Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.
We have plenty of proof that the world is old, after all,
I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.
I know that a whole lot of people believe with all their hearts that the world is old, and I know that a lot of professors will say that there is ample proof, but I'm sort of an amateur scientist/engineer type of person, and I certainly believe in God and have faith in God and the Bible -- but I cheerfully admit that it is faith. And by the way, the Biblical account of creation makes a lot more sense to me, when I look around and see the world. But I see a lot of faith going on in the "science" department when it comes to the old earth and evolution, but the problem is they won't admit that they only believe, rather then know.
Anyway, as I was saying, with my scientific/engineering tendencies, I tend to be very skeptical of things that are asserted as science but cannot be demonstrated to me.
After all, the majority of scientists can be wrong. Now I'm not saying that the majority of scientists are all wrong, but that it is possible (How many people died from bloodletting?) -- it's happened before. And since it is possible, it is perfectly acceptable of us to question them when what they all say seems to not line up with reality.
God could have created the world with the appearance of age, I suppose, but that would involve God deliberately deceiving us.
It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.
Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.
First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.
After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.
So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.
So I consider it not at all deceptive if God had decided to create a full-grown universe.
as well as an old earth and the big bang, but none of these positions are incompatible with God. One can believe both, and they certainly work very well together;
Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.
Keep up the good work,
-Jesse
True... But, that would be very shortsighted of them. Those people and institutions that they are directly harming are the same ones that they rely on for day-to-day life, and the risk rarely, if ever, exceeds the immediate rewards.
There is no reasonable philosophy based on evolution that justifies the consistent commission of conventionally immoral acts. Even homosexuality and promiscuity are immoral under such a philosophy, as it harms the number and quality of children; I could elaborate on this, but I suspect this diversion harms the overall quality of this post.
Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.
True... But, the same can be said of certain Christians, correct? Specifically, the ones who say that because Christ died for our sins, they'll still get into heaven regardless of their actions.
One can say that they're not really Christians (and I would agree with you, incidentally), but they consider themselves Christians, and their morals, world view, and beliefs lead them to believe that they can get away with it.
If they haven't properly thought through the ramifications of their actions, I suspect they haven't thought through the ramifications of their philosophy; more than likely, they're just seizing on whatever justification for their actions that they can find.
I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.
Well... I'll provide what proof I can of this later, then. It's a bit late for me to be looking up sources (which means it's a bit late for me to be posting, but I can't seem to fall alseep), or I'd do it now.
But to give you the gist of my argument... Almost every field of science that deals with the natural world is reliant on the belief that the world is old to explain certain facts. People can argue the details of radiological dating and red shift for years (and it's my understanding that some have...), but that so much of science assumes the world is old is a much more persuasive argument in my opinion; not as an appeal to authority, but from the fact that most of science would be wrong if the assumption was false - meaning that all of the predictions that they have accurately made would need an explanation of why they were inadvertently correct.
In short, "It worked" is one of the most persuasive arguments that I can see, and when that argument can be made hundreds of times... Well, it's a bit of an uphill battle to validate another answer.
It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.
Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.
First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.
After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.
So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.
To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, God may have created the world with the appearance of age, because he didn't wish to wait billions of years for it to finish on its own, and the universe wouldn't function correctly if the hallmarks of age weren't present? I see nothing wrong with that view.
To explain why, returning to your analogy, how would that doctor deal with Adam? As a thirty year old human, as would be appropriate. The ways one dealt with an infant wouldn't be appropriate, but the ways one dealt with an adult would, even if Adam would be technically less than a day old.
Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.
Can we agree with this point?
Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.
Well... The bible might be clear on this, but so is science. As both the world and the bible are divinely created, and God doesn't contradict himself, either our understanding of Science or of the bible is flawed.
Working with your idea of a world created deliberately with the appearance of age... Well, again, why can't both accounts be true? God created the universe in seven days, as in the bible, setting out the universe with the natural processes that science is currently discovering. Physically, it's billions of years old, but chronologically, it's only a few thousand.
Now, admittedly, the above paragraph is likely dead wrong, but it's just one example of how the biblical story of creation isn't necessarily incompatible with science. In some way, the bible agrees with science, and science agrees with the bible - the reasoning might seem somewhat convoluted, but it is always sound.
The only problem is, it's going to be found by someone entirely more intelligent and informed than I ^_^0 .