Guest post by Paul Brooks.
I previously argued in Public Square Magazine that advancements in AI may be making a compelling secular case for the existence of God. Following on from that article, I’d like to explore another related topic.
Was the Earth created in six literal days? For millennia, the average believer would have answered in the affirmative, but a traditional understanding of scripture has fallen out of favor over the past couple of centuries.
A widespread sentiment today is that belief in a young Earth is simply a failure or refusal to accept the facts, and therefore has no place in any serious discussion. It is akin to believing in a flat Earth or one carried on the back of a turtle, and any relic of such thinking will be eliminated through enough education. In contrast, an old Earth is seen as the straightforward conclusion for anyone who accepts scientific evidence, namely:
- The evolution of the Earth requires the passage of billions of years
- Measurements and observations reveal the Earth is billions of years old
Have our advances in science finally put a young Earth to rest? Perhaps not. In fact, our advances in technology have potentially opened a can of worms. Let’s start by considering two interesting facts made clear as we progress in our technological knowledge and expertise.
Fact #1: The world around us can be recreated, to an increasingly high degree, in a very short space of time – Over the last few decades, advancements in virtual reality have enabled us to recreate the world around us with astonishing speed, scope and accuracy. These re-creations, once rudimentary, have evolved into immersive environments that mimic the complexities of the physical world with remarkable fidelity. Sometimes perhaps too realistically.
Applications of these re-creations are vast, including medical and scientific training in which participants are able to engage in activities and procedures which would otherwise be too dangerous to try for the first time in the real world.
The rise of generative AI has even enabled re-creations of reality simply at someone’s word. As the capabilities of AI continue to evolve, the boundaries of what can be created in a short space of time will be continually pushed. For sure it takes time to construct the mechanism of recreating reality, but once established, generating a new instance can be accomplished in a very short space of time, even at someone’s word.
Fact #2: Measurements taken within an environment do not necessarily reveal the age of the environment itself – This point is easiest explained and understood using an example. Imagine a sophisticated video game in which the characters explore the world around them and accurately measure the age of natural things such as trees, rocks or the entire universe they are in. Would their measurements reveal that everything is just a few minutes old (when the video game began) or would their measurements reveal ages consistent with the properties of the world created for them? Using the tools available, the characters would indeed be measuring things that appear older than the game itself.
The characters in the video game would obviously be justified in using their measurements to conclude their environment was not created just a few minutes ago but they would not be justified in using those measurements to conclude their world could not possibly have been created just a few minutes ago. To deny this possibility would certainly be fallacious.
The possibility of a young Earth – With the above two facts in mind, why think that God had no option but to create the Earth over billions of years? Us mere mortals have no trouble recreating the world around us (to an increasingly high degree) at someone’s word, and our long measurements do not necessitate a long creation period.
God’s method of creation is not given in scripture, and church leaders have remained open on the issue. Should we not at least be open to the idea that God created the Earth much more quickly and recently than our long observations suggest? If not, are we any different to characters in a video game making such a simple mistake?
To be clear, I do not argue that the Earth is young, nor claim that there is good evidence to support the idea. Instead, I suggest that a young Earth is not incompatible with the consensus of scientific evidence and is made increasingly plausible, and popular, in light of ongoing technological advancements. While this discussion so far has centred around virtual reality, it is only out of convenience. This is a relatively recent technology that has been conceived of and implemented in a matter of decades. We know nothing of all the options available to God; the method of creation may be entirely material or completely different from anything we can currently understand.
Why being open to a young Earth matters – Whether God created the Earth thousands or billions of years ago might make little difference in our daily lives. However, not being open to a young Earth could have real consequences. For example, many who are not open to a young Earth feel no option but to deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, leading to a quiet rejection of modern scriptures that detail Adam’s blessings, some events preceding the second coming, and descriptions of the spirit world. It is easy to see the theological rabbit hole that can ensue.
So long as the method of creation remains unknown, we should probably exercise a little humility about its duration and timing, even while accepting all our long scientific measurements and observations. As our ability to quickly re-create the world around us grows, more people will likely consider how this could impact the age and creation of the Earth (including Nobel prize-winning astrophysicists!). Dismissing a young Earth out of hand for being anti-science may not be appropriate anymore.
