What is the best way to respond to the argument often made against young-earth creationists that goes something to the effect of: "You're contradicting yourself to say that the universe has the appearance of old age, and then yet pointing to various evidences in the universe to support a specific young age (place a date on the universe." How can the young-earth person affirm both that evidences point to a young age...and yet be consistent in saying creation was made with the appearance of age?
For example, would dating methods be irrelevant to a young-earth creationist? If God created a fully-formed rock 6000 years ago, would it not be impossible to date the "birth" of the rock as an "infant rock", since it was created as a mature rock? So wouldn't dating be irrelevant and impossible to determine? Should the young-earth creationist not attempt to date anything that appears could be older than 6000 years?
Update: I would appreciate it if people in this thread would stick to answering my original post (answering this argument from a young-earth perspective) instead of arguing about the validity of different positions on Creation.
For example, would dating methods be irrelevant to a young-earth creationist? If God created a fully-formed rock 6000 years ago, would it not be impossible to date the "birth" of the rock as an "infant rock", since it was created as a mature rock? So wouldn't dating be irrelevant and impossible to determine? Should the young-earth creationist not attempt to date anything that appears could be older than 6000 years?
Update: I would appreciate it if people in this thread would stick to answering my original post (answering this argument from a young-earth perspective) instead of arguing about the validity of different positions on Creation.
Last edited: