Actually, that is not the question of the thread. The question of the thread is Ã¢â‚¬Å“direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old.Ã¢â‚¬Â The emphasis is on the words Ã¢â‚¬Å“direct evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â, of which there is none because ALL the evidence is based upon appearance. And the claims on all sides is faith based and not above the Ã¢â‚¬Å“modelÃ¢â‚¬Â level (i.e. the model of Creation, or the model of evolution).
I think we all agree God could create the universe in a trillionth of a femtosecond if he wanted to. But that is not the question in this thread. The question is: How long ago did the creation occur?
As a Christian, the Biblical answer is Ã¢â‚¬Å“less than ten-thousand yearsÃ¢â‚¬Â based upon Genesis One through Eleven and the genealogies.
My point is, no matter who is right -- young-earth or old-earth -- the "appearance of age" argument is still a very suspect argument for anyone to use. I have mentioned Romans in support of this, and there are other scriptures we could go into as well.
The "appearance of age" argument is used by both sides SeeJay. The problem is that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Old EarthersÃ¢â‚¬Â donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t recognize that fact. As I pointed out earlier, Romans in no way supports it, but I would be interested in these other scriptures so we could discuss them as well.
As I said, both sides are reliant on the "appearance of age" argument. What I support is the God said it, no one has disproved it, have at it argument. So, have at it, and disprove what God said.
But before doing that, can we clear something up? Do you actually support the "appearance of age"argument? The reason I ask is, that argument acknowledges, as part of its logical structure, that there truly is an "appearance" of great age that we can see and measure and test i.e. that old-earth proponents are not just assuming great ages, they are actually observed.