My Pumice Challenge

[EternalDragon]

This is simply not true. The age of the earth is NOT an assumption. It is a conclusion reached by examining multiple lines of evidence. It is also a conclusion first reached by believers in a Young Earth/Global Flood who set out to find evidence of a global flood and did not find it. They didn't conclude this from finding radioisotopes either.

You've made it appear as if it was something created 45 years ago but are claiming it was created today. That is deceptive.

How is whether something is deceptive or not a philosophical question? Something is either deceptive or it is not.

Not if I expressly told you I just created it in an instant. In relation to God's creation being "very good" you would not expect me to create the car with rust and wear, do you? The car would be required to be in "very good" condition if we are comparing this to God's creation, which we are.

There is nothing at all deceptive in either example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not if I expressly told you I just created it in an instant.

So you are saying that God says one thing, but plants deception in what he creates, correct?

In relation to God's creation being "very good" you would not expect me to create the car with rust and wear, do you? The car would be required to be in "very good" condition if we are comparing this to God's creation, which we are.

Why does "very good" condition require rocks to have uranium radiohalos, or have ratios of isotopes consistent with billions of years of decay across several different isotope pairs and decay processes?

 

[EternalDragon]

So you are saying that God says one thing, but plants deception in what he creates, correct?



Why does "very good" condition require rocks to have uranium radiohalos, or have ratios of isotopes consistent with billions of years of decay across several different isotope pairs and decay processes?

There is no planting of deception.

 

[lasthero]

In relation to God's creation being "very good" you would not expect me to create the car with rust and wear, do you?

That's the thing - the universe does have rust and wear. We don't just find layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years, we find evidence of things like volcanic eruptions in these layers...and when we date them, they match up. We don't just find meteors with billions of years of age on them, we can also measure out, through simple physics, how long they've been spinning and how they've been effected by impacts...and they come out to billions of years, too.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no planting of deception.

Then why throw in uranium radiohalos? Why make sure that measuring different isotope pairs will all return the same date? This takes active participation to produce, with a knowledge that people will be fooled by it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no planting of deception.

If there is no planting of evidence then evolution is true since there are mountains of evidence that support the theory. There is nothing that supports creationism. To claim there is evidence for creationism you first need a testable hypothesis of creation and creationists are too afraid to develop a truly testable hypothesis since they are afraid of the results.

 

[Split Rock]

Uh-huh.

Really? I thought you knew me better by now....

 

[Split Rock]

.
There is nothing at all deceptive in either example.

Why should the uranium, lead, potassium, argon, rubidium, and strontium be there at specific ratios? Explain.

I am making no mistakes.

Why does "very good" condition require rocks to have uranium radiohalos, or have ratios of isotopes consistent with billions of years of decay across several different isotope pairs and decay processes?

There is no planting of deception.

Then why throw in uranium radiohalos? Why make sure that measuring different isotope pairs will all return the same date?

No matter how many times you ask a creationist a question they don't like, you will never get an answer.

 

[quatona]

Then people shouldn't be accusing God of deception, should they?

Only if they are embedded-agers.

 

[Queller]

Not if I expressly told you I just created it in an instant. In relation to God's creation being "very good" you would not expect me to create the car with rust and wear, do you? The car would be required to be in "very good" condition if we are comparing this to God's creation, which we are.

Here is a picture of a 1969 Mustang. It looks much better than "very good". It looks brand new. It isn't.

In fact, a car that looks "very good" WILL have some wear and tear on it. Ask any car dealer.

BTW, the earth has FAR MORE than 6,000 years worth of "rust and wear."

There is nothing at all deceptive in either example.

If it looks anything but perfect, yes, it is deceptive.

 

[Queller]

Only if they are embedded-agers.

There's a difference between appearance of AGE and appearance of HISTORY. The earth has both.

 

[[serious]]

Not if I expressly told you I just created it in an instant. In relation to God's creation being "very good" you would not expect me to create the car with rust and wear, do you? The car would be required to be in "very good" condition if we are comparing this to God's creation, which we are.

There is nothing at all deceptive in either example.

That would probably be fine if every rock that dated to earlier than 6000 years had a little inscription reading, "lol! jk guys, I created this as a pre-aged rock!"

Currently, a collection of books existing bearing a series of genealogies which combined with historical data might suggest a cap of 6000-10,000 years depending on who is doing the math and how is not an adequate disclaimer about the rock's authenticity.