Paul Brooks is an independent writer who comments on philosophy, technology, and social issues. Paul is married with five children and resides in the UK.
Literal mountains of evidence across many fields of study point to a very old earth. Geology, biology, physics, chemistry. And similarly there is no observable evidence supporting a young earth.
Now, no amount of scientific study will ever be able to disprove the idea that God created the earth over six 24 hour periods 6000 years ago. Perhaps God planted fossils to test our faith. Perhaps He created ongoing physical processes that attest to a billion year history of geology as a practical joke. Perhaps He filled the universe with radiation in every direction to mislead us as to the history of the cosmos. None of this is knowable. None of it can be studied, and as such doesn’t prove very interesting to me; anyone can posit any untestable theory they want at any time.
I’ll start: the universe was created by God give minutes ago. All your memories from before that point were placed there by Him, loaded from an AI generated save file.
It goes both ways and has really become a political battle because the actual “science” cannot prove something it can’t actually observe which is required for true scientific results.
I’m not a YEC (young earth creationist) but do believe in ID (intelligent design). The differences between the two are night and day. YEC believe in a literal 6 day 24 hour creation whereas ID isn’t concerned with that at all but rather that intelligent designs, which include everything biologically to the order of the cosmos came about because an intelligent design or intelligent cause preceded it. It thus rejects evolution on the basis that life could not have evolved from non-life and non intelligent processes and actions preceding it. Every true LDS, whether they will admit it or not, must believe in the merits of ID because we believe that we are here because of the creation by an intelligent designer (God) and that without such creative acts by them no life would or could exist.
That said, the age of the earth or matter is irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the fall- how long ago did the fall happen which brought death into the created world. This is where things are more of a philosophy or belief rather than hard sound science. We have no way to validate the age of fossils or rock layers (strata) because we are not able to observe their formation firsthand. All the various dating methods use a measure of assumptions (this is what is called “conjecture”) about the processes involved. Evolutionists move the goalposts all the time in the name of science. There’s actually no scientific observable evidence of man evolving from a lower life form.
And as for that fossil record…Geologists have a saying that goes something along the lines of “the present is the key to the past” meaning, the events happening in our world today have always been this way. Massive problems with this philosophy though. If one goes to the Grand Canyon they can see the strata layers in all their wonderful glory. The problem though is that nowhere in the world do we see the formation of massive layers forming that would resemble what we see in the GC. Fossils themselves do not form under normal conditions. The sedimentary layers from river deltas and lake and ocean levels are too slow to encapsulate anything besides very small marine life entombing them intact. The massive fossil layers can only come from catastrophic and relatively fast sedimentary building events. They came from catastrophic flooding events. That actually is observable and thus scientific.
Secular science and the institutions that uphold them like the National Geographic Society, NCSE, American Association for the Advancement of Science, PBS, the Smithsonian, etc, will always continue to do whatever to preserve a godless story for our existence and origins. This ties in politically too because there are a lot of forces at work to deny God and Jesus Christ as the Creator of our world, of his Historical Atonement and our eternal destiny as heirs of the creation of God.
Even though ID can be proven scientifically and is everyday (Think forensic science) it is rejected solely on the premise that the intelligent design we see in nature and the cosmos cannot, absolutely cannot, be attributed to an intelligent design preceding it. Why? Because it may infer there is a God! Heaven forbid!
This is one of those things that for me is totally irrelevant. Clearly God could care less whether we have a correct understanding or not (along with most things outside of: Be kind. Love God. Love you neighbor.)
Wake me when those virtual environments account for general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Paul, it seems to me that in this perspective, the Earth is not really young – instead, the age of the Earth would become an unanswerable or even undefinable question. Does that sound about right? In any case, interesting post.
Fun ideas. We really don’t comprehend the extent of God’s capabilities. Even so, I find the idea of multiple reckonings of time to be quite illuminating with respect to creation. From our perspective down in these telestial trenches the creative process seems to be interminably long. But from a higher reckoning it may look quite different. In fact, from where God resides the entire evolutionary process of the human body may look like nothing more than a whirlwind of dust.
