From time to time we post about a peculiar feature maintained by Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. They have a small list of Arguments that should never be used. There they’ve collected some of the absolute worst, most easily-debunked creationist arguments.
By rejecting them, AIG gives up relatively little, because the rest of their “science” relies on an Ark-load of other worthless arguments, yet by pointing to their list of rejected clunkers they can pretend that they really don’t promote nonsensical claims. But of course they do.
The last time we posted about a new addition to their list was If We Evolved From Monkeys, Then Why …? Yes, dear reader, they finally got around to retiring that one. For our earlier posts on other additions to the AIG list, see Adam’s Rib Shocker: AIG Follows the Evidence, and also Darwin’s Deathbed Recantation: It’s Dead!, and also Answers in Genesis: The Slime Cube (a weaselly rejection of Darwin’s “quote” about eye evolution).
Now they’re sending another long-time creationist standard to the Retirement Home for Absolutely Useless Arguments (RHAUA) — those that have seen long and faithful service, but which are now so universally laughable that it’s time to say goodbye. Or are they? This one is very difficult to understand, and we’re not at all clear what they’re saying — if anything.
See if you can help us figure it out, dear reader. Here are some excerpts from God Created Things to “Look Old”. The bold font was added by us:
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.”
Yup. That’s what young-earth creationists say. It’s known as Omphalos hypothesis. And because AIG is a young-earth creationist outfit, it’s difficult to imagine how they can abandon this claim. Let’s read on:
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?”
Okay, we all know the issue. How does AIG deal with it? We continue:
With this issue, a distinction must be made between an “old” creation and a “mature” creation.
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.
Are you following this? Your Curmudgeon is having difficulty, but we shall persevere. Here’s more:
The concept of “appearance of age” brings our human experience to bear as we try to determine “how old” something or someone might be. …
For example, imagine you were in the Garden of Eden when Adam was created from dust. He appeared there — fully functional. After two hours, if you were asked how old he was, you would say two hours old because you would have no frame of reference watching people grow from infancy to adulthood. So without human experience, it would be impossible to understand the concept of “age.”
If we didn’t see literally something get old, then it might have been freshly created, but … it isn’t really old. Is that it — or are we missing something? Moving along:
Furthermore, when someone makes the claim that the earth or the universe “looks old,” it is often because they have been indoctrinated to think it looks old. They have accepted man’s ideas about fallible dating methods and approach this issue on that basis. However, the real issue here is to ask what would a “young earth” or a “young universe” look like? After all, if one is sure something looks old, what would it look like before it aged?
This is, quite possibly, the worst argument we’ve ever seen from a professional creationist. Another excerpt:
God is not a deceiver. He cannot lie. … So why would God try and deceive us by creating things with the appearance of “age.” Why would He make the universe look “old” when it is not?
We’re totally perplexed. Here’s the end of the article:
God has told us the truth in His Word. He originally created many things mature and fully functional. He did not create with the appearance of “age.” This is an argument Christians should not use.
We usually know what creationists are saying, even when they themselves are clueless. But in this case we’ll have to invoke the well known saying of Wolfgang Pauli: “Not only is it not right, it’s not even wrong!”
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.