Creationist Corner

[Balloon guy 158]

it would be like god creating adam as a 20 year old then carefully etching exactly 20 years worth of wear on his teeth.

Once again you make no sense.Babies don't chew solid food, and we shed our baby teeth for new ones half way through our 20's.It's because you don't think that you believe the way you do.I suppose that when God made the stars 100 million light years away ANS also made the rays/beams/particles that stretched from the star to our planet, that light was as bright at our end as it was from the source? Because there is no way He could have 'dimmed' the light or shifted the red.

[speedz99 145]

you missed the point. god wouldn't just have had to create the earth as functionally mature enough for human life - he also would have had to create evidence that it had actually aged billions of years in ways that have nothing to do with its ability to sustain human life. for example god could have made a mature functioning earth without etching 3.8 billion years worth of atomic decay in some of the rocks. it would be like god creating adam as a 20 year old then carefully etching exactly 20 years worth of wear on his teeth.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS MISSING THE POINT!But seriously, you're missing the point. God, having created the laws of nature, made sure that the earth followed them after its creation. Therefore a mature functioning earth would have rocks that "are" 3.8 billion years old in appearance and function because that's how old god had to make the earth in order for it to support Adam. Etching wear on Adam's teeth wouldn't be necessary, but 3.8 billion years worth of atomic decay on some rocks, etc. might be crucial to the earth's ecosystem moving forward in an orderly manner. No, this once again does not account for dinosaur bones.Or at least that's what I would think if my world view was completely based on one specific interpretation of a two thousand year old book.

Babies don't chew solid food, and we shed our baby teeth for new ones half way through our 20's.

?

I suppose that when God made the stars 100 million light years away ANS also made the rays/beams/particles that stretched from the star to our planet, that light was as bright at our end as it was from the source? Because there is no way He could have 'dimmed' the light or shifted the red.

Maaaaaybe don't get into the exact physics of your creation theory. LLY's head might explode if he reads this.

[Balloon guy 158]

?

You know what I meant!

Maaaaaybe don't get into the exact physics of your creation theory. LLY's head might explode if he reads this.

[crowTrobot 2]

Once again you make no sense.Babies don't chew solid food, and we shed our baby teeth for new ones half way through our 20's.It's because you don't think that you believe the way you do.

obviously utterly irrelevant to the point. you can make it 10 years worth of wear instead of 20 if you want to be that much of a mental jack off.

[crowTrobot 2]

But seriously, you're missing the point. God, having created the laws of nature, made sure that the earth followed them after its creation. Therefore a mature functioning earth would have rocks that "are" 3.8 billion years old in appearance and function because that's how old god had to make the earth in order for it to support Adam. Etching wear on Adam's teeth wouldn't be necessary, but 3.8 billion years worth of atomic decay on some rocks, etc. might be crucial to the earth's ecosystem moving forward in an orderly manner.

there is no functional difference between god creating elements in a certain ratio and making it look specifically like one turned into another over billions of years. and that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence corroborating a specific age that has no relevance to function.

Or at least that's what I would think if my world view was completely based on one specific interpretation of a two thousand year old book.

i understand the context of this thread. i was responding to the notion that postulating god creating a young earth to look old fits with science in any way. it does not. it cannot - unless you stipulate that god willfully and precisely crafted evidence in a way that would fool people into not believing in creation.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

there is no functional difference between god creating elements in a certain ratio and making it look specifically like one turned into another over billions of years. and that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence for age that has no relevance to function.

I don't know what you're saying here; you're going to have to dumb it down a bit for me.

i understand the context of this thread. i was responding to the notion that postulating god creating a young earth to look old fits with science in any way. it does not. it cannot - unless you stipulate that god intentionally manipulated evidence in a way that would fool people into not believing in creation.

I don't really get the "God is tricking people" argument.Well, that's not entirely true. Not true in the sense that I actually do get it.But if your friend painted a picture and said, "Here is my painting of a sunrise through the smog; it might look like a blurry sunset, but really it's a sunrise," would you say he is trying to trick you or that he's trying to enlighten you about any potential confusion?I don't know about that analogy either.Analogies are hard.

[crowTrobot 2]

I don't know what you're saying here; you're going to have to dumb it down a bit for me.

evidence of aging is not necessary for the earth to function or support life. god would have had to go out of his way to craft that evidence.