“ For millennia, the average believer would have answered in the affirmative, but a traditional understanding of scripture has fallen out of favor over the past couple of centuries.”
There’s a lot wrong with your premises and framework… and everything else.
Glad to not be associated with T&S anymore.
This is just putting a technological veneer on an idea that young earth creationists came up with a long time ago. They just said that God created the universe with apparent age. Those photons coming from a galaxy millions of light years away? They were snapped into existence in transit. Problem solved.
Since none of us know what God is capable of, we can never disprove something like that. All I can say is that if it is the case, most people have no idea how deep the deception (or illusion, if you like) goes.
Also, congratulations on independently re-creating Philip Gosse YEC Omphalos theory from 1857.
No one is arguing God couldn’t have created the world in seven days. But the fact is he created a world that appears to be 4.5 billion years old in a universe that appears to be 13.7 billion years old, both of which took their current form gradually. Could he have created a world with those appearances in seven days? Sure. But why would he?
If you’re a protestant fundamentalist, then the answer is to test whether we’ll believe (a particular reading of) the Bible despite all the evidence in front of us. But protestant fundamentalists don’t put a lot of value on human intellect. We Latter-Day Saints are taught that the glory of God is intelligence, that we’re to become like him, and that a person cannot be saved in ignorance. Of course there are times and places where we have to trust in the Lord and lean not to our own understanding, but the God revealed by Joseph Smith is not a God who would build a fundamental and life-long conflict between faith and intellect into the very nature of the universe. He values both!
Also, if that were the test, the Church would be failing it pretty badly and our leaders are okay with that. I find the Church’s continued neutrality especially striking since President Nelson has indicated he personally does not believe in evolution. (Which also goes against the idea that he runs roughshod over other Church leaders in imposing his personal preferences on the Church.) But if it’s not a test, then again, why?
For the record, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I just lean against (yes, humility is called for) a literal Garden. Adam and Eve’s historical roles made them appropriate symbols, like Peter, James, and John, in a parable that teaches us about our choice to leave our Heavenly Father’s presence in order to learn from our own experience. (Of course, protestant fundamentalists see that as a bad thing.) It’s a human mistake, and perhaps a very old one, to confuse that parable with history.
Until modern times, the earth and age of things since the fall was seen as a rather short time in the historical past. This is because man believed the word of God.
What does it mean that things appear to be old? Like what is the criteria? I have always found that intriguing. It’s because we are told over and over that something is old that we believe it and condition our minds to categorize that thing as being old, whether it be hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years old. But there is only proof of things historically that we know of, of things thousands of years old. Like for instance if we find the ruins of ancient Greece, we know what ruins from thousands of years ago look like.
But suppose for a minute that the sedimentary layers were laid down in a great geological catastrophic flooding event and upheaval of the earth as described in Genesis in Noah’s day. What would it look like? What would the effects left over from that look like today? And, if true, would this really just show what thousands of years look like rather than billions?
My point is, our reasoning may be faulty when we believe in something of which we have no direct observable evidences.
If the flood of Noah’s day was true and it did indeed cover the entire earth then everything we have been led to believe about the age of the earth is not true.
Ots truly a mind flip. I spent 20 years traveling around, researching and studying things and was able to flip my mind and see the earth, the geology of the world, as a relatively recent series of catastrophic events. Certainly, with technological advances we have done the same with tricking the mind to think something is older or younger based on appearance alone. Might really just be that our senses are too gullible. Magic shows come to mind. I think geological science philosophy has been one of the greatest magic tricks played out on us.
It may be, that if we can further advance AI without biases, that AI may indeed not only prove the existence of God, but also the validity of a recent creation and fall and thus recent age of the earth. Time will tell.
This strikes me as having been written by someone who has spent too much time playing video games. It’s certainly easier to create an image of a rock than a rock.
The line of reasoning of this post, and the one in Public Square, clearly point to the possibility that there is no functional difference between a sufficiently sophisticated simulation and the actual creation of a universe. Does anyone else find this disturbing?
Does anyone else find this disturbing?
Not particularly. Unless the idea is that it’s simulations all the way down. That would be disturbing. But most speculation along these lines assumes that eventually you hit a “base reality”. Then all of the questions about ages and stuff reemerge, but with respect to base reality instead of the simulation we may (or may not) be living in.
I can actually conjure up a narrative involving us living in a simulation that I find appealing. But my comment above was my attempt to refute Fact #1 (and by extension, the claim by some secular philosophers that it is more likely than not that were are living in a simulation). We may be getting close to replicating Newtonian reality, but real reality is another thing altogether.
There are polar ice cores containing annual layers going back hundreds of thousands of years. Many of the layers can be counted like rings on a tree. Young earth creationism forces you into a strange world where all cause and effect relationships become suspect. All in the service of validating one relatively recent interpretation of an ancient creation story.
I remember old Glacier Girl, WW2 P38 buried under 250-300 feet of ice in about 50 years…
Say what about dating ice layers?
I find this interesting.
Although I am not a supporter of the young earth there is a point here.
What do you think of the change that the Lord promises at his second coming,
that the earth will go from a telestial state to a terrestrial state and then at the end of the millennium to a celestial state.
Will it require millions of years?
It means that you read young-earth creationist literature and fancy yourself qualified to judge the work of professional scientists.
Kibs,
I disagree, sharply, with your premise. I’ve spent some time in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona. If one gets close to the rocks, you see them laid down in narrow bands, not massive ones. For instance, the Navajo Sandstone consists of multiple, thin layers laid down in a sandstone environment. There is simply no evidence of massive layering when one looks closely.
Steve,
I will put forth the same challenge I’ve done for many years with no valid return. Perhaps you will be different.
Show me anywhere in the world where sedimentary deposits are being laid down in relatively uniform layers, thousands of feet thick over thousands of square miles like we see exposed in the Grand Canyon. What river delta or advancing and retreating lake/ocean is producing this effect in the world right now?
Like- show me the underwater pictures of relatively flat layers being laid down.
Kibs,
They are being laid down like that at the mouth of every major river delta, for instance the Mississippi or Columbia. But, must of the layers were not laid down by river mouths, but in valleys that were eroding. Here in East Idaho, many of our mountain valleys show that process in play. For instance, north of Arco, in the Big Lost River valley, the valley floor has silted in thousands of feet deep in defined layers. The weight is compressing the layers.
Kibs,
I missed one of your points . .that is the idea of layers created over large areas. On the Colorado plateau, most of those are ancient shallow sea beds. We have those in my area in Southeast Idaho. They are mostly shallow tropical seas. You won’t find those at the bottom of the Atlantic or the bottom of the Pacific. These kind of shallow seas were far more common when the continents broke apart. Today, they are fairly limited in scope to parts of the Caribbean Sea, Indonesia, etc.
Steve,
Advancing and retreating shallow seas and then uplift and erosion is a main theory for how the Gand Canyon formed. Nowhere on earth do we see this happening like we witness in the Grand Canyon.
Advancing and retreating shallow seas cannot account for the amounts of deposit that one sees exposed in the GC.
I too live in Southeast Idaho btw.
Kibs,
If you are familiar with the Arco area . . That is Mississippian limestone, about 300+ million years old. North America was substantially submerged by the high oceans and the temperatures were very warm. Those shallow oceans supported substantial sea life .. crinoids, shelled creatures, horned coral, etc. Their structures had lots of calcium which was the basis of the wrong layers. Once compressed it turned to limestone which forms the peaks of the Big Lost and surrounding mountains. We don’t have either the submerged shallow oceans on the continents today nor the temperatures. But, if you go to Pass Creek above Leslie you will see the relatively thin layers laid down form the sea life.
CORRECTED
If you are familiar with the Arco area . . That is Mississippian limestone, about 300+ million years old. North America was substantially submerged by the high oceans and the overall temperatures were very warm. Those shallow oceans supported substantial sea life .. crinoids, shelled creatures, horned coral, etc. Their structures had lots of calcium which was the basis of the rock layers. Once compressed it turned to limestone which forms the peaks of the Big Lost and surrounding mountains. We don’t have either the submerged shallow oceans on the continents today nor the temperatures. But, if you go to Pass Creek above Leslie you will see the relatively thin layers laid down from the ancient sea life. The rock type overall is very thick overall but the layers are relatively thin.
Steve, I am familiar with that area, I used to collect seashells and fossils from above there by Mackay with my father many years ago. The strata layers up there are all jagged and bent and you can see how they must have bent and folded after quick formation and upthrust before they hardened into solid rock layers.
What I want to see shown though is the exposure of the strata we see in the Grand Canyon showing relatively uniform layers 4-6 thousand feet thick over thousands of square miles. At one time, all those sedimentary layers were formed beneath waters at the same time, otherwise they wouldn’t expect uniformity over such vast areas. What series of mountain ranges eroded over and over again to deposit that much material if it wasn’t a global type of catastrophe?
Kibs,
The Big Lost Mountains are exactly that. The layers are flat in some places, particularly in the area near Howe. They were distorted by the uplift of the mountain ranges elsewhere. You can see horizontal material near the Montana border also.
Steve,
Yeah, all evidence of a series of catastrophic events in my opinion. Everywhere in the world you go you can see evidence of a global flood and catastrophic events surrounding it.
What no one can answer is what accounts for all the sedimentary layers were see in the GC all relatively laid in uniform layers stretching for hundreds, even thousands of miles with a depth of thousands of feet.
Kibs,
It might be helpful to understand in the Colorado Basin those layers you see in the Grand Canyon are often tilted or compresses or eroded . . For instance, the area immediately north around Jacob’s Lake is an example . . Much of the Grand Staircase Escalante has older layers underlying the Cretaceous formations by Jurassic layers, sometimes highly deformed.
Steve,
I understand that. It’s the “amount” of sediments that were laid down in a relatively layered area over such a vast area that geologists can’t really explain. The vastness of it isn’t being replicated anywhere in the world today. Massive river deltas which deposit sediments out in the ocean or lakes is anything but a uniform matter. River deltas usually deposit sediments in sloping patterns according to the slope of the shelf and uneveness of the ffloor. In a way, it’s kind of random, especially over large areas. It’s really nothing like the layers we see in the GC. What we see in the GC is a series of massive catastrophic events that involved a lot of water and a lot of sediments intermixed with other geological catastrophic events like earthquakes, volcanoes, massive shifts in tectonics, etc. Just like what would be expected in a global catastrophe.
Kibs,
I know you are convinced of your thesis. I think the piece your are overlooking is the shear complexity of the rock formations in the Grand Canyon, showing multiple methods of depositing and various compressions, tilting and much much more. If you want to look at that, I would start with the stratification drawing in the first link and then a detailed description of each type of rock formation method in the second.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/grcatime-grand-canyon-s-three-sets-of-rocks.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
Steve, Yes, I understand all of that. I studied it out for decades. What I am saying is that it points to catastrophic forces of literally biblical proportions.
It must be great being a geologist to just throw a few hundred million years at something and ignore the logistics of what is really happening there.
I’m generally speaking of the uppermost relatively uniform uniform layers of the GC that san several thousand feet thick. According to geologists these layers were formed by advancing and retreating seas/oceans that laid these layers down. There’s millions of years between these layers they say. But all this creates a myriad of problems. First and foremost, where is all this vast material coming from? What gigantic set of mountain ranges are constantly being upthrust and eroded away carrying their deposits to lay down here? I mean, this is a massive amount of material. That’s the first problem. The second problem is that with supposed millions of years in-between layers you would not get relatively uniform layers. You would have massive erosion events on the topography with advancing and retreating water currents. But you don’t see this at all.
Then on top of all that you have the insurmountable problem of how do you consecutively create layer after layer on top of each other without upthrust but yet have advancing and retreating water levels in between? Where on earth are we seeing this entire process being replicated? Nowhere.
Pardon me, Kibs, but where is your expertise in studying this out for decades? Please tell us more about your process of study so that we can understand why your opinions regarding geosciences are better informed and more scientifically valid than those of any other random internet commenter – for instance, Steve, who actually seems to know something about geology.
Q: What gigantic set of mountain ranges are constantly being upthrust and eroded away carrying their deposits to lay down?
