere. The sugars in the miraculously created wine didnā€™t come from plants, so why would it have a fake history of being produced in plants when it isnā€™t necessary for the characteristics of the wine itself?

Why? Why would these things have a faked history that never happened?

Would Adam also be created with scars from a bear attack he never suffered? Would he have a calcification on his tibia bone from a leg fracture he never suffered? If not, then why would Adam be created with a scar from an umbilical cord that was never attached to him?

The only reason to give a tree annual rings is if you want to create a fake history for no apparent reason. The tree never went through summer growing months and dormant winter months, so why would it have annual growth rings if it never grew?

Some found Gosseā€™s ideas to go against the character of God:

It is one thing to speculate (perhaps in vain due to our inherent limitations as creatures) about the nature of Godā€™s ex nihilo creation; it is quite another to place ourselves over God and judge Him who alone cannot be judged, let alone by the miserably corrupt creatures that we are as fallen human beings. God can do what do as He wills, and it will not be a lie, because there is no objective standard of morality that transcends God by which God is Himself judged; to put it another way, Jesus did not come to show us the way to life ā€“ rather, Jesus is Himself the way, the truth, the life.

Then you would agree that God did impart a fake history into the universe in order to fool us, but that we canā€™t judge him for it?

1 Like

Your question is an unanswerable non-sequitur ā€“ the same fallacy as the infamous: when did you stop beating up your wife?

It isnā€™t unanswerable at all. Do you think God would put in unneeded effort to create the universe so that it had a fake history?

1 Like

I do not hold to the Omphalos hypothesis. I agree, however, with Gosseā€™s criticism of the idea that nature can be ex nihilo created ā€œmatureā€, but demonstrably not old, is arbitrary and incoherent. I personally accept the mainstream science outlook that age is real and the universe and Earth have been around for billions of years, and life has common ancestry.

Well, trees look the way they do because they grow the way they grow; itā€™s not just rings. The mechanical properties of boreal forest trees are due to the proportion of summer wood and spring wood. How do you decide which characteristics are essential for ā€œtreenessā€, and which are superfluous?

I agree that the Omphalos hypothesis leads to an epistemological and theological mess, but Gosse made some valid points along the way; namely that nature is a continuous process, with no real discernable discreet point of ā€œmaturityā€.

My point is that what God does can never be ā€œfakeā€ or ā€œdeceptive.ā€

I see no reason why a branch would stop functioning if it didnā€™t have annual rings. There is no function of a tree that relies on annual rings, as far as I am aware. The rings are simply a result of a history of growth.

Where Gosse missed the boat, IMHO, is that function does not always rely on history. The universe would function just fine without the evidence we see for its history. Going farther out, how would anything function differently on Earth if we couldnā€™t see galactic interactions that take millions of years?

If God created the Earth with fossils already in the ground that wouldnā€™t be fake or deceptive? If God created the universe 10 minutes ago, complete with a fake history and fake memories, that wouldnā€™t be deceptive? Would it be deceptive if God caused the gospel writers to write a history that never happened?

Again, God does not ā€œfakeā€ anything, and we have no ability to judge God, so the entire line of reasoning is invalid.

In the end, we may need to be content with leaving this as a mystery. It is similar many of the other mysteries of the faith ā€“ the reconciliation of Godā€™s sovereignty to the temporal consequences of our choices, for instance; or the way in which God causes the redeemed to become born again in Him. What we know is that almighty God chose to create a REAL world; and the creatures in whom he implanted His image chose to rebel against His authority ā€“ so we have a double mystery, so to speak ā€“ a real world, and a world which has become divorced from harmony with its Creator. And moreover, creatures created in His image whom He never intended to become corrupt. The result is evil, ignorance and confusion, and it is into this chaos and darkness that the Gospel shines its light. We can speculate about how and why God has done what He did, but I donā€™t think weā€™ll ever get a clear answer on many of these questions.