For example, let's say someone can make really good copies of $20 bills. Aged to look date appropriate and everything. once telling some guy that you make $20 bill reproductions doesn't make that not-counterfeiting. One would have to write on every bill "replica, not actually legal tender" or something like that on every bill.

 

[quatona]

There's a difference between appearance of AGE and appearance of HISTORY. The earth has both.

I think you missed my point.

 

[Queller]

I think you missed my point.

Perhaps you could explain it then?

 

[quatona]

Perhaps you could explain it then?

Why sure.
AV wrote: Then people shouldn't be accusing God of deception, should they? (emphasis added)
I responded: Only if they are embedded-agers. (trying to point out that nobody who doesn´t believe in this "embedded" stuff, in the first place, has a reason to accuse God of deception for embedding age.

Same goes for "embedded history" or whatever else "embedded" you happen to believe in, accordingly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why sure.
AV wrote: Then people shouldn't be accusing God of deception, should they? (emphasis added)
I responded: Only if they are embedded-agers. (trying to point out that nobody who doesn´t believe in this "embedded" stuff, in the first place, has a reason to accuse God of deception for embedding age.

Same goes for "embedded history" or whatever else "embedded" you happen to believe in, accordingly.

You know as well as I do that God gets accused of deception, whether He did it YEC, OEC, Omphalos, Last Thursday, Intelligent Design, or Embedded Age.

The only way He doesn't get accused of it, is if He did it Theistic Evolution.

I've NEVER seen a "scientist" asking TEs by what means God guided evolution -- have you?

That's because TEs won't post a lick of Scripture, and mainly venerate Charles Darwin above Jesus Christ.

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

 

[lesliedellow]

The only way He doesn't get accused of it, is if He did it Theistic Evolution

If he created the world in six days, but left evidence to the contrary sprinkled all over the place, then that would be deception.

Nobody is accusing God of deception, they are only pointing out that the creationist position implies it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You know as well as I do that God gets accused of deception, whether He did it YEC, OEC, Omphalos, Last Thursday, Intelligent Design, or Embedded Age.

The only way He doesn't get accused of it, is if He did it Theistic Evolution.

Maybe the problem is not with God, but with the way you guys present it?

After all, TE's are the only ones humble and honest enough to admit they're searching for truth -- as opposed to peddling it.

I've NEVER seen a "scientist" asking TEs by what means God guided evolution -- have you?

That's because TEs won't post a lick of Scripture, and mainly venerate Charles Darwin above Jesus Christ.

About that honesty thing, AV -- you might want to look into it; it can only help your delivery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know as well as I do that God gets accused of deception, whether He did it YEC, OEC, Omphalos, Last Thursday, Intelligent Design, or Embedded Age.

The only way He doesn't get accused of it, is if He did it Theistic Evolution.

I've NEVER seen a "scientist" asking TEs by what means God guided evolution -- have you?

That's because TEs won't post a lick of Scripture, and mainly venerate Charles Darwin above Jesus Christ.

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

AV, the reason is simple. All of the evidence supports evolution. It does not support the creation story of Genesis. You know it, I know it, we all know it. So ask yourself what it tells you about a God that plants false information. Back when I was still a Christian I did not believe in a lying God. I therefore accepted evolution.

And you also seem to be trying to tell God how he could not have done it. An all knowing, all powerful God could have set the his work in action with the Big Bang. There would be no need for individual creation events. What God is more powerful, one that can create the world he wants in one shot or one that has to keep going back tweaking his past mistakes? To me it seems like the God that let life evolve was more powerful.

 

[Dizredux]

That's because TEs won't post a lick of Scripture, and mainly venerate Charles Darwin above Jesus Christ.

AV, you are really reaching. No Theistic Evolutionist, scientist or any other kind of person who accept evolution venerates Darwin. He only has a place in a historical sense. Most biologists do not read him unless they are interested in the history of their field.

He was wrong on a number of things and had no idea of genetics. The amazing thing is that he was as right as he was with the limited amount of information he had at his disposal.

No working scientist and I mean *no* working scientist uses Darwin in modern day biology. He has long been surpassed by new data and understanding.

So please describe how theistic evolutionists venerate Darwin, give some examples.


Simply enough I venerate both God's book and Gods works. If you only look at God's book then I feel you are missing half the picture. Truth cannot contradict truth as the Catholics say.

Dizredux