Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

That they are flirting with Hinduism and the denial of the reality of creation.

Creation does not just show appearance of age; it shows marks of actual history. A history that is only a figment of the imagination if it is not real.

Now if God puts an imaginary history into his creation, how can you know that he wouldn't also put an imaginary story of redemption into scripture?

If you can't trust God to give us a real creation, why trust him to give us a real Saviour?

I enjoy playing the devils advocate sometimes, so here goes.....what if the "illusion" of history was in some way necessary for the life to exist. Let me see, an example.....earth worms create dirt, so in order for other creatures to exist, as well as plants, dirt would have to exist before earthworms. Therefore, an "illusion" of history would be automatically built into the original creation, not as a trick or disception, but as a necessary part of life. Just a thought for what it's worth.......

 

[gluadys]

I enjoy playing the devils advocate sometimes, so here goes.....what if the "illusion" of history was in some way necessary for the life to exist. Let me see, an example.....earth worms create dirt, so in order for other creatures to exist, as well as plants, dirt would have to exist before earthworms. Therefore, an "illusion" of history would be automatically built into the original creation, not as a trick or disception, but as a necessary part of life. Just a thought for what it's worth.......

Well it is hard to comment on an analogy built on a false premise. Earthworms do not create dirt. Erosion creates dirt. What earthworms do is add organic matter to dirt enriching the soil. They eat, digest and excrete organic matter, and their castings become part of the soil. But the dirt was already there.

And so was the organic matter which is an indication that something was formerly alive which the earthworm is now eating.

So you have a history of life before the earthworm can live. Is that history also illusory? Or only the "history" before there is any life at all?

How can you tell where illusionary history stops and real history begins?

Are there any historical events which are not illusory? How do you know?

 

[gluadys]

Who said anything about giving them a philosophical-theological twist? Are you aware that scientists are theorizing something about multiple universes colliding to make ours? How is this more scientific then postulizing some some sort of eternal being?

That's a good example of a different twist. Big Bang sets a limit to the universe we know, but is that a limit on creation? Maybe creation is larger than the limit we know. Maybe creation did not begin at the Big Bang, but somewhere earlier in a multiverse and the universe we know is just the by-product of an event in the multiverse.

And was the multiverse created, or is it uncreated, a series of events stretching back into infinity?

That is why I am leery about identifying Big Bang with creation. Sounds good from a perspective of Christian theology, but there are other ways to look at it too. If someone wants to dispute creation, there are still ways to do that, at least philosophically, that cannot be refuted by science.

But anyway, here is the thing. One of the major problems with what you are proposing is that you basically don't believe in the ressurrection or miracles because they technically can't happen naturally. You would reject them based on what you have said.

I agree they can't happen naturally, but why would that be a reason for not believing in them? Who said all events have to be natural?

But there is the question, who is right? Why can one not use science through things like the laws of thermoydynamics, the Big Bang and things of that nature to conclude the existence of God in the form of inference.

One can, as long as one recognizes that the inference is philosophical and not scientific. It is important IMO to recognize the limits of science and be aware when one is crossing from science into philosophy.

I think we are missing each other here. What are you saying about sience and do you think that science and the Christian God can agree and that they do?

Science has limits in what it can study and what sort of conclusions it can come to. That means that science cannot directly study God or come to any conclusion about the existence, nature and actions of God. However, what science can study and the conclusions it can come to are definitely agreeable to a Christian understanding of God. It is not necessary ever to reject any finding of science in order to be a Christian believer. In fact, if it were, then we would have to redefine the Christian understanding of God. A God who is in contradiction to nature could not be the one who created nature.

I honestly say that i am very surprised you are a theist based on what you say. So you don't think Christianity can be based on reasonableness and evidence, just faith?

It can't be known to be true through reason and evidence alone, but it can and ought to be consistent with reason and evidence. This is not some strange and weird opinion. Read Aquinas and other philosophers. All of them agree that reason is insufficient to attain to faith.

That doesn't make reason worthless. We can and do learn a lot from reason and evidence. We can and should value what we learn from reason and evidence. We should never make a case for faith that requires the rejection of reason and evidence in their own field of capacity. But we need also to recognize their limits and when we have to move on by the light of faith alone.

Is all evidence supporting science, direct evidence?NASA has taken pictures of Mars and announced that water once flowed there.
But they don't have pictures of water flowing on Mars.
Why do they think it once did? Cosmologists use particle accelerators to search for elementary particles.
They've announced they've discovered quarks, photons, etc. but they haven't
actually seen these particles. How do they know they exist? Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence.

In a narrow sense, I would say that all evidence is direct. How did NASA conclude that water had once flowed on Mars when there is no water flowing there now? They had pictures, but not pictures of water. What were they pictures of? They were pictures of certain rock formations.

Those rock formations are the direct evidence. That they were made by flowing water is the inference, based on experience with similar rock formations on earth.

Similarly with planets around distant stars. The direct evidence is the behaviour of the star. The inference is the gravitational impact of an orbiting planet on the star's behaviour. The inference is not evidence. The star's behaviour is evidence. The existence of the planet is hypothesized as an explanation for the star's behaviour.

Now, what we may be able to do in the future is determine by direct observation whether or not a planet is there. Then, if there is one, the planet is evidence that the hypothesis was correct.

Same with quarks and photons, etc. The direct evidence is an observation of an effect. The hypothesis is the existence and behaviour of particles that cause these effects. Now, if the hypothesis is correct about the behaviour of these particles, scientists should be able to predict how they will behave in an experiment. If the experiment operates as predicted, the experiment is evidence that the hypothesis is correct. It is only the initial effects and the effects seen in the experiments that are the direct observations, but when certain hypotheses about their causes lead to consistently correct predictions of what effects will be observed, the conclusion is that the hypothesis is correct as well.

After all, false premises do not lead to correct conclusions. So if you keep getting correct conclusions, the chances are that your premises are also correct.

Some science isn't even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven't been verified by experiment, string theory, for example.

But it won't be more than speculation until the theoretical model can be tested against reality. That is how scientists determine, in the long run, whether a mathematical model is correct, by finding a way to test it in nature. So elegant and persuasive as string theory may become, it is only theoretical until it can be tested.

Why, given that much of science is only supported by circumstantial evidence, inference and elegant, yet unproven theories, would you hold religion to a higher standard of proof? many people believe in a god due to circumstantial evidence and inference.

Well, of course, I hold religion to a higher standard than science. I hold religion to the standard of faith. It is only faith that can go beyond the limits of science. Science is boxed into the limits of evidence and reason. That's good as far as it goes, but it is insufficient to establish spiritual truth. We need something greater than science for things of the spirit. We need revelation and faith.

To me, trying to base religion on science is trying to put God in a finite box. He won't fit. And anything you do make fit in that box will not be God.

 

[jeff992]

That's a good example of a different twist. Big Bang sets a limit to the universe we know, but is that a limit on creation? Maybe creation is larger than the limit we know. Maybe creation did not begin at the Big Bang, but somewhere earlier in a multiverse and the universe we know is just the by-product of an event in the multiverse.

And was the multiverse created, or is it uncreated, a series of events stretching back into infinity?

That is why I am leery about identifying Big Bang with creation. Sounds good from a perspective of Christian theology, but there are other ways to look at it too. If someone wants to dispute creation, there are still ways to do that, at least philosophically, that cannot be refuted by science.

The problem I have it is that atheists don't choose God as even a viable option. But you have to factor it in, at least before the big bang. How did the big bang start is the question and how does one get past the fast that an actual infinity does not exist. Why does something exist instead of nothing. I'm sure you agree, but this is philosophical.

I also don't think science is useless as far as God is concerned.

It can't be known to be true through reason and evidence alone, but it can and ought to be consistent with reason and evidence. This is not some strange and weird opinion. Read Aquinas and other philosophers. All of them agree that reason is insufficient to attain to faith.

That doesn't make reason worthless. We can and do learn a lot from reason and evidence. We can and should value what we learn from reason and evidence. We should never make a case for faith that requires the rejection of reason and evidence in their own field of capacity. But we need also to recognize their limits and when we have to move on by the light of faith alone..

good, something we can agree. Science does have it's limits and i think that you can reason to some sort of God being, but most naturalists assue that what is physically there is all that exists and could possibly exist. How do you answer this assumption.

Well, of course, I hold religion to a higher standard than science. I hold religion to the standard of faith. It is only faith that can go beyond the limits of science. Science is boxed into the limits of evidence and reason. That's good as far as it goes, but it is insufficient to establish spiritual truth. We need something greater than science for things of the spirit. We need revelation and faith.

To me, trying to base religion on science is trying to put God in a finite box. He won't fit. And anything you do make fit in that box will not be God.

I actually completely agree. I think i misunderstood what you were saying earlier. I had a thought actually, isn't possibly a philosophical evidence for God that humans can think of something that is outside the box they live in? I can put it more elegantly but that's the basic concept. I am much more interested in philosophy than science, so that is the problem in the dialogue.

 

[jeff992]

I think it is very interesting, with some very interesting concepts that I want to study more on. I would be happy for you to share more, but just like above, I would only have an elementary understanding of how to put these thoughts together and therefore not be able to offer much to our understanding I am afraid.

Yes, this line of argument is called the Kalam cosmological argument and it really has just started to originate because of new things found in cosmology. I think it has made a push as far as intellectuals are concerned and i personally believe it could really make theism a very good option. It doesn't explain everything of course (like what kind of God, but this is where Jesus Christ comes in) but it is a VERY good argument for the existence of God. William Lane Craig is really great on it. He could tell you more than i could. So google him and either go to his website or leaderu and read his articles on the existence of God. Really brilliant stuff.

 

[gluadys]

The problem I have it is that atheists don't choose God as even a viable option. But you have to factor it in, at least before the big bang.

That's the point where we disagree. No, you don't have to factor God in. That is an option. Christians take one option, atheists another.

We don't agree with each other's logic here. But you cannot show through science that one group's logic is false. Both are consistent with the science.

How did the big bang start is the question and how does one get past the fast that an actual infinity does not exist. Why does something exist instead of nothing. I'm sure you agree, but this is philosophical.

Right. Great questions, but they are scientific unknowns, possibly scientific unknowables. All possible answers are metaphysical, and science does not grapple with the metaphysical. (Of course, scientists, as individuals, are just as interested in the metaphysical as anyone else, so they will propose their own answers anyway.)

good, something we can agree. Science does have it's limits and i think that you can reason to some sort of God being, but most naturalists assue that what is physically there is all that exists and could possibly exist. How do you answer this assumption.

Only in showing that it is an assumption. But the existence of God is also an assumption. I do not think it is possible to reason to God's existence---not in a compelling way. That has been tried many times and all the arguments in favour of the existence of God have their weaknesses. By the same token, you cannot reason to the non-existence of God either.

I actually completely agree. I think i misunderstood what you were saying earlier. I had a thought actually, isn't possibly a philosophical evidence for God that humans can think of something that is outside the box they live in?

Possibly, but only possibly. It could be just a side effect of having bigger and more complex brains. That's the problem; there are always other philosophic possibilities and no way to falsify any of them.

Personally, I think it is a waste of time and actually demeaning to God to try and get a handle on him through scientific or philosophic means. If we could do that we have made God less than ourselves.

Philosophic ramblings are a great intellectual exercise and I find them very interesting, but much more important to me when it comes to faith is personal experience of the presence of God. Philosophy only speaks to the mind; faith speaks to the heart.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well it is hard to comment on an analogy built on a false premise. Earthworms do not create dirt. Erosion creates dirt. What earthworms do is add organic matter to dirt enriching the soil. They eat, digest and excrete organic matter, and their castings become part of the soil. But the dirt was already there.

And so was the organic matter which is an indication that something was formerly alive which the earthworm is now eating.

So you have a history of life before the earthworm can live. Is that history also illusory? Or only the "history" before there is any life at all?

How can you tell where illusionary history stops and real history begins?

Are there any historical events which are not illusory? How do you know?

See here, this is one of our problems, I spoke simply to make a point and instead of acknowledging the point, you go into great detail to correct the point then turn around and say here is the point and amazingly enough it is the same point I was making, I just spoke simply enough for anyone to understand not detailed enough to sound like I was something I am not. Educated or not, I am a simple person who loves to be able to talk to all people without pretense of superiority. I can't say that for all my relatives. But the funny thing is, I can talk to them as well and they understand me. I personally enjoy being able to walk down the street and be able to communicate with everyone no matter their station in life.

Now back to the point. dirt, nutrients, poop, or "good rich soil" as my grandmother was fond of calling manuer, doesn't matter, the point is, there are things in this world that needed to be in place in order for other things to survive. I don't see how that their existance would not make it appear that the earth was older that it was (provided we subscribe to 6 day earth) without the attempt to discieve. It would rather be a creator who understood His creation that we would see demonstrated if this is the case.

 

[shernren]

See here, this is one of our problems, I spoke simply to make a point and instead of acknowledging the point, you go into great detail to correct the point then turn around and say here is the point and amazingly enough it is the same point I was making, I just spoke simply enough for anyone to understand not detailed enough to sound like I was something I am not. Educated or not, I am a simple person who loves to be able to talk to all people without pretense of superiority. I can't say that for all my relatives. But the funny thing is, I can talk to them as well and they understand me. I personally enjoy being able to walk down the street and be able to communicate with everyone no matter their station in life.

Now back to the point. dirt, nutrients, poop, or "good rich soil" as my grandmother was fond of calling manuer, doesn't matter, the point is, there are things in this world that needed to be in place in order for other things to survive. I don't see how that their existance would not make it appear that the earth was older that it was (provided we subscribe to 6 day earth) without the attempt to discieve. It would rather be a creator who understood His creation that we would see demonstrated if this is the case.

Consider, say, hydroponics. God could easily have created a world in which plants grew hydroponically, all life lived underwater, and there wouldn't need to be any appearance of age in rocks, because there wouldn't be any rocks at all. God can do lots of things, even make life exist in a world without any appearance of age, even if none of us have the imagination to imagine it.

 

[gluadys]

the point is, there are things in this world that needed to be in place in order for other things to survive.

Sure, but that doesn't mean creation has to begin with the things needed for other things to survive already there. It can proceed in order from the things that can live without any other life at all around, and gradually add in other things as the environment becomes more supportive of more kinds of life.

It is only if you insist on having everything in its current state right from the beginning that you cannot allow for this process to be historical.

And then we get back to the same question. Where does history stop being an illusion and start to be real?

 

[razzelflabben]

Consider, say, hydroponics. God could easily have created a world in which plants grew hydroponically, all life lived underwater, and there wouldn't need to be any appearance of age in rocks, because there wouldn't be any rocks at all. God can do lots of things, even make life exist in a world without any appearance of age, even if none of us have the imagination to imagine it.

and entirely hydroponics would possess other problems in the created world. Thus the point is that just because it is possible that the earth is old doesn't eliminate the possibility that it is young and a young earth does not necessarily mean that God tried to decieve anyone but rather it would show a creator that knows the creation intimately, which is consistant with scripture.

One of the things way too many people try to do is limit the possibilities. My part in this discussion is to present possibilities, thus eliminating the possibility of dismissal without reason. for example, the bible offers us the potential of the heavens and earth being created from nothing, but it also offers the possibility that it was created from something. In the current line of discussion, the literal 6 day creation arguement of God creating something to have looked old is viable if you understand that it was not for the purpose of deception, but rather for the purpose of supporting life. Equally possible is the arguement that days were not 24 hrs. or that the earth is old. All three when viewed rationally without bias to eliminate without evidence would leave all possible. That is the problem with assuming one must be right because one believes they are right.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure, but that doesn't mean creation has to begin with the things needed for other things to survive already there. It can proceed in order from the things that can live without any other life at all around, and gradually add in other things as the environment becomes more supportive of more kinds of life.

It is only if you insist on having everything in its current state right from the beginning that you cannot allow for this process to be historical.

And then we get back to the same question. Where does history stop being an illusion and start to be real?

See, you are making it a matter of I believe this so it is right. Instead I am asking you to deal with what is possible. Either are possible, that is the point. It isn't about what you or I believe, it is about what is possible. The possibilities are endless so to speak because there is so much more to learn that it seems odd that anyone with a scientific heart would even want to declare to know truth. The scientific heart would indeed seek not to know truth but rather to know all that could be known. You like to proclaim truth....I like to proclaim what is possible.....others might like to proclaim what do we know....etc. all are related and an understanding of each is necessary for true study, but each is very different. Each requires a different premis.

 

[gluadys]

Instead I am asking you to deal with what is possible. Either are possible, that is the point.

Either is possible, but on different premises. A recent creation requires an illusory history.

So it becomes a question again of whether or not it is rational to subscribe to an illusionary history. Does illusionary history ever end or are we still living in an illusory world?

What does science study in an illusory world? What can it study except the illusion? If the illusion is of history, then science will discover history. But can it discover that the history is illusory?

Is there anything that distinguishes an illusory history from real history? If the appearance of history in creation is illusory, what about the appearance of the resurrected Christ? Is that also an illusion? How do you tell?

It isn't about what you or I believe, it is about what is possible. The possibilities are endless so to speak

In an illusory world, the possibilities are truly endless. But a real world puts constraints on possibilities. A real history puts constraints on possibilities. In an illusory world I can be in several places at once. But in a real world, if I am in London I cannot be in Tokyo at the same time. In an illusory world, all histories are possible, but in a real history, the past limits the possibilities of the present.

Part of the task of science is to determine what possibilities are real in a real world and what possibilities are not realistic.

Each requires a different premis.

Precisely. But which premises are fact and which are wishful thinking?

 

[razzelflabben]

Either is possible, but on different premises. A recent creation requires an illusory history.

illusory history? I guess that would depend on your premise as well. If my premise is to find out what science can tell us about our creation, then there is much we can learn about our existance from studying creation in relation to science. Your premise has always been that science cannot test if our existance was by creation of evolution. I have shown you with real life examples that science can and does test for creation of things, therefore science can test for whether or not our existance is by creation. You asserted to this that science does not test for things to be created. I showed you paintings, archetecture, sculptures, etc. all of which are tested scientifically to see if they are created by the same person. thus, science does indeed test creative natures of things. You continue to assert that science doesn't test and can't test creations but fail to show why. I declare to you that it is not only possible, but would indeed be reasonable for science to hypothesis about what the earth would look like it it was created. Create tests and test accordingly. Just because science doesn't do that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

So it becomes a question again of whether or not it is rational to subscribe to an illusionary history. Does illusionary history ever end or are we still living in an illusory world?

I could say the same for evolution if my premise was equally flawed as yours is to creation.

What does science study in an illusory world? What can it study except the illusion? If the illusion is of history, then science will discover history. But can it discover that the history is illusion.

Evolution is as illusory as creation and yet science studies it. It is all about the premise. If your premise is that only one can be studied then you conclusion will always bring you to that conclusion. Thus my comment that there are none so blind as those who choose to close their eyes. Open your eyes to what is possible, not just in our world but from science as well.

Is there anything that distinguishes an illusory history from real history? If the appearance of history in creation is illusory, what about the appearance of the resurrected Christ? Is that also an illusion? How do you tell?

now how the heck are you making this jump? If the world was created to support life and thus shows age that isn't there, how pray tell does that equal that Christ resurrection is an illusion? I think I am beginning to see your problem with this whole discussion. You have this nice little belief system built and you think that any challenge to it is going to destroy your get into heaven card. Challenge never destroys truth rather always strengthens it.

In an illusory world, the possibilities are truly endless. But a real world puts constraints on possibilities. A real history puts constraints on possibilities. In an illusory world I can be in several places at once. But in a real world, if I am in London I cannot be in Tokyo at the same time. In an illusory world, all histories are possible, but in a real history, the past limits the possibilities of the present.

so according to your application and thoughts then we can claim that God is an illusion because He can be more than one place at one time. Interesting and I bet you will claim that isn't what you meant. And I am sure it isn't what you meant, the problem is, if we apply your arguement evenly to all statements, it comes out as God being an illusion. so I must ask, why do you put all your faith in an illusion?

Part of the task of science is to determine what possibilities are real in a real world and what possibilities are not realistic.

Yep and no one yet, including but not limited to you, has shown why or how creation is not a real possibilities. I have seen you and others proclaim it is not, but not even a hint of evidence to support your claims has been offered for review much less to support your claims. Oh, I take that back, the evidence that God is spiritual is suggested, but you have no counter evidence when you are shown that the spiritual is often times measurable.

Precisely. But which premises are fact and which are wishful thinking?

That would be for science to determine through testing and not for a panel of biased "intellectuals" to decide based on their bias. By bias I am not limiting us to spritual beliefs but also beliefs like but not limited to we already have the answers.........

 

[gluadys]

illusory history? I guess that would depend on your premise as well. If my premise is to find out what science can tell us about our creation, then there is much we can learn about our existance from studying creation in relation to science. Your premise has always been that science cannot test if our existance was by creation of evolution.

No, not at all. You are conflating several ideas into one.

1. Is the universe as a whole created or uncreated?
2. Was life specially created through a supernatural miracle or did it arise through natural processes?
3.Did humanity have an evolutionary history or were the first humans specially created?

Note the phrase "specially created" in #2 and #3. Let's clarifiy that with several possible meanings of creation.

#1 Made by God
#2 Made directly by God via a super-natural miracle, without any natural process.
#3 Made by God through a natural process such as evolution.

#2 is what I mean by "special creation". Is this what you mean by "creation" when you contrast "evolution or creation"?

Because with #1 you can have "evolution and creation". You don't have to choose. And with #3 you do have "evolution and creation".

While we are at it, let's throw in some definitions of evolution.

#1 A process that produces bio-diversity
#2 A process to produce bio-diversity which excludes the concept of creation.
#3 A process of creation used by God to produce bio-diversity.

Again, only with #2 does the definition of evolution exclude creation so that you have to choose one or the other. #1 is open to creation, though it does not require it. #3 considers evolution to be a process of creation, so they are bound together. You get both creation and evolution.

Whether we can test if our existence is through "creation" or "evolution" depends on having some precise definition of the terms "creation" and "evolution".

Depending on the definition, we may or may not be able to test for "creation" or "evolution". If we are able to test, we may already have tested it and know the results.

We can certainly test whether or not humanity has an evolutionary origin. That has been tested for, and the result is "Yes, there is evidence that humanity has an evolutionary origin". But does that mean that humanity was not created? Not if one is using the third definition of "creation" above, nor if one is using the third definition of "evolution" above.

I have shown you with real life examples that science can and does test for creation of things, therefore science can test for whether or not our existance is by creation. You asserted to this that science does not test for things to be created. I showed you paintings, archetecture, sculptures, etc. all of which are tested scientifically to see if they are created by the same person.

Again you rely on conflating two different concepts of creation.

1. Creation of a new arrangement of material things by a creative agent who may or may not be divine.
2. The primordial creation of matter out of nothing, an act attributed solely to God.

Examples of the first kind of creation cannot be used to test the validity of the second.

I declare to you that it is not only possible, but would indeed be reasonable for science to hypothesis about what the earth would look like it it was created. Create tests and test accordingly.

Certainly, it is both possible and reasonable and such hypotheses have been made. One of the most famous is the Omphalos argument. This hypothesis is that since Adam was created out of dust rather than gestating in his mother's womb, he did not have a belly button. Note that having a belly button is an indication of history--a history of being an embryo. Why would Adam have evidence of a history of being an embryo if he was never an embryo?

If he did have a belly-button, why would he have one? Why would God create this illusion of a history that never happened?

Sometimes you can make the case that the apparent history was necessary to fit the world for life. But there are many examples, like Adam's belly button, where this does not apply. Why, for example, would God create so many vestiges of extinct species since none of those species ever lived in the first place? How are they necessary to prepare the world for today's life? Why would he create evidence of past seasons in varves or ice cores when those seasons never happened? What would make them necessary for today's life? Why would he create evidence of long-ago stellar events in the light from distant stars when those events never happened? You may argue that we need starlight, and I'll accept that. But what relevance is a long-ago super-nova in a far distant galaxy to life on earth? And since, on the hypothesis of a recent creation, it never happened, why does the light show that it did?

I could say the same for evolution if my premise was equally flawed as yours is to creation.

I'd like to see you substantiate that.

Evolution is as illusory as creation and yet science studies it.

First, define "evolution" and "creation". You have to define them to exclude each other before you can ask "evolution or creation". But it is possible to define evolution to include creation and creation to include evolution. IOW you can have "evolution and creation" instead of "evolution or creation".

Second, it is not a matter of evolution or creation being illusory. It is a matter of history being illusory. A recent creation (note the adjective, this does not apply to "creation" in general, but only to a recent, miracle-based creation) requires that a substantial part of the history of earth and the universe be an illusion. A old creation (even if it does not include evolution) does not require any history to be an illusion.

Evolution has a history. A recent creation would not mean no evidence of evolution. But any such evidence would be part of an illusory history. In an old creation, none of the history, whether of evolution or anything else is an illusion.

So it is not really a matter of "evolution or creation". It is a matter of "old creation or recent creation". You can have evolution in both. But in a recent creation, the history, including the history of evolution, is illusory.

It is all about the premise. If your premise is that only one can be studied then you conclusion will always bring you to that conclusion.

If the premise is that creation is recent, the conclusion (not the premise) is that much of history is an illusion. Science can reveal a history. Now tell me how science can determine whether the history it reveals is an illusion or really happened. You can't even do that with yesterday's history.

now how the heck are you making this jump? If the world was created to support life and thus shows age that isn't there, how pray tell does that equal that Christ resurrection is an illusion?

The question of whether or not any history is an illusion or real, applies to all history. It applies to yesterday's history just as much as to history a million years ago. It certainly includes the history recounted in the gospels.

If the history of the gospel is real, but the history in creation is illusory, when did history stop being an illusion? How do you know it ever stopped being an illusion?

If you think that scientific investigation shows the reality of history a hundred or a thousand years ago, why make the assertion that it does not also show the reality of history a million or a billion years ago? It's the same science using the same scientific techniques.

Challenge never destroys truth rather always strengthens it.

Indeed, which is why I am challenging you to think through what you are saying.

so according to your application and thoughts then we can claim that God is an illusion because He can be more than one place at one time.

No. That would be applying to God limitations which apply to me, but not to an omnipresent entity.

Yep and no one yet, including but not limited to you, has shown why or how creation is not a real possibilities.

Everyone in this forum agrees not only that creation is a real possibility, but also that God did, in fact, create. That includes all the evolutionists in this forum. We all believe in creation.

May I assume that you are actually speaking of the possibility of a recent creation.

Again, everyone here, including the evolutionists, would agree a recent creation is a possibility. We do not put limits on what God can do.

The question is not about the possibility of a recent creation, but about the factuality of a recent creation. Not about what God can do, but about what God did do.

Every premise has consequences. One of the consequences of a recent creation is that much of the history of the earth is an illusion. Many of us do not think an illusory history is consistent with the truthfulness of God.

Such an illusion might be justified if it were a necessity e.g. certain things had to be in place for the earth to be habitable. The problem is that much of the history which must be illusory has no relevance to whether or not the earth is habitable today.

It is possible for things to look old without being old, but appearance of age does not require appearance of history. Adam's apparently adult age at creation does not require the appearance of a belly-button indicating a history as a fetus. The problem for a recent creation is that a lot of the history which must be illusion is the belly-button kind, not the apparent adult age kind.

Finally, remember that the problems that lead many people to conclude that creation is not recent does not imply denying creation altogether. Many Christians who are not evolutionists still favour the idea of an old creation with a real history. Evolutionists, of course, favour an old creation and real history as well.

So it is still not a question of "evolution or creation". It is a question of "recent creation or old creation". Illusory history or real history?

 

[razzelflabben]

No, not at all. You are conflating several ideas into one.

snip for space

Note the phrase "specially created" in #2 and #3. Let's clarifiy that with several possible meanings of creation.

#1 Made by God
#2 Made directly by God via a super-natural miracle, without any natural process.
#3 Made by God through a natural process such as evolution.

#2 is what I mean by "special creation". Is this what you mean by "creation" when you contrast "evolution or creation"?

depends on what you mean by without any natural process. it would be possible to argue that for example creating is a natural process of God if it is His nature of character as suggested in Gen. It would also be possible to argue that things like speaking or forming dirt are natural process the problem then becomes what you personally view as a natural process not what is defined as a natural process. unfortunately, many many words can very in meaning. Take yesterday, i asked someone to explain thier argument. They thought i meant their disagreement, when what i meant was what there point of view is. It happens all the time with words that don't hold exact meanings which is why context is so vital to communication. So in this instance, context would deem the idea of #2 but the meaning of #2 is not an absolute. your reading it as an absolute which I have no doubt you will do, will leave us with another lack of communication. In fact, there are very few absolutes in this world.

Because with #1 you can have "evolution and creation". You don't have to choose. And with #3 you do have "evolution and creation".

snip for space..

Depending on the definition, we may or may not be able to test for "creation" or "evolution". If we are able to test, we may already have tested it and know the results.

We can certainly test whether or not humanity has an evolutionary origin. That has been tested for, and the result is "Yes, there is evidence that humanity has an evolutionary origin". But does that mean that humanity was not created? Not if one is using the third definition of "creation" above, nor if one is using the third definition of "evolution" above.

now before when we touched on this topic, I asked you the first and oh so simple question that would begin our exploration into the idea of creation. you refused to answer the question? The question was, what elements make up man? Does man consist of the same elements that would suggest that man is made from dust? Not only did you refuse to answer, but when I pressed you for an answer, you changed the subject. If you a theist can't even look at one of the first questions we would ask. Ignoring the question makes it sound like the answer would be yes but you are biased enough to pretend that the question wasn't even asked. As I recall, I asked a few more basal questions that you once again ignored and when pushed for an answer, changed the subject. Suspicious don't you think?

Again you rely on conflating two different concepts of creation.

1. Creation of a new arrangement of material things by a creative agent who may or may not be divine.
2. The primordial creation of matter out of nothing, an act attributed solely to God.

Examples of the first kind of creation cannot be used to test the validity of the second.

The first thing you would have to do is understand the text and what it asserts. The second thing you would have to do is create some basic tests to see if there is enough evidence to continue. You can't do either of these things, as so what would make us assume if you a theist can't do either, that science can? i have had evolutionists on this very forum, people you hold in high esteem admit that on the issue of creation/evolution, science is indeed biased. Maybe you should admit it an deal with the consequences of such.

Certainly, it is both possible and reasonable and such hypotheses have been made.
snip for space.

If he did have a belly-button, why would he have one? Why would God create this illusion of a history that never happened?

When did we test Adam to see if he had a belly button? I missed that scientific experiment!!!! [/quote]

Sometimes you can make the case that the apparent history was necessary to fit the world for life. But there are many examples, like Adam's belly button, where this does not apply. Why, for example, would God create so many vestiges of extinct species since none of those species ever lived in the first place? [/quote] Who says they didn't live? Where is that scientific test? Wow, I missed more than I thought in science class. Please site references to these scientific breakthroughs. Thanks, I look forward to this new evidence.

How are they necessary to prepare the world for today's life? Why would he create evidence of past seasons in varves or ice cores when those seasons never happened? What would make them necessary for today's life? Why would he create evidence of long-ago stellar events in the light from distant stars when those events never happened? You may argue that we need starlight, and I'll accept that. But what relevance is a long-ago super-nova in a far distant galaxy to life on earth? And since, on the hypothesis of a recent creation, it never happened, why does the light show that it did?

Fist, you need to site some of these scientific evidences you are referring to. Secondly, there is still much about our world we don't understand, there could be reasons yet to discover and three, who says some of the things you speak of didn't happen. For example I brought up the fact a while ago that technically, the earth's creation was not a measurable day until day four in which God provided the tools necessary for that measure. So in what way would that eliminate the possibility of a super nova, or other such things? In fact, it offers great oppertunity. We could talk about ice caps too, if they were pushed up as discribed in the bible, (water) then, they could easily appear to be varying layers, try it with a pot of dirt sometimes. Well, that should cover all those objections.

I'd like to see you substantiate that.

That would require a whole new discussion and one on evolution at that.

First, define "evolution" and "creation". You have to define them to exclude each other before you can ask "evolution or creation". But it is possible to define evolution to include creation and creation to include evolution. IOW you can have "evolution and creation" instead of "evolution or creation".

Second, it is not a matter of evolution or creation being illusory. It is a matter of history being illusory. A recent creation (note the adjective, this does not apply to "creation" in general, but only to a recent, miracle-based creation) on (even if it does not include evolution)requires that a substantial part of the history of earth and the universe be an illusion. A old creati does not require any history to be an illusion.

In what way, all things have a beginning, therefore what comes before that history or prehistory as it were is illusionary. For example, a single celled populations existance or rather how they came to be is illusionary by your defintion. Therefore, both creation and evolution by your definition (note that by this I am suggesting that you are calling both this, and not declaring anything personally) are illusionary histories and therefore are not scientific. you know, I remember suggesting that early on in my involvement in this forum and being told I was wrong. To make matters worse, the idea was manipulated to say something totally different and the evolutionists here applauded each other for showing how flawed the idea you just presented was. It is extremely interesting how things come around isn't it?

Evolution has a history. A recent creation would not mean no evidence of evolution. But any such evidence would be part of an illusory history. In an old creation, none of the history, whether of evolution or anything else is an illusion.

So it is not really a matter of "evolution or creation". It is a matter of "old creation or recent creation". You can have evolution in both. But in a recent creation, the history, including the history of evolution, is illusory.

see above.

If the premise is that creation is recent, the conclusion (not the premise) is that much of history is an illusion. Science can reveal a history. Now tell me how science can determine whether the history it reveals is an illusion or really happened. You can't even do that with yesterday's history.



The question of whether or not any history is an illusion or real, applies to all history. It applies to yesterday's history just as much as to history a million years ago. It certainly includes the history recounted in the gospels.

If the history of the gospel is real, but the history in creation is illusory, when did history stop being an illusion? How do you know it ever stopped being an illusion?

You test it, but that doesn't change the fact, that you are now arguing something that you and others attacked me for saying many moons ago. It would be helpful if you are going to continue to assert that you have the answers, that you at least consistantly present those answers.

snip for space.

Indeed, which is why I am challenging you to think through what you are saying.

i thought it through and answered every one of your concerns and to make my case even stronger, I showed you the inconsistancies in your own argument. now i am confident you will again assert that i never did this, but the record shows i did so if you feel it necessary to assert that i didn't I think I shall choose to ignore you and move on. Either deal with the addressed issues and think them through yourself or change the subject like you do so often, but please refrain from false accusations like i never addressed them. Just a common curtousy.

No. That would be applying to God limitations which apply to me, but not to an omnipresent entity.



Everyone in this forum agrees not only that creation is a real possibility, but also that God did, in fact, create. That includes all the evolutionists in this forum. We all believe in creation.

the atheists too? Indeed an interesting broad statment to make.

May I assume that you are actually speaking of the possibility of a recent creation.

snip for space

The question is not about the possibility of a recent creation, but about the factuality of a recent creation. Not about what God can do, but about what God did do.

then in discussion we need to deal with the evidence of what did happen and not the evidences of an illusionary history.

Every premise has consequences. One of the consequences of a recent creation is that much of the history of the earth is an illusion. Many of us do not think an illusory history is consistent with the truthfulness of God.

Here in lies the problem with your assertions, the same arguments I have used against evolution can and you are beginning to show it being done, can be used against creation. That makes the arguments circular. This type of circular arguments attest to the fact that the simple truth is we DON'T KNOW. What makes most of the people I talk to upset is the assertion that what we don't know is indeed truth. That is not only a lie but a blantant lie. In fact, it is the worst kind of lie as far as i am concened because it is the indoctrination lies. The difference between indoctrination and speaking or teaching one's opinions is the assertion that goes along with it. For example, if i teach my children that my opinion is that God is real and this is why I believe it, I have not indoctrinated my children but rather taught them. If on the other hand I teach my children that God is real, it is a fact, there is no other viable possibilities, I have just indoctrinated my children. Now both sides of the issue use indoctrination, but what gets most of the people I come into contract with upset is that evolutionists indoctrinate on a public and open agenda without accountability. They assert that thier opinions are truth, but not at home in private, but rather throughout the public arena, in our schools, in our movies, in our books. The evidence shows that it is not fact, not known truth, yet it is broadcast as though it is. Your circular arguing (recycled from arguments I made when taking the creationist side) show this bias and indoctrination that many find appauling.

Such an illusion might be justified if it were a necessity e.g. certain things had to be in place for the earth to be habitable. The problem is that much of the history which must be illusory has no relevance to whether or not the earth is habitable today.

by what authority do you base this assumption? Do we know all there is to know about our world? Until we do, this statment is an inflated boast to make others think that we know truth when we don't.

It is possible for things to look old without being old, but appearance of age does not require appearance of history. Adam's apparently adult age at creation does not require the appearance of a belly-button indicating a history as a fetus. The problem for a recent creation is that a lot of the history which must be illusion is the belly-button kind, not the apparent adult age kind.

again, I can comment on this argument when you provide the actual scientific evidence that Adam did indeed have a belly button. I need to review this evidence before we can talk about it's scientific merit.

Finally, remember that the problems that lead many people to conclude that creation is not recent does not imply denying creation altogether. Many Christians who are not evolutionists still favour the idea of an old creation with a real history. Evolutionists, of course, favour an old creation and real history as well.

You just stated that all history was illustionary, now you proclaim that there is illustionary history and real history. this is the same kind of circular arguments that evidence that the truth is, we don't know the truth.

So it is still not a question of "evolution or creation". It is a question of "recent creation or old creation". Illusory history or real history?

But your proclaimation was that ALL history is illusionary. Therefore you are either making up arguments without thinking, or your arguments are so biased you don't even hear yourself talking. Which is it?

 

[gluadys]

Whew! For someone who values reading in context, you have sure had difficulty staying within context. And I do wish you would learn to check your quote tags before posting. It is not as if you are a rank newcomer here who doesn't know how to do them properly.

now before when we touched on this topic, I asked you the first and oh so simple question that would begin our exploration into the idea of creation. you refused to answer the question? The question was, what elements make up man? Does man consist of the same elements that would suggest that man is made from dust?

The human body is no different from the bodies of squirrels, ants or carrots in this respect. The most common elements in nature are the most common elements in living bodies. This is what we would expect from both creationist and evolutionary perspectives.

i have had evolutionists on this very forum, people you hold in high esteem admit that on the issue of creation/evolution, science is indeed biased.

Well we would need to see what definitions of "creation" and "evolution" were being used. If the meaning of "creation" in that context was my definition #2 (special creation), then certainly, science does not support that. But that applies only to definition #2, not to the other possible definitions of "creation".

When did we test Adam to see if he had a belly button? I missed that scientific experiment!!!!

Never said that we did. Look at the context. You declared it was possible and reasonable to make a hypothesis about what the earth would look like when it was [recently] created. I agreed, and pointed to an example of such a hypothesis. I never said the hypothesis had been tested. Only that this is one hypothesis about what we would see in a [recent] creation.

Who says they didn't live? Where is that scientific test?

Remember the context. If we are using the context of an old creation, then we can assume these now extinct species once really lived. And that is what evolutionists and old-earth creationists assume. But if creation is recent, then the "history" of these species was completed before creation. It is an illusory history, so they never really lived.

It is not a matter of scientific test; it is a matter of logic. If there was no real past prior to a recent creation, then every appearance of a past is an illusion. So these long extinct species never really lived. So why do we have fossils of them? The earth would be perfectly habitable without the fossils. So what is the point?

For example I brought up the fact a while ago that technically, the earth's creation was not a measurable day until day four in which God provided the tools necessary for that measure.

Well then you are changing the context from a recent creation to one that could have taken an indefinite period of time. Change the context and the issues relating to a recent creation no longer apply. In the context of a creation which took an indefiinite amount of time, the history would be real, not illusory.

In what way, all things have a beginning, therefore what comes before that history or prehistory as it were is illusionary. For example, a single celled populations existance or rather how they came to be is illusionary by your defintion.

First, remember the context is recent creation. You can still have evolution in a recent creation (including an initial population of a unicellular species), but where the history appears to go back before creation, then that history is only apparent. It never really happened. It is an illusion. So, in that framework, the initial population would be an illusion. It never existed. But only in that framework. Don't universalize the concept for use in other frameworks.

In an old creation framework, the initial living population is not an illusion. Because an old creation framework allows history to be real.

Therefore, both creation and evolution by your definition (note that by this I am suggesting that you are calling both this, and not declaring anything personally) are illusionary histories and therefore are not scientific.

No. I repeat, it is not that creation or evolution are illusions, but that in the context of a recent creation, history is an illusion. That includes the history of evolution. You can still have scientific evidence of evolution in a recent creation, but the history implied by that evidence never happened.

You see how important it is to keep the context in mind?

You test it, but that doesn't change the fact, that you are now arguing something that you and others attacked me for saying many moons ago.

Well I am not going to roam through other forums and threads to find out what you really did say. If you want to comment on the issue, do so here.

the atheists too? Indeed an interesting broad statment to make.

There are no atheists in this forum. It is open to Christians only. And we do all believe in creation.

then in discussion we need to deal with the evidence of what did happen and not the evidences of an illusionary history.

If we take the evidence as pertaining to a real history, then we can no longer use the context of a recent creation. You cannot have both a recent creation (with appearance of age) and a real history. In a recent creation, the history is an illusion. It is only an appearance.

The evidence of what did happen is the same in an old creation or in a recent creation. It doesn't tell us if the age implied in the evidence is real or apparent.

If you have a suggestion for distinguishing between a real age and an apparent age, I would love to hear it.

The evidence shows that it is not fact, not known truth, yet it is broadcast as though it is.

The evidence does show that evolution is a fact provided the history is real. What it cannot show is that the history is real. If, in fact, creation is recent, the history is an illusion. But the illusion still shows evolution as a fact of history. The apparent age of the recent creation hides the illusory nature of its history. So if you study the history which the illusion of age projects, the evidence still adds up to evolution.

In short, whether the history is real or whether the history is an illusion, the evidence still presents evolution as a fact. The fundamental question then is whether the history itself is a fact or an illusion.

And if a recent creation is fact, why did the Creator include a history that points to evolution as a fact? Why would an apparent history of evolution be part of a recent creation?

by what authority do you base this assumption? Do we know all there is to know about our world? Until we do, this statment is an inflated boast to make others think that we know truth when we don't. again, I can comment on this argument when you provide the actual scientific evidence that Adam did indeed have a belly button. I need to review this evidence before we can talk about it's scientific merit.

It has no scientific merit. But it is an important theological question. Would God give a belly-button to a man who had never had a history of gestation in his mother's womb? If the answer is "yes" then for what reason is this false evidence of history a part of creation?

This is the same basic question that applies to all of the history that must be a false illusion if creation is recent. Appearance of age is ok if it is necessary, but why so much unnecessary false history as well?

You just stated that all history was illustionary, now you proclaim that there is illustionary history and real history.

Of course you get confused if you don't keep to the context. Remember that illusory history is a consequence of a recent creation, and only of a recent creation. In any other belief about creation history is real.

Now, another aspect of belief in a recent creation is that at some point history stopped being an illusion and became real. Adam's history as a fetus is an illusion, but Adam being expelled from the garden is not.

Most of us think of the history we personally remember as being real. If at the same time, you believe in a recent creation and that much of history was an illusion, then it follows that you believe there was a point when history stopped being an illusion and real events began to happen in a real history.

How can we determine when the real history began? Can it be determined at all? Can we ever know that any history is real?

These are the questions raised when you begin assuming that some history is only a matter of apparent age and not a real history of real events.

These are the questions that led the church to reject the Omphalos argument about Adam's belly-button. And these questions are also why science rejects the argument about apparent age. The evidence never tells us whether the age is real or apparent, so it makes most scientific sense to treat it all as real.

 

[razzelflabben]

so many times I see that you posted and cringe because I know that it will be a long drawn out post that says little to nothing only so that sooner or later you can accuse me of the same. But such is life and we again tackle a post of yours that is full of unrelated information that we don't dare ignore and certainly can't explain to you how it relates or doesn't relate because doing so would mean that you had to listen.

Whew! For someone who values reading in context, you have sure had difficulty staying within context. And I do wish you would learn to check your quote tags before posting. It is not as if you are a rank newcomer here who doesn't know how to do them properly.

I appologize for the tags, often times, I have problems with my computer. sometimes I am just simply lazy about it because I am tired of repeating myself and just want to be heard, note I didn't say agreed with, but rather heard and since I know that won't happen, I throw it up there and wash my hands so to speak. And honestly sometimes I am so stressed with multitasking that such little things escape me. But, that is life and I am sure that it will happen again, though I do my best to control the mistakes.

The human body is no different from the bodies of squirrels, ants or carrots in this respect. The most common elements in nature are the most common elements in living bodies. This is what we would expect from both creationist and evolutionary perspectives.

Ah, so that first part of our test to determine whether or not we can make a hypothesis off Gen. 1 passes. Now how hard was that really? If it wouldn't take us off topic, we could look at the next.