If nothing in creation can possibly be said to be deceptive, no matter the appearances, then nothing in Scripture can possibly be said to be deceptive. If the signs of an objectā€™s age donā€™t need to match its actual age, then the Bibleā€™s words about an objectā€™s age donā€™t need to match its actual age. Scripture could flatly declare that God made everything 100 years ago, but that should neither lead us to call it in error nor scramble to show how creation really is 100 years old. Thereā€™s no need, because error is excluded by definition! Who are we to call God wrong?

This approach works as well for God-breathed Scripture as God-breathed creation. And when it is used consistently, the pressure is off to show how creation matches a young-earth reading of Scripture, even if one is convinced that reading is correct. God can speak of creation other than how it is, but we dare not call that a lie.

Thereā€™s no need to suggest an appearance of age in creation when one can just as easily suggest an appearance of youth in Scripture.

3 Likes

If God created Earth with fossils already in the ground, fossils that didnā€™t come from living things, you wouldnā€™t consider them to be fake fossils?

If God caused the gospels writers to write a history that never happened, you wouldnā€™t consider the gospels to be fake?

Hi Van,

I think you will find the additional information (below) helpful for clarifying Calvinā€™s state of mind.

Calvin was steeped in geocentrism

I learned the following from @TedDavis in a recent discussion on another forum:

Calvin began his university education at Paris, where maybe (I havenā€™t seen his transcript) he took the standard introductory course in astronomy that most universities then required. The text used at Paris and many other universities had been written by a famous Parisian professor of the 13th century, namely, the English monk John of Sacrobosco. Like every other medieval astronomy text, it teaches both the Earthā€™s round shape and its place in the center of the universe.

Calvin regarded geocentrism as the correct and obvious interpretation of Scriptures

Calvinā€™s copious commentaries tie many specific Biblical passages to geocentrism. I will only mention two in this comment. The first is Psalm 93:1, about which Calvin comments:

"The heavens revolve daily, and immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussionā€“nod disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air if not upheld by Godā€™s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? " [Emphasis mine]

In modern English, Psalm 93:1 states:

The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
(English Standard Version)

One can understand how Calvin would read this verse in a geocentric fashion; does it not state that the world shall never be moved? Is this not the simplest exegesis of the verse?

Calvin also saw geocentrism in Psalm 104:5, as demonstrated by this commentary:

ā€œHere the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.ā€

Again, a glance at the verse shows how Calvin could draw the conclusion that the science of geocentrism was in the Bible:

He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved. - English Standard Version

I acknowledge that we should not hold Calvinā€™s ancient view of astronomy against him; in his time, the heliocentric view was in its infancy and not yet well established by the data.

Calvin *ferociously* defended geocentricity

Calvin spoke quite bluntly about the peril of questioning the Bibleā€™s geocentrism. His sermon on I Corinthians 10 - 11 is what we moderns would call a ā€œscorched earth attackā€ on the monstrous and demonic questioning of geocentrism!

ā€œ[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and pervert the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: ā€˜That is hot,ā€™ they will reply: ā€˜No, it is plainly cold.ā€™ When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.ā€

The devil possesses those who question geocentrism, says Calvin! Does that sound like heā€™s just speculating and he would likely admit it, Van?

Luther also condemned heliocentrism as an attack on Scripture

It is thought that Luther was referring to Copernicus when, at a table talk on the subject of Joshua 10:12, he stated:

ā€œThere was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] ā€œSo it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.ā€

Modern science: attack on Scripture, or source of wonder?

Clearly, Luther and Calvin were mistaken when they viewed non-geocentric astronomy as an attack on Scripture. The great theologians of the Reformation insisted that geocentric passages should be interpreted in the obvious way, and that dissent on this question was a dangerous attack on the authority of Scripture.

But thereā€™s a better way to regard modern science. I think you get it exactly right, Van: it helps us wonder at Godā€™s majesty, power, and wisdom.

Very well stated! This is exactly how I view evolution. When I learn something about all the intricacies of DNA transpositions, recombination, allele frequencies, start and stop codons, gene regulatory networksā€¦and on and onā€¦I am in wonder at Godā€™s marvelous ways.

Regards,
Chris

1 Like