A: The Himalaya, the Andes, the Rockies, etc – also, the Appalachians used to be much larger and have been eroded down. There is erosion going on with undersea mountains too, such as the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Q: With millions of years in between layers you would not get relatively uniform layers. You would have massive erosion effects on the topography, but you don’t see this at all.
A: As Steve has already said, upon closer inspection massive uniform layers can be seen to be composed of many very thin layers, laid down continuously. There are not “millions of years” in between layers.
Q: It must be great being a geologist to just throw a few hundred million years at something and ignore the logistics of what is really happening here.
A: It must be great being a noachian-flood theorist to just throw a couple thousand years at something and ignore the colossal logistics of what it would really take to move all that material so quickly.
Q: How do you consecutively create layer after layer on top of each other without upthrust but yet have advancing and retreating water levels in between? Where on earth are we seeing this entire process being replicated?
A: The timescale of the upthrust is much slower than the timescale of deposition or of advancing and retreating water levels. Layers of sediment are deposited on timescales of years, decades, centuries, and millennia; water levels of shallow seas, and tidal motion over shores and estuaries, also happens on timescales of years, decades, centuries, and millennia. Upthrust of landmasses occurs on timescales of millions of years. We see this entire process replicated anywhere on Earth that there are landmasses currently being thrust up in an erosional environment: subduction zones, plateaus and steppes, coasts, windswept plains, etc. Far from being an insurmountable problem that is nowhere replicated on Earth today, this process is all around us. Perhaps Steve could say more.
Signed,
A grad student who knows a guy who knows a geologist named Steve who is probably not the same Steve who is commenting on this thread.
Kibs,
You are vastly oversimplifying the rock layers. This is from the second link above and just describes the levels before the most modern layers. Notice the different types of rock. Each noncomformity is where the rock was eroded in the past. And, there are also compressions, tilts and uplifts. You keep talking about mountains. There is evidence that multiple mountain ranges have eroded away in North America over time. As to processes, I’ve described today that they are happening all around you. The central Idaho valleys are forming rock today in layers of silt and gravel that have eroded from the surrounding hills.
Like the Supai Group below it, the Permian-aged Hermit Formation was probably deposited on a broad coastal plain (see 6a in figure 1).[41] The alternating thin-bedded iron oxide, mud and silt were deposited via freshwater streams in a semiarid environment around 280 million years ago.[11] Fossils of winged insects, cone-bearing plants, and ferns are found in this formation as well as tracks of vertebrate animals.[35] It is a soft, deep red shale and mudstone slope-former that is approximately 100 to 900 feet (30 to 274 m) thick.[48] Slope development will periodically undermine the formations above and car- to house-sized blocks of that rock will cascade down onto the Tonto Platform. An unconformity marks the top of this formation .
Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[11] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[41] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[49] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon’s rim.[50] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with but does not substantiate conclusively an eolian environment.[51][35][52] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions.[53] An unconformity marks the top of this formation.
Next in the geologic column is the 200-foot (60 m)-thick Toroweap Formation (see 6c in figure 1).[43] It consists of red and yellow sandstone and shaly gray limestone interbedded with gypsum.[43] The formation was deposited in a warm, shallow sea as the shoreline transgressed (invaded) and regressed (retreated) over the land.[43] The average age of the rock is about 273 million years.[11] In modern times it is a ledge- and slope-former that contains fossils of brachiopods, corals, and mollusks along with other animals and various terrestrial plants.[43] The Toroweap is divided into the following three members:[54] Seligman is a slope-forming yellowish to reddish sandstone and siltstone. Brady Canyon is a cliff-forming gray limestone with some chert. Wood Ranch is a slope-forming pale red and gray siltstone and dolomitic sandstone. An unconformity marks the top of this formation.
One of the highest, and therefore youngest, formations seen in the Grand Canyon area is the Kaibab Limestone (see 6d in figure 1). It erodes into ledgy cliffs that are 300 to 400 feet (90 to 100 m) thick[55] and was laid down in latest early Permian time, about 270 million years ago,[11] by an advancing warm, shallow sea. The formation is typically made of sandy limestone sitting on top of a layer of sandstone.[56] This is the cream to grayish-white rock that park visitors stand on while viewing the canyon from both rims. It is also the surface rock covering much of the Kaibab Plateau just north of the canyon and the Coconino Plateau immediately south. Shark teeth have been found in this formation as well as abundant fossils of marine invertebrates such as brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, and worms. An unconformity marks the top of this formation.
