I believe that a God that created the Universe can create it however he wants, even with apparent age, just as (if you believe the bible is not a fairy tale), he did when he created Adam.
Adam was created as a man, of mature age. If one were to measure growth rates, and extrapolate Adam’s age, it would have been 30 years or so. All the organisms and creature kinds were created as adults as well (who would care for the first newborn cheetahs for example).
Why is is any harder for a Creator to create in one manner or another? Does he need help? If he COULD create it either way, then either creation is very old, or very young. Indeed, Time is RELATIVE to the observer. So to me, a “day” of creation is an amount of time from the Creator’s perspective, NOT a 24 hour day as in the earth/sun day.
As I said in the first post, it does NOT matter how old it is....What matters is HOW it came into being. I merely point out that there are assumptions made in stating the apparent age of observations.
If our spatial time/universe is all there is, then you have the chicken/egg problem - where did the cosmic “egg” or matter originate from?
The existence of an outside motive force, i.e. a Creator that exists beyond our space time is a plausible explanation.
Science is mankind’s attempt at understanding and explaining our universe and our being. As such, it constantly is improving, which of course means that our understanding 1000 years ago was less than 100, 10, or even 1 year ago. Many theories have risen and fallen.
We live in a “newtonian” or cause and effect universe (we have to believe this for science to be able to answer ALL the questions we can ask). But strangely enough, the universe does not seem to cooperate with our beliefs. We have observed quantum effects up to and including particles the size of complete atoms. This, stated simply is a situation that the mere act of observing changes the outcome of an experiment. It seems our Creator has a “black box” of which, like the flatlander, cannot see into.
I wish you good travels pursuing your own observations and opinions.
As for me and my house, I believe in the Creator that created Time, The Universe and everything in it. He will one day collapse time, and dissolve the elements, and create a new heaven and earth, which unlike this one, will never see ruin, decay or tears.
Is this incompatible with Science? No. We just need to carefully differentiate between what we KNOW, what we ASSUME, and what we BELIEVE (through faith).
For example, I do not believe Global Climate Change (Global Warming, Global Cooling, AGW, etc) is proper science. It’s pay-for-play science, and has turned into a religion of it’s own, replete with persecution of dissenting opinions.
Of course, you are absolutely entitled to such religious beliefs, but you are not lawfully entitled to call them "science".
BereanBrain: "Why is is any harder for a Creator to create in one manner or another?
Does he need help? If he COULD create it either way, then either creation is very old, or very young.
Indeed, Time is RELATIVE to the observer..."
Again, these are all questions well beyond the realm of science, and as such, science does not, cannot, indeed must not attempt to answer them.
It's why we have churches, seminaries and theologians, etc.
BereanBrain: "As I said in the first post, it does NOT matter how old it is....What matters is HOW it came into being.
I merely point out that there are assumptions made in stating the apparent age of observations."
It is incredibly important for you to comprehend that all of science is based on certain assumptions and rules, the first of which goes by the name of "methodological naturalism" which, simply, means: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
So science is the result of working under such rules.
And over centuries and years, those results have been spectacular, but they are also limited by their basic assumptions.
Science cannot address theological questions.
BereanBrain: "The existence of an outside motive force, i.e. a Creator that exists beyond our space time is a plausible explanation."
Absolutely, positively NOT!
For believers it is a matter of FAITH, regardless of how plausible or implausible.
For science it is outside the realm of methodological naturalism, and is therefore rejected as a matter of basic assumptions.
So it's not "plausible explanation" that's the basis for either Christian faith or scientific naturalism.
BereanBrain: "the universe does not seem to cooperate with our beliefs."
Sir Isaac Newton himself put it this way:
What was true to Newton 300 years ago is infinitely more true today -- what we think we know is still vastly less than what is there to be known.
BereanBrain: "As for me and my house, I believe in the Creator that created Time, The Universe and everything in it...
Is this incompatible with Science? No."
Regardless of how "compatible", it is your religious belief and is not, and will never be (by definition), "science".
“Adam was created as a man, of mature age.” OK, if you believe that, then which version of human creation do you believe, both found in Genesis. #1, God created man and woman from earth (ie, man and woman are equal). #2, God created woman from a rib from Adam (ie, man is superior or supersedes woman). Each version has significant philosophical and social implications. In addition, it blows the minds of those who believe every word of the Bible. [BJK—I read your bio.]