I don't really get the "God is tricking people" argument.Well, that's not entirely true. Not true in the sense that I actually do get it.But if your friend painted a picture and said, "Here is my painting of a sunrise through the smog; it might look like a blurry sunset, but really it's a sunrise," would you say he is trying to trick you or that he's trying to enlighten you about any potential confusion?

it's more like if your friend painted a black picture and told you it's really white. believing it's white is going to require a certain amount of ignoring evidence.

[Randy Reed 0]

1. If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

I was wondering if BG will answer these since I never seem to have a grasp on what he does believe. He has seemed to defend both.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

evidence of aging is not necessary for the earth to function or support life.

Oh, gotcha. That seems like a logical statement; I don't really know what the retort for that is.

it's more like if your friend painted a black picture and told you it's really white. believing it's white is going to require a certain amount of ignoring evidence.

Meh.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, gotcha. That seems like a logical statement; I don't really know what the retort for that is.

Try this one:Of course if God made the earth brand new, then by your own definition He is FORCING you to believe in Him.Sometimes it's easiest to just turn their own bad logic on them.I mean if God made the earth some way, and they say since it wasn't made the way they know it should be made then God must be trying to trick them, that leaves them open to the equal and opposite conclusion that God wanted them to have the freedom to choose whether to receive Him or reject Him.Both are faulty conclusions, but it let's them know that their 'logic' isn't as air tight as they like to make it.( Mainly because of a recurring logical error, that they 'know' enough to 'know' why creating a universe should be done in a certain manner)

[crowTrobot 2]

Meh.

the picture created by the evidence is solid black, not blurry. there is no ambiguity - no room at all for philosophical interpretation.

[Balloon guy 158]

I was wondering if BG will answer these since I never seem to have a grasp on what he does believe. He has seemed to defend both.

I don't know Randy, I am really mad at you. crow had finally left and YOU brought him back.But I'll give it a try:

1. If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

I don't get the premise, the events in the Bible are often UNnatural phenomena because the God of the universe steps in at times and makes things happen that aren't explainable with simple laws of nature. When He called all the animals together from all around the world, He was breaking into the ways things normally happened. As such His influences changed things in ways we have no idea how, or what happened as a result to things in the background.For example, when God flooded the earth, He made the water fall for 40 days, did He have the water already supported above the earth? ( The Bible says that this was the first occurrence of it ever raining, before this everything was fed water from the ground) Or did He created new water? What does God's creating of things do to the matter He is creating? Does He make everything brand new, or does He age it? Does he age it to trick you, or is there a balance that He wanted to maintain?Pretending that these answers are discoverable require you to ave the ability to know the way God created everything, and the very nature of all matter. I am admitting that I am slightly lacking in at least one of those criteria.

2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

You are poisoning the question by implying that 'with intelligence we would come to these conclusions"With the same intelligence we came to the conclusions that the sun revolved around the earth at one time. Who's to say that in 200 years of advancements in science we don't discover that the theory of evolution is impossible because of the DNA and as such we are forced to come up with an alternative one?The rest of the question is dealt with above.

[Balloon guy 158]

the picture created by the evidence is solid black, not blurry. there is no ambiguity - no room at all for philosophical interpretation.

It's like you could ask "Could this be any blacker?"and of course the answer is..."No."

[Randy Reed 0]

Try this one:Of course if God made the earth brand new, then by your own definition He is FORCING you to believe in Him.Sometimes it's easiest to just turn their own bad logic on them.I mean if God made the earth some way, and they say since it wasn't made the way they know it should be made then God must be trying to trick them, that leaves them open to the equal and opposite conclusion that God wanted them to have the freedom to choose whether to receive Him or reject Him.Both are faulty conclusions, but it let's them know that their 'logic' isn't as air tight as they like to make it.( Mainly because of a recurring logical error, that they 'know' enough to 'know' why creating a universe should be done in a certain manner)

Where do you draw the line at ignoring logical evidence? If someone killed your best friend but told you they didn't do it and that God just made the earth 20 minutes ago and you need to have faith would you believe him?

[vbnautilus 48]

the picture created by the evidence is solid black, not blurry. there is no ambiguity - no room at all for philosophical interpretation.

I think what JJJ is getting at, and why the black paint analogy doesn't seem great, is that the 'god created an old earth recently' conjecture is not actually inconsistent with the evidence -- it predicts exactly the same evidence as an actual old earth. It's ridiculous, absurd, and contradicts every principle of science, but it is not distinguishable from old earth based on evidence (partly why it is useless).

[crowTrobot 2]

Of course if God made the earth brand new, then by your own definition He is FORCING you to believe in Him.

obviously this thread and my comments are meant to address belief in literal young-earth creationism, not belief in god.