Thanks all for engaging with the post.
@Jonathan, Yes in this perspective the actual age of the Earth is unknown to us. It may be exactly what our measurements suggest or it may be much younger.
@RLD, I’d like to think no one is arguing God couldn’t have created the world in a matter of days, but I suspect that’s still a barrier to overcome. As for why God would do it, all I would say is that I’m not convinced every possible reason would be incompatible with the nature of God.
@Frank, Great question that merits its own discussion. I don’t think God would require millions of years. There are already scriptural examples of Jesus exercising instant command over the elements, quickly creating things that would normally take much longer (such as multiplying loaves and fishes or turning water into wine). An interesting question is whether, if we examined these things, they would appear to have taken much longer to create.
@Last Lemming, I agree that we are nowhere near having the technology to simulate all that we see around us but I would also be hesitant to bet against what is possible given enough time. In any case, I don’t think a young Earth necessitates a simulation or indeed anything virtual. A material creation within our universe seems possible as per my comment about Jesus so quickly creating loaves, fish and wine etc.
@Everyone, The post had a fairly modest aim of arguing that we should at least be open to a young Earth, and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone arguing that we shouldn’t even be open to it. It’s good to be honest about what we don’t know, and I hope it generates new and interesting discussions.
@Paul Brooks:
You say that in this perspective the actual age of the Earth is unknown to us. It may be exactly what our measurements suggest or it may be much younger.
In that case, does it matter? Say the Earth was created ex nihilo 7000 years ago with everything set up exactly as if it had really formed 4.5 billion years ago as scientific evidence suggests. I suppose that is consistent with the idea that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes ex nihilo such that the bread and fish the five thousand ate was indistinguishable from ordinary bread and fish; or that the water he turned into wine became wine that was indistinguishable from the best wine produced the ordinary way. But how is that different than the idea that the world was created ex nihilo last Tuesday, and everything from before last Tuesday is a figment of my imagination, or from the idea that I am a brain in a jar floating in deep space and imagining everything?
In each scenario, there is a distinct ontological reality that is fundamentally unknowable and undetectable from scientific observation. If the world was created last Tuesday with everything in place to look as if it formed slowly over billions of years, then no amount of observation or theory will ever be able to demonstrate the truth that it was actually created last Tuesday. The scenario cannot enhance our scientific understanding of the way the world works or our technological understanding of how to harness science to useful ends, for it is not scientific. Neither can the scenario enhance our religious understanding of the way God works, because it leads to all the same questions of the problem of evil and the unfairness of life as does any other scenario of creation by Deity.
If the purpose of your post was the fairly modest aim of arguing that we should at least be open to a young Earth, I don’t think you’ve offered a compelling scientific argument for maintaining that hypothesis.
(I made another comment a couple days ago replying to @Kibs, but it seems to have been lost in moderation.)
God did a pretty good job of making sure every little thing was in place, like radioactive age determination in zircons. Each atom, each photon. All the fossils. All the layers of geology. Likewise if this is a simulation, it is extraordinarily good, a very convincing for a lie.
Well, I guess if God wanted to fool us into believing that the Earth was 4.6 billion years old with very, very, artful recreation, then we should believe Him. We should act as if it were 4.6 billion years old.
Personally, God has infinite time and space. A universe is a small thing to God. Why wouldn’t He use a Big Bang to make this? It would save a bunch of work.
@Pontius Python, I see your lost comment has now been found.
You raise some existential questions related to a distinct ontological reality that is fundamentally unknowable and undetectable through scientific observation, but I don’t believe I am requiring any reality beyond what is already entailed by the scriptural accounts of Jesus creating loaves, fishes, and wine.
I’d agree that I have not offered a compelling scientific argument because I made no such attempt. I have, however, admitted the inherent limits of our scientific observations. These limits are of course nothing new, but are made much more obvious and relevant as our technology continues to advance.