Guest Post: Choose

(This post was written by a friend of mine, DTE, after I asked him to do a guest post for me. All credit, copyright and whatever else you can think of goes to him.

Just to head off one potential criticism of what’s to follow, the ‘appearance of age’ need not literally be the creation of pre-aged fossils, rock strata and the like; it’s enough that God has apparently created the Earth and indeed the Universe in such a way that we humans can only conclude that it is old.)

Choose: A Young Earth or God’s Culpability for Sin

I’m not a scientist, but forknowledge has asked a contribution from the perspective of a layperson that knows a thing or two about the bible and logic. I offer the following.

If the “appearance of age” defense, as it’s called-and, let’s be clear it’s a defense that seeks to save the bible from its own mythology and harmonize it with reality- were true, then God would be guilty of creating a world that he knew would fall into sin.

Here is the reason:
The “appearance of age” defense is an explanation of millions of years of fossil records that cannot be accounted by the Christian creation mythology. So, the Christian says that just as Adam was created with the appearance of age, then proceeded along normal patterns of aging, so too, the earth itself.

The problem, though, is that Adam was created with the appearance of age, but not the evidence of sin: Sin entered through Adam and brought death into the world. Adam had not begun to physically die until he died the spiritual death of sin. (Note to Christian readers: I’m not granting the truth of Adam’s creation and fall, but merely allowing it for the sake of demolishing it by argument.)

The earth, however, created before sin, indeed before Adam, bears a fossil record that gives the appearance age and the evidence of sin via millions of years of death and decay. Hence, if God created it that way, then God must have known of death and therefore of sin. Thus God created, being either unwilling or unable, to prevent sin from entering his creation and, in fact, created to reflect that fact.

The Christians must choose, then, whether believing a literal six-day creation is worth worshipping a God that cannot be exonerated from sin.

6 Responses to Guest Post: Choose

  1. […] Guest Post: Credit Where It’s Due (This is the second guest post by DTE. The first is here.) […]

  2. jonolan says:

    Your internal logic is flawed. That appearance of age could have just as easily included fossils – created by God – as fossils and having never been live creature.

    To paraphrase Heinlein, Not only does God roll dice with His creation, he rolls loaded dice.

  3. DTE says:

    Actually, it’s not. I didn’t write that God killed anything, only that he created the world in such a way to account for sin with which you’ve just agreed. So, choose.

  4. DTE says:

    “Just to head off one potential criticism of what’s to follow, the ‘appearance of age’ need not literally be the creation of pre-aged fossils, rock strata and the; it’s enough that God has apparently created the Earth and indeed the Universe in such a way that we humans can only conclude that it is old.)”

    Thank you; such a creation would still account for sin prior to sin, per the bible.

  5. jeffsdeepthoughts says:

    Though I’m not a YAC I’m quite a devoted Christian. A few observations:
    #1) The question of whether or not Adam aged and would have died before the fall is a complicated one. A good reason to think that he did in fact age before the fall is that Genesis states that he and Eve were kicked out of the garden so that they would not eat from the tree of life and become immortal. If they already were immortal it would have been rather a mute point.

    #2) An omniscient God could presumably place all the fossils in the world after its creation rather than put them there from the beginning.

    #3) God’s culpabality in sin is another huge and complicated issue.

    Over all I’d like to observe a catch-22. When Christians engage in healthy debate and have a diversity of opinion on an issue skeptics will say “See, even the Christians can’t agree on what X means.” Yet, when we have a unity of opinion on an issue we’re accused of brain washing, anti-intellecutalism, not being open to evidence, etc.
    My question for skeptics is this: what would count toward falsification of the Christian hypothesis, a Christianity which is divided or a Christianity which is unified on an opinion? It’s rather unscientific to attempt to use it both ways.

  6. Sirius says:

    I actually have commented upon why a divided Christendom cannot be used against us in a post of mine entitled Hypocrisy as Apologetic

    I should also like to point out that you assume that the fossil record was in place at the time of Adam as it is today. YECs like myself believe the fossil record was largely the result of the judgement of the Noachim flood. Which would make your point rather moot.

    In any case, I’ve dealt with God’s alleged culpability for sin in another post of mine, The Cost of Free Will

    –Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: