Apparent Age & The Incredible Foreknowledge of God

Jfrsmth · Jan 11, 2016

Loudmouth said:
First, evolution doesn't rule out quick change.

So, once again, evolutionists will change there theory to fit the evidence instead of vice-versa. Darwin originally posited that it was a slow, gradual process. When that was looking grim, Gould revived saltation and said, no, wait, everything happened quickly in spurts!

This is why evolutionists, evolution, and evolutionism, cannot be pinned down:

"Notice that the “scientific” account of human origins is actually a “story.” Furthermore, it is a historic fact that the story keeps changing, because the story has always been wrong."

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v18i12f.htm

At least with Creationists, the story has already been written. And, we look at the evidence to gain further understanding of the universe and see more of the glory of God. It's wonderful!

Jfrsmth · Jan 11, 2016

Loudmouth said:
When you start off with such a dishonest premise, why should we believe anything you say?

Seriously?

Are you sure you know what evolutionism posits? Predicts?

Jfrsmth · Jan 11, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Found them for you.

How many of these are primates and how many of these have been labeled as human?

Which are going from primate or ape-like to man? How can that be verified? How can that be tested?

Furthermore, you are assuming they are transitioning, are you not? How do you confirm, i.e. verify that they are "morphing" from one creature to another. All you have are fossils with different shapes, from different creatures.

hiphopopotomus · Jan 12, 2016

Yeah man...like God acid washed our planet
Pretty cool hey!
Can I have some of whatever you guys are taking?

AV1611VET · Jan 12, 2016

hiphopopotomus said:
Yeah man...like God acid washed our planet
Pretty cool hey!
Can I have some of whatever you guys are taking?

Sure can!

Read John 4.

JohnOfWoodGreen · Jan 12, 2016

Peter Nelson's "Another Look At Mature Creation" (initially in the pages of the Victoria Institute Journal, but now available online) gives some of the history of the concept, from Chateaubriand (of steak fame) through the Gosses, to the present. Some of the Answers in Genesis posts also defend it. And other sources available online.
Yes, as the Gosses stated, Eve would have had a belly button. Perhaps additionally, the Song of Solomon lists the navel as a part of the beauty of womankind (and that's so, even if Richard Wurmbrand was right in suggesting that the word was a "euphemism" for something lower down), so for that reason also she would have had to have had one.
It would be impossible to create a running concern like the universe without giving it some appearance of history. But it would not be necessary to make the evidences of such history self-consistent, and if any such contradiction were to be found in the evidences, one would have to draw one of two conclusions: Either our science is wrong, or the history that we are employing our science to elucidate doesn't exist, i.e., that the world was created after the point in time for which the evidences contradict each other. We are almost at this point with the discrepancy in radioactively-determined age between a fossil and the rocks in which it is contained.

AV1611VET · Jan 12, 2016

JohnOfWoodGreen said:
Peter Nelson's "Another Look At Mature Creation" (initially in the pages of the Victoria Institute Journal, but now available online) gives some of the history of the concept, from Chateaubriand (of steak fame) through the Gosses, to the present. Some of the Answers in Genesis posts also defend it. And other sources available online.
Yes, as the Gosses stated, Eve would have had a belly button. Perhaps additionally, the Song of Solomon lists the navel as a part of the beauty of womankind (and that's so, even if Richard Wurmbrand was right in suggesting that the word was a "euphemism" for something lower down), so for that reason also she would have had to have had one.
It would be impossible to create a running concern like the universe without giving it some appearance of history. But it would not be necessary to make the evidences of such history self-consistent, and if any such contradiction were to be found in the evidences, one would have to draw one of two conclusions: Either our science is wrong, or the history that we are employing our science to elucidate doesn't exist, i.e., that the world was created after the point in time for which the evidences contradict each other. We are almost at this point with the discrepancy in radioactively-determined age between a fossil and the rocks in which it is contained.

P.G. Nelson can take a hike.

Heissonear · Jan 12, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Your comparison of creationism and evolution, does not seem correct. I don't see any way creation-science predicted any of these things. Can you show me in the scientific literature where creation predicted such events? Also the Cambrian explosion is part and parcel of evolutionary thinking. Evolution can go really fat. .Bang, a meteor hits and the dinosaurs went extinct.

You seem to not include a Creator in your thinking of what has taken place in times past, particularly life events on Earth.

You do know, don't you, that Evolution is a walk of Faith? Are you of those who accept Evolution as a fact without evidence?

Heissonear · Jan 12, 2016

Colter said:
God can neither be proven nor disproven, so your faith in the doctrines of doubt are just that.

By science.

He is proven every day by His Spirit within those sensitive to Him.

You quote Scriptures but do not understand this nor His Kingdom in our midst?

Colter · Jan 12, 2016

Heissonear said:
By science.

He is proven every day by His Spirit within those sensitive to Him.

You quote Scriptures but do not understand this nor His Kingdom in our midst?

I understand his kingdom, I'm spirit born. But to an atheist one cannot "prove" God. Neither can an atheist disprove God.

Loudmouth · Jan 12, 2016

Jfrsmth said:
Key word "apparent"; can be defined as: "Appearing as such but not necessarily so".

You make a very good argument here, however, evidence also points to a young universe:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/does-astronomy-confirm-a-young-universe/

No evidence points to a young universe. What you have is professional creationists who flat out lie. Obviously, you aren't knowledgeable enough in these scientific fields to know that you are being lied to. Most people aren't.

AiG even admits that they refuse to accept evidence that contradicts them. What do you think of it?

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

What if I said that no evidence will be considered valid if it contradicts an old universe?

Some people ask these questions because they assume that the universe is old. My original response, as I recall, was an attempt to help the questioner understand the "apparent" age, not to defend it.

My question is whether this apparent age includes the creation of fossils in the just created Earth, fossils that did not come from organisms that were previously living. What doyou think?

You say "fake evidence" because you apparently do not trust God enough to walk in faith since faith is, "understanding what we cannot explain" (paraphrase of Hebrews 11:1-3).

The thing is we can explain it.

Loudmouth · Jan 12, 2016

Jfrsmth said:
How many of these are primates . . .

All of them. Chimps, humans, and the hominid transitional species are primates.

and how many of these have been labeled as human?

You tell me. I am asking you for where the dividing line is, the place where there is a change in kind.

Which are going from primate or ape-like to man? How can that be verified? How can that be tested?

You tell me. Creationists keep telling us that they have a different interpretation of the evidence. Let's see that interpretation.

Or is it the case where you don't have an interpretation, as many of us suspect. Is it a case of pure, 100% denial?

Furthermore, you are assuming they are transitioning, are you not? How do you confirm, i.e. verify that they are "morphing" from one creature to another. All you have are fossils with different shapes, from different creatures.

How do you determine it?

Joshua260 · Jan 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
AiG even admits that they refuse to accept evidence that contradicts them.

I believe AIG's position is that people can interpret the same evidence and come to conclusions based on the worldview that they begin with. So what one needs to look at is which worldview makes sense. For example, naturalism, " the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." cannot explain the existence of logic...after all, logic is not made up of anything natural. It's a self-defeating worldview.
An example of looking at the same evidence and evaluating it based on the worldview...
A creationist and an evolutionist can both look at C14 in a million year old bone (C14 only has a half-life of several thousand years)...the evolutionist will say "wow...look at how the C14 was amazingly preserved millions of years beyond it's half-life." The creationist would say "that bone is no older than several thousand years old."

Jimmy D · Jan 13, 2016

Joshua260 said:
A creationist and an evolutionist can both look at C14 in a million year old bone (C14 only has a half-life of several thousand years)...the evolutionist will say "wow...look at how the C14 was amazingly preserved millions of years beyond it's half-life.

To what level have you studied the subject?

Loudmouth · Jan 14, 2016

Colter said:
The Atheist belief is a faith about a Godless universe.

No, it isn't. It is just a lack of belief in a deities. It takes no faith to disbelieve in deities.

Loudmouth · Jan 14, 2016

Joshua260 said:
I believe AIG's position is that people can interpret the same evidence and come to conclusions based on the worldview that they begin with.

They state outright that no matter what the evidence is, they will never interpret it as being evidence for evolution or an old universe. That is religious dogma, not an interpretation.

So what one needs to look at is which worldview makes sense.

It doesn't make sense to throw out a conclusion before you even get started. It doesn't make sense to believe that the Earth is young, no matter what the evidence is.

For example, naturalism, " the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." cannot explain the existence of logic...after all, logic is not made up of anything natural. It's a self-defeating worldview.

Where did you show that natural processes could not produce logic?

An example of looking at the same evidence and evaluating it based on the worldview...
A creationist and an evolutionist can both look at C14 in a million year old bone (C14 only has a half-life of several thousand years)...the evolutionist will say "wow...look at how the C14 was amazingly preserved millions of years beyond it's half-life." The creationist would say "that bone is no older than several thousand years old."

What evidence is the creationist interpreting in this example? What evidence leads to that conclusion?

Colter · Jan 14, 2016

Loudmouth said:
No, it isn't. It is just a lack of belief in a deities. It takes no faith to disbelieve in deities.

For the neutral disbeliever that's true, but for the Atheist who join Christian forums and promote Godless doctrines then it's an unprovable belief or faith weather you like it or not.

Loudmouth · Jan 14, 2016

Colter said:
For the neutral disbeliever that's true, but for the Atheist who join Christian forums and promote Godless doctrines then it's an unprovable belief or faith weather you like it or not.

What are "Godless doctrines"? If I say that clouds spontaneously form from the the condensation of water vapor, is that a "Godless doctrine"?

Colter · Jan 14, 2016

Loudmouth said:
What are "Godless doctrines"? If I say that clouds spontaneously form from the the condensation of water vapor, is that a "Godless doctrine"?

Should be simple, progressive Atheists promote a Godless universe idea like life spontaneously occurred after a Big Bang, there is no creator-kind of doctrine. It's an unproven belief.

Loudmouth · Jan 14, 2016

Colter said:
Should be simple, progressive Atheists promote a Godless universe idea like life spontaneously occurred after a Big Bang, there is no creator-kind of doctrine. It's an unproven belief.

So if we do prove that things happen through purely natural processes, this would disprove the existence of God?

If I am able to demonstrate that a cloud can develop spontaneously through natural processes, would that disprove the existence of God?

It would seem to me that the only people proclaiming that natural processes disprove God are the theists, not the atheists.

Apparent Age & The Incredible Foreknowledge of God

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Similar threads