I'm a biblical literalist and I also believe in an old earth.  Rather than pick the calendar day interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 I can always pick the Day Age and get away with both being a literalist and an old earther.

I don't know if Johnny seriously believes such a thing... perhaps he is delving into the subject with skepticism to get a better knowledge of it?  I don't know.  He might really be a young earther.

Good questions, though.  I'm interested in seeing the young earth answers.

I sayed "other" cause I don't know nearly enough about the scientists' claims to make any sort of educated discussion on the matter

Which scientific estimates are we talking about here?

Hi, rare.  There are a range of estimates.  For the purposes of this discussion, we could take the estimates from Case Western and Dartmouth.  They set the lower limit of the universe's age at 11.2 billion years.  Their method is based on a variety of sources, which include knowledge of the expansion rate of the universe, independent evidence of dark matter, information from the luminosity of stars, refined methods for dating globular clusters of stars, and so on.  In other words, the estimate is not based on any single source of information.  By way of contrast, a biblical claim concerning the age of the universe would be based on one source--a scriptural document written a few millenia ago by people who did not have access to modern scientific data.  On the other hand, some believe that the Creator of the Universe, who ought to know the real facts, conveyed that information to them by divine revelation, something that our modern scientists may not have access to.  

I posted a response on another thread pertaining to this, in a nutshell it was the idea that God creates with age.  For instance, when Adam appears in the garden of Eden (the garden itself is another example), fashioned from the earth, he is (for the sake of argument) a man.  Now, God JUST created him, he is merely minutes old, and yet he is "twenty to thirty -something."  The same could be said for the trees, the wildlife, etc.  The universe included in this, would not be surprising to date with our methods as ancient.  God conceivable understands that nature has limitations, and would have created the universe at the precise age necessary to allow life on Earth with the proper perameters.  These perameters may have required creation of a universe that was (although created seconds ago) appears to be millions of years old.  This point of view does not separate science and biblical account, it actually allows them to exist side by side, and not be mutually exclusive.

Not every time and not all scientsts but because some scientsts are so convinced about things like bbt evolution etc. They will believe anything with millions of years tagged on to it  and they will tell everybody it is true because there is millions of years on it. And their evidence is weak too Carbon Dating are very weak. So I agree with the literal interprataion of genisis no if s ands or buts.

I like Gagezilla's response and never thought of it that way to such an extent.  Perhaps, God created the world as He created man; mature.  Of course that does lead to the question, Cop, points out: Why would God create a world that appears old?

There are other questions, too.  For example, how would you know that you weren't created exactly a year ago?  Or two seconds ago?  There is no reason to trust that anything is true, since no experience can be trusted as reflecting reality.  But I think that this represents the greatest danger of religion.  It undermines rational thought, which depends on the reliability of experiences.  If you believe in miracles, then anything can have a miraculous cause.  There is no point in looking for natural causes, since we can never trust our intuitions of what is natural.

But let's not get too distracted by side issues.  There was another important question:  Is God purposely intending to deceive us by putting us in a young universe that is designed to look old?  Is it a test of faith?  Why would he do such a thing?  In gagezilla's response, there was a hint of an answer:  that God's powers are somehow limited in ways that we cannot understand.  Is that what young earthers believe, or is there a deliberate purpose to the ruse?

...In gagezilla's response, there was a hint of an answer: that God's powers are somehow limited in ways that we cannot understand. Is that what young earthers believe, or is there a deliberate purpose to the ruse?[/i]

I don't want to seem like Gage's bulldog, but nowhere in his post did he admit such a thing.  Gage also gave two answers "why God would do that".

Perhaps I read too much into his brief paragraph.  My interpretation of the claim was that God wanted to create mature beings, so he created them with the kind of history that they would have had, if they had had to develop maturity on their own.  As best I can understand it, this is not a logical constraint on God.  It is quite conceivable that he could have created adults on a very young-looking earth--say, an earth without dinosaur or hominid fossils.  There is no particular reason that God had to make it look like we evolved from lower forms of life, since we, in fact, did not.  Indeed, until very recently, the concept of evolution had not even occurred to most humans, and there are even some who still resist the idea.  So, given God's alleged omnipotence, there had to be other considerations that we do not understand or know about.  Why did he feel compelled to create a truly ancient look and feel to our universe?

