Did God create an appearance of age?

Did God create an appearance of age?


Friday, January 03, 2014

“God Created Things to ‘Look Old'”

Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG-U.S.
October 26, 2010

When dealing with issues about the age of the earth, many people defend the young-earth position by claiming that even though the world is young, God created it to “look old.” In other words, they say, God created the universe with the “appearance of age.”

Scripture states the directive that Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), which means they were formed as adults and not as infants. However, since they were able to have children, these well-intentioned defenders say they must have been “created old.” Some even go so far as to ask the question, “How old do you think Adam was when he was created?”

With this issue, a distinction must be made between an “old” creation and a “mature” creation.

First of all, God obviously created things that were fully functional from the beginning. After all, plants had to be bearing fruit in order to provide sustenance for Adam, Eve, and the animals. He did not just create seeds and wait for them to grow. The created “kinds” had to be capable of reproduction, so they were not created immature. As mentioned, Adam and Eve would have to be able to reproduce in order to fulfill the mandate to be fruitful. This does not imply that these creatures were “created old.” It merely indicates that they were created functional.

Read the rest of this article on AnswersInGenesis.org!

Evolutionists are wrong again…

Evolutionists are wrong again…


Tuesday, September 01, 2009

If you follow the chronologies listed in the Bible beginning with the creation of Adam,
the earth is about 6,000 years old.

Of course old earth, molecules-to-man, evolutionists disagree with the Bible on this point. The reason is because the only possible way molecules-to-man evolution sounds reasonable (a lizard became a bird or a monkey became a man) is if millions and billions of years are thrown into the equation. Nobody has ever seen one species of animal change in to another so it’s easy to reject the idea that change from one kind of animal into another happened quickly. But people fall for the idea of molecules-to-man evolution with no scientific basis just because time is added to the equation.

Well, this finding http://www.icr.org/article/4827/ really throws a wrench into the evolutionary time frames. Currently evolutionists believe by “blind faith” (I hate blind faith by the way) that the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. This long time frame helps to bolster their argument that the process of evolving takes “millions and millions of years” and if you take away their “millions and millions of years” you ruin their theory.

But now that soft tissue, red blood cells, have been found in a T-rex bone and a Hadrosaurus bone, we know the dinosaurs went extinct much more recently, like only a few thousand years.
Why? Because if dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago all you would have in a dinosaur bone would be dust. Soft tissue doesn’t survive for even 50,000 years much less 65 million years. Ouch! That’s got to hurt.