Ok, so for the first day of universe there’s only the earth, and all of its particles age 24 hours. The second day we have the separation of waters which you’ve described as the earth going back in time - that is, its particles interacting in reverse whilst they also age another 24 hours. Day three and the particles have both recessed 4 billion years and aged another 24 hours meanwhile the oceans and continents are created. Day four we add all the other stuff in the universe, tack on another 8-9 billion years onto the past and age another 24 hours. Is that right?
This is an Omphalos or Last Thursday argument in physics language. There is no way, even in theory, to distinguish the universe (or anything in it) in this model from the universe (or anything in it) in the standard model.
1 Like
No, there’s something different — particles that comprise the Earth only interacted with themselves for 4 billion years. Afterwards the rest of the universe exists and ages retroactively. So he either needs to rewrite the historical interactions of Earth’s particles or wall them off from the rest of universe for this time period.
I don’t think that’s true in his scenario. Age propagates backwards and changes prior conditions, or at least creates evidence of different conditions while erasing the evidence of a young universe.
Yes, but the earth aged without the universe, and then universe aged. Why age the earth first if it’s history will be rewritten (its particles will interact with the universe) when the universe ages?
“Why” is difficult to figure for any of this.
If you want an honest answer it would be because it is at the very point you mention that I do not really know which way to go with this.
Was the nascent earth just water? Like water in the pots at the wedding? Perhaps yes, because it does say that the Spirit of God was brooding over the “face of the deep”. And how did the apostle know to write this: “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.”? Did he ‘see’ something about the creation?
That would lead one to the conclusion that the nascent earth would not have to be aged separately from the universe. As you say, “…it’s history would be [automatically] rewritten when the universe ages.”
Why age the earth separate from the universe? That is your question, and I do not have an answer that satisfies me.
I wrote this in the OP:
…but it bothered me. “Recreated” is a strong word. Perhaps the earth was simply formed out of water. Your question is a good one.
Those ideas invoke appearance of age only. In the present discussion the Universe has undergone a real and very long history.
Doesn’t that contradict your notions of young life and a worldwide flood? Don’t life and geology also have a real and very long (back-dated) history?
No, no contradiction. Day 3: And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
Looks like on Day 3 that plant life might have gotten caught up in the geologic aging of the planet. Plant life might be tens of thousands of years old. But animal life occurred on days 5 and 6, that is, after all aging processes would have ceased.
The lack of clarity in your model makes any discussion of it impossible. Life is billions of years old. If the earth is old, the same evidence shows life to be old too. Life is part of the aging of the earth, and they can’t be disentangled.
That is your interpretation, but very likely a wrong conclusion. In many places I have stated why.
Never in any coherent way. Why are all radiometric dates above fossil strata wrong? What could possibly cause such consistent contamination of all minerals in all strata? Why would such contamination not affect other rocks whose ages you do accept?