Do I make myself clear, Elisha?  The questions don't go away that easily.  Not when you try to consider the ramifications of the idea, anyway.

This is my question.  Are we presenting 'FACTS' or 'THEORY"?  Who knows, maybe the answer and dialogue will change when the answer to my question becomes clearer(?).  Who dares to be honest?

For the record, I do stand by my belief that the universe is young.   Sadly, I have not the time to pitch in much here, but I am glad that a separate thread was started on it.

Some brief points though.  

1.   Considering this question without reference to one's preconceptions is a recipe for madness.   Are we excluding the possibility of divine creation from the outset?  Or are we allowed to consider that in our evaluation of a young earth/6-day creation.  If we are evaluating a young earth creation but the possibility of a creator is excluded from the beginning, there is really no point in discussing the matter, is there?

2.  GIVEN, then, that there is a creator of the universe- at least for purposes of the discussion- how reasonable is it to require that this creator, allegedly the author of physical laws, also obeys physical laws?

Several things flow from #2.

As gage pointed out, creating anything from scratch is creating it with age.  One might call it apparent age at the beginning.   His examples are apt.  Did God grow man from an embryo from out of the dirt, or did he fashion him an older young man?  But other examples will work, too.  Did he create rivers without water already flowing into them, or was it required that God would have first had to have waited for the snow to melt, in order for it to fill the gullies.

Well, waiting for the snow to melt?  Did God also have to wait for it to freeze, too?  We are talking about an omnipotent God here, right?

Now, the next thing that flows from this type of an argument is that it is not very scientific.   I would agree that it is not scientific, but there are different dimensions to that agreement.

According to the strict definition of science, which requires observation, hypothesizing, experimenting, and theorizing, such explanations will fail as obviously all past events- not just the past events that are singularities- are beyond observation.  Therefore, even if this were true (and I think it is) I understand that I cannot show it scientifically.

According to the more modern definition of science, which requires the above when it suits its fancy but mainly seeks to explain things first and foremost and come hell and high water by excluding agency (or divine agency, like God), obviously you cannot test these propositions.  

I object to smuggling materialism, atheism, and naturalism- ie, abject biased opinions- into what is supposed to be a method and a process that does justice to the word 'empiricism.'  

So according to both definitions of science, both the one I approve of and the one I don't,  if God created with age- as he very well had to no matter what you do- you wouldn't be able to test it in a scientific way.

However, I do not believe that science by either definition is the best and most sure way to gain knowledge IN ALL CASES AND ALL SITUATIONS.

This is very important.   I do not want anyone to misunderstand me or misstate me.  I highly approve of the scientific method divorced from modern materialistic baggage, but only a knucklehead would think the scientific method will work in all cases.

The scientific method, for example, will be a poor aid in determing if my wife loves me.   Nor would I insist on using the SM to verify such a belief, as it would be interpreted obviously if I did that I did not love HER.

The SM is a moderately helpful tool in criminal cases.   In a trial, the crime happened in the past.  The SM can be used to corroborate various aspects of the charges, but other methods of inquiry will normally be brought to bear.  Bringing about justice by strict scientific methods (good definition) is usually not possible.  But whence comes the origin of justice in the first place?  Is it a principle of the natural order, or is it a principle desired, fought for, and defended by intelligent agents?

The right tool for the job: the SM is a good tool for some jobs, but not all.

Now, I am using my small amount of time to use Gage's example as a way to get a a broader point that I think is really more helpful in understanding a position such as mine before labeling it 'absurd.'

If it is not possible to scientifically evaluate the credibility of Gage's example because the things happened in the past (each past event is a singularity in its own right), it is similarly not possible to scientificaly evaluate the credibility of most modern claims about the scientific age of the universe or the age.  

No one observed the formation of the earth.  Even if there was no God, by the good definition of science, you cannot observe, nor can you directly test most of the assertions made by scientists about the age of the earth (or is something scientifici merely because a scientist says it?).

There are what we might call lasting reverberations of our distant past that we can evaluate scientifically, but the events that caused them can only be deduced or inferred.  And deductions and inferences are not science, they are logic.  And logic is not owned by scientists, even scientists employing methodical naturalism.

And as a final note, it so happens that I do not discount the value of revelation as a means of finding truth in certain circumstances.   I hope that the readers will not either, since we rely on it so much in our criminal proceedings.  If revelation (we call it testimony there) is enough to bring about convictions leading to the death of the convicted, revelation from God should not be discounted, either.

And as man wasn't present prior to day 6 according to the Genesis account, it stands to reason that any knowledge of the previous days in the first place are derived by God at some point TELLING man about it.

This raises the very obvious question that there should be a way to test alleged revelation, and there is.

It there wasn't, Michael Jackson would already be in jail.

For the record, I do stand by my belief that the universe is young.   Sadly, I have not the time to pitch in much here, but I am glad that a separate thread was started on it.

Thanks for responding, sntjohnny.

1.   Considering this question without reference to one's preconceptions is a recipe for madness.   Are we excluding the possibility of divine creation from the outset?  Or are we allowed to consider that in our evaluation of a young earth/6-day creation.  If we are evaluating a young earth creation but the possibility of a creator is excluded from the beginning, there is really no point in discussing the matter, is there?

Nothing is excluded for the purposes of this thread.  The question is really more focused on how one reconciles belief in a young earth/universe with evidence that the earth/universe is billions of years old, not a few thousand years.  As I noted in the OP, most Christians do not believe in a young earth/universe, so they have no problem with the discrepancy between biblical timelines and empirically established timelines.

2.  GIVEN, then, that there is a creator of the universe- at least for purposes of the discussion- how reasonable is it to require that this creator, allegedly the author of physical laws, also obeys physical laws?

That seems almost impossible to answer without some information about the nature of such a creator.  It really depends on the assumptions that you make, and I think that most people assume that God can make things happen just by willing them to happen.

As gage pointed out, creating anything from scratch is creating it with age.  One might call it apparent age at the beginning.   His examples are apt.  Did God grow man from an embryo from out of the dirt, or did he fashion him an older young man?  But other examples will work, too.  Did he create rivers without water already flowing into them, or was it required that God would have first had to have waited for the snow to melt, in order for it to fill the gullies.

Gagezilla's point makes sense only if, for some reason, God did not want to wait for the universe to evolve slowly and naturally.  I have no problem at all with his observation that things would have been created with age, because that is exactly what Genesis says anyway. Given that assumption of a quick creation, geological features might well have been fabricated to make them look like they evolved slowly.  This is all conceivable.  We are looking at whether it is reasonable.  Certainly, an alternative theist hypothesis--the one that most theists seem to accept--would be that things really did evolve as they appear to have evolved, and the people who recorded the Bible stories simply lacked enough knowledge of the universe to describe how it evolved slowly.  I don't think that most theists believe that Genesis had to be literally true.  It could be interpreted metaphorically, or one could just admit that the Bible contains some erroneous information, just as it appears to given the findings of science.

So, here's a question, assuming that God was in a hurry and just created humans and their environment "with age".  Why put fossils of species that never lived, e.g. Neanderthals, trilobites and dinosaurs, in sedimentary rock strata?  Why put fossils of hominids in the ground that make it look like humans evolved from a now extinct common ancestor of African apes?  Why leave a fossil trail of hominid migrations out of Africa?  Is part of God's plan an intention to deceive humans into believing in a false history?  That's really what the OP is trying to get at.

Well, waiting for the snow to melt?  Did God also have to wait for it to freeze, too?  We are talking about an omnipotent God here, right?

But why wouldn't God wait?  Do you think that he would get bored?  Why would a being that had always existed be in such a rush?  Doesn't that strike you as strange?  If God is omnipotent, then surely he has the fortitude and patience to let everything develop from scratch, no?

According to the strict definition of science, which requires observation, hypothesizing, experimenting, and theorizing, such explanations will fail as obviously all past events- not just the past events that are singularities- are beyond observation.  Therefore, even if this were true (and I think it is) I understand that I cannot show it scientifically.

According to the more modern definition of science, which requires the above when it suits its fancy but mainly seeks to explain things first and foremost and come hell and high water by excluding agency (or divine agency, like God), obviously you cannot test these propositions.

There is no "more modern" definition of science.  That is just your own invention.  Scientific methodology has never changed, and it has always had a materialist bias.  It does assume (and always has) that all material events have material causes.  If it did not assume that, then no scientific proofs could exist.  Science proceeds by ruling out possible alternative causes, but it could never rule out supernatural causes, because they are unobservable.  

I object to smuggling materialism, atheism, and naturalism- ie, abject biased opinions- into what is supposed to be a method and a process that does justice to the word 'empiricism.'