I mean if God made the earth some way, and they say since it wasn't made the way they know it should be made then God must be trying to trick them, that leaves them open to the equal and opposite conclusion that God wanted them to have the freedom to choose whether to receive Him or reject Him.

this is only about freedom to accept or reject a certain ambiguous human-derived interpretation of genesis 1, not god or christianity.

[Balloon guy 158]

Where do you draw the line at ignoring logical evidence? If someone killed your best friend but told you they didn't do it and that God just made the earth 20 minutes ago and you need to have faith would you believe him?

Well I think this is a good question.Throughout the Bible God tells us to use our minds, and Christians have a very good track record of building schools and universities around the globe.I know I am biased towards creationism. So when I look at things like evolution, I see flaws because I don't believe the premise. So when someone says morality evolved, I look for reasons why it couldn't. You are biased towards evolution, a such when I say morality couldn't have evolved, you look for reasons why it did.We are both using logic and reason, just coming at it from different views. Kind of the 4 blind men and the elephant.I do not think the Bible is a science text book. So I don't 'use' it to prove things, but I do believe that it is an accurate history of our existance and our Maker, and so I consider it my final authority.It is completely silent on DNA, DNA exist, does this mean the Bible is faulty? Or not interested in details that are not the in line with the purpose of the Message?The Bible clearly says we have a problem with sin, I am not hard pressed to find this to be a true statement.It also clearly tells us that sin is a problem for us, because God is Holy and will not allow sin in His presence.But unlike every single other religion in the world, The Bible tells us that God made a way for us to overcome this problem with sin, by paying the price for us. And then He offers it to all men freely, without any restriction but to ask.No other religion can make this claim, all other religions require you to perform something to earn your reward. Christ grants it freely for the asking.I asked, I received, it changed my life. I knew me before, I know me now, it changed my life.I've seen other lives changed. I've seen miracles.As such I trust in Him.So when presented with the theory of evolution, I do not see an answer to the question of life, I see a dodge to the question of life. With one hand you guys claim that evolution has no purpose, no motives, no soul behind it. With the other you try to say it brought us beauty, it brought us compassion, it brought us love.I think the notion of evolution is offensive to common sense. We all know we are more than a bunch of randomly grouped molecules that happen to move together, and we all know that life must have more meaning than.....none.The fossil thing is a tough one though!

[Balloon guy 158]

I think what JJJ is getting at, and why the black paint analogy doesn't seem great, is that the 'god created an old earth recently' conjecture is not actually inconsistent with the evidence -- it predicts exactly the same evidence as an actual old earth. It's ridiculous, absurd, and contradicts every principle of science, but it is not distinguishable from old earth based on evidence (partly why it is useless).

Curious which principle of science requires that all things newly created must be able to be testable as to it's actual age?

[crowTrobot 2]

I think what JJJ is getting at, and why the black paint analogy doesn't seem great, is that the 'god created an old earth recently' conjecture is not actually inconsistent with the evidence -- it predicts exactly the same evidence as an actual old earth.

i was just countering JJJ's analogy because it seemed to imply that the evidence is open to interpretation. but what you say above is what i'm disputing. the hypothesis of god creating a young earth absolutely does not predict the same evidence. the evidence would have had to be willfully planted by god for motives unrelated to creation.

[vbnautilus 48]

but what you say above is what i'm disputing. the hypothesis of god creating a young earth absolutely does not predict the same evidence. the evidence would have had to be willfully planted by god for motives unrelated to creation.

it does predict exactly the same evidence -- which is the only reason the stupid "theory" even exists. you're proposing an additional constraint, that there would have to be reasons why the earth was made to look older than it is, but that's your own constraint. the originators of this preposterous idea are not bound by the need to explain god's motives.

[SBriand 4]

Marsupials can also be found in South America. Just saying.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

VB is better at making the arguments I'm trying to make.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Maaaaaybe don't get into the exact physics of your creation theory. LLY's head might explode if he reads this.

Don't worry, I'm sure I won't come across it, I rarely read the religion section these days.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Marsupials can also be found in South America. Just saying.

Really? I thought we had the atheist scientists eliminate all those pesky outliers. It makes our theories much cleaner.

[Balloon guy 158]

Really? I thought we had the atheist scientists eliminate all those pesky outliers. It makes our theories much cleaner.

I guess when you figured out that it was easier to just change the text books, rather than actually make it true, you found the short-cut you needed?