I object to smuggling atheism in, but materialism and naturalism is what empirical methodology is all about.  Sextus Empiricus, after whom the method is named, started with the assumption that all human knowledge was grounded in human experience.  Nothing could be known unless it could be touched, felt, smelled, etc.  This does not seem an unreasonable assumption, and it has led to a lot of progress.  Ironically, we can now do things that Sextus Empiricus would have perceived as magical precisely because we don't put our trust in magic, thanks in part to him. :)

However, I do not believe that science by either definition is the best and most sure way to gain knowledge IN ALL CASES AND ALL SITUATIONS.

Let's distinguish science from empiricism.  Science is a methodology for choosing between alternative hypotheses.  Empiricism is just the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience.  Psychological states such as love are experiences and therefore empirical knowledge.  They are very difficult to investigate scientifically, although psychologists have done some marvelous work in overcoming those difficulties.  The problem has been in defining psychological states in a precise manner and coming up with testable hypotheses about them.  

If it is not possible to scientifically evaluate the credibility of Gage's example because the things happened in the past (each past event is a singularity in its own right), it is similarly not possible to scientificaly evaluate the credibility of most modern claims about the scientific age of the universe or the age.

But Gage's argument can be evaluated on a scale of reasonableness.  We do not normally deopict God as a deceptive being, but he appears to have put humans on an earth containing relics (e.g. fossils) that mislead humans into seeing a discrepancy between biblical accounts of creation and the "aged" account that science uncovers.  What makes such relics necessary?

No one observed the formation of the earth.  Even if there was no God, by the good definition of science, you cannot observe, nor can you directly test most of the assertions made by scientists about the age of the earth (or is something scientifici merely because a scientist says it?).

We can and have formulated theories about the formation of the earth.  These theories make predictions that can be tested scientifically.  Science does not claim to discover absolute truth, only the best theory that accounts for the facts we observe (see US Geological Survey page).  Radiometric dating has established that the oldest rocks on earth are 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old.  That establishes a lower limit, since we know that the earth went through a molten stage before these rocks were formed.  Some are sedimentary, which means that they are composed of older minerals.  Radiometric dating of meteorites seems to give us the most direct method of dating the earth's age.  You are probably aware of all of this, but Gage's "creation with age" hypothesis merely means that scientific validation of this sort is false because God decided to create all the evidence "in place" as it were.  In effect, you are saying that science only appears to work, but it doesn't really.

There are what we might call lasting reverberations of our distant past that we can evaluate scientifically, but the events that caused them can only be deduced or inferred.  And deductions and inferences are not science, they are logic.  And logic is not owned by scientists, even scientists employing methodical naturalism.

Science uses logical deductions and inferences to choose among theories, and it always has.  You simply don't understand the nature of logic, if you think that scientists don't use it.  All you have done is deny with the naturalistic assumption that science is based on.  

And as a final note, it so happens that I do not discount the value of revelation as a means of finding truth in certain circumstances.   I hope that the readers will not either, since we rely on it so much in our criminal proceedings.  If revelation (we call it testimony there) is enough to bring about convictions leading to the death of the convicted, revelation from God should not be discounted, either.

I would prefer that you did not confuse testimony in a trial with revelation from God.  Juries quite often dismiss "revelation" from witnesses because it conflicts with the testimony of other witnesses.  Religious revelation is nothing if not in conflict with the testimony of most other people who claim to experience it.  It is quite worthless as evidence of anything.

And as man wasn't present prior to day 6 according to the Genesis account, it stands to reason that any knowledge of the previous days in the first place are derived by God at some point TELLING man about it.

But why should anyone believe the Genesis account?  It requires a lot of gratuitous assumptions about God's behavior and motives, given the "revelations" of scientists.  

This raises the very obvious question that there should be a way to test alleged revelation, and there is.

It there wasn't, Michael Jackson would already be in jail.

There is no obvious way to test religious revelation.  In the case of this thread, the opinion has been advanced that God could have created us at any time in the past, and we would have no way of proving when scientifically.  If one has to believe in the literal truth of Genesis, then I suppose that one has to jump to such conclusions.  Most of us are not tempted by that assumption any more than we are attracted to the philosophical doctrine of solipsism.  In the end, it doesn't really matter.  We have to live our lives as if the world really is the way it appears.