Well we would need to see what definitions of "creation" and "evolution" were being used. If the meaning of "creation" in that context was my definition #2 (special creation), then certainly, science does not support that. But that applies only to definition #2, not to the other possible definitions of "creation".

actually, it doesn't really matter what definition was being used for creation because the comments were that science is biased toward evolution not against creation. Therefore, what definition of creation being used is immaterial and we still have a problem with bias.

Never said that we did. Look at the context. You declared it was possible and reasonable to make a hypothesis about what the earth would look like when it was [recently] created. I agreed, and pointed to an example of such a hypothesis. I never said the hypothesis had been tested. Only that this is one hypothesis about what we would see in a [recent] creation.

You make it sound like this would prevent us from creating a hypothesis from what we know in Gen. 1. If this is not what you intended, I appologize. You need to be careful to say what you mean. There are many things in Gen. 1 that we can test to see if there is enough validity to create a hypothesis. Fear that we can create one should never stop us as it does you and science in general. The heart of science is not one of bias or fear, but rather exploration and seeking truth wherever it may be found. Yet time and time again on the debate between creation and evolution science and people just like you, assert what is not truth as truth, purposing to decieve others into thinking we know truth, and ignoring what is possible. This I have a problem with. You and many others here interpret my problem to be with evolution and I have repeatedly explained to you that i have no problem with evolution, what I have a problem with is the bias and false assertions that mark the evolutionary agenda. Science is not about bias and yet on this issue it is rampant. That is a problem.

Remember the context. If we are using the context of an old creation, then we can assume these now extinct species once really lived. And that is what evolutionists and old-earth creationists assume. But if creation is recent, then the "history" of these species was completed before creation. It is an illusory history, so they never really lived.

That would be to assume many things that we don't know as fact. One, the actual age of the earth. Though it might be young, it doesn't state in the bible how young young really is. Second that our dating is correct. Consider that our base for understanding the age of something is very new. Our speculation is what we base the age on, not on a base line that we can compare to. So though we may assume to know the age of something, we don't really know because we have no baseline to go by. Now I know your argument here is that I don't understand how that age is determined and you will go into long explainations about the science and math that lead us to the age determination, but that isn't what i am saying. What I am saying is that though there is a great basis for our determinations, there is still room for margin of error. It is this margin of error that could lead us astray. Any btw, there are many things, some we might be able to identify and some we might not be able to yet identify that could affect the rate of "deterioration" we use to identify age. So before you begin trying to talk down to me in long drawn out lectures, make sure you understand the point being made and not what you assume I will respond.

It is not a matter of scientific test; it is a matter of logic. If there was no real past prior to a recent creation, then every appearance of a past is an illusion. So these long extinct species never really lived. So why do we have fossils of them? The earth would be perfectly habitable without the fossils. So what is the point?

The problem with logic is that it requires premis and your premis is that a recent history would cause your faith to be worthless. What if we change the premis to one of what if? Now look at the logical conclusion. If the earth is young, then the extinct species you speak of might be younger than we think. Young might be older than we think, or a combination of the two. So let's then do two things, one look again at the text to see how old we could make the earth and still be true to the text. BTW, there is a rather large difference between what the text could suggest the age of the earth is and what we traditionally claim it says. And secondly study our methods of aging, experiment to see how accurate we are, I am not talking about running the same tests over and over again and see if we come up with the same answer each time but rather study how different environmental changes (extremes) might affect the results of our tests. Things like that.

Well then you are changing the context from a recent creation to one that could have taken an indefinite period of time. Change the context and the issues relating to a recent creation no longer apply. In the context of a creation which took an indefiinite amount of time, the history would be real, not illusory.

What, in context of the OP and throughout this discussion are we talking about? We are talking about creation according to Gen.1 and what it allows and doesn't allow. That is the context. If you assume that the length of days in days one through 3 are 24 hours, you have removed your argument from the context and allowed and even beyond encouraged misunderstandings of anything you would have to say on the matter. That is why it was important for you to explore with me what Gen. 1 really said, a task you refused to do. Thus, your premise is once again causing you problems when it comes to actual communication. And btw, you are the communication malfunction here because you changed the premise without cause or warning.

First, remember the context is recent creation. You can still have evolution in a recent creation (including an initial population of a unicellular species), but where the history appears to go back before creation, then that history is only apparent. It never really happened. It is an illusion. So, in that framework, the initial population would be an illusion. It never existed. But only in that framework. Don't universalize the concept for use in other frameworks.

In an old creation framework, the initial living population is not an illusion. Because an old creation framework allows history to be real.

we have had this discussion before and from a historian point of view, history is never "real" . History is always revisionary. It is an interpretation and to make it even more difficult, the perspective also changes our understanding of history. Thus you you are right when you say that all history is illusion. The problem is that your premis is that all history is not illusion. Talk to a historian they will tell you all history is illusion. It really is an easy concept to grasp, just think it through. Use your own memories to do so. Compare your memories of an event to the memories of someone else witnessing that event. Now compare those memories to the period of time and how others remember that same period. Let me see, an example.........My oldest two sons recently wanted to make the point that they were treated harsher than the younger ones. So their memory was 5 wooden spoon spanks for talking during school. Now I can assure you that though they got in trouble for talking during school, they never got 5 wooden spoon spanks in fact, I have never spanked them with a wooden spoon though I have threatened. Yet they assert it really was the way they remember. Their perspective allows them to revise the history to what they want it to be. As does mine I am sure. The real key to understanding history is to look at all angles and all perspectives and try to find common ground. This can't be done if we because of bias only look at one perspective. Now you have had your history lesson for the day, one that you have already had some time ago. See if you can try to comprehend something beyond your own bias for a time....

 

[razzelflabben]

part 2

No. I repeat, it is not that creation or evolution are illusions, but that in the context of a recent creation, history is an illusion. That includes the history of evolution. You can still have scientific evidence of evolution in a recent creation, but the history implied by that evidence never happened.

You see how important it is to keep the context in mind? [/quote] Exactly what I said some time ago and you and other evolutionists told me in no uncertain terms I was wrong so we went into a history lesson like the one above and I was still told I was wrong. Now here we are with you using the same argument, that is the circular arguing that identifies the topic of creation vs. evolution as no one know rather than one being right and one wrong. Go figure, you eventually got caught in your own web of deceptions. See the problem is, if we don't know, then any assertion that we do know is faith based not factual based. I personally know many creations who freely admit this, while I have yet to meet an evolutionist who does and all the while, the evolutionist arguments attest to the fact that theirs also is a faith based belief based on biased science which is not science at all if it is based on bias. Ah well, such is life, thus the fight continues for truth to be heard and not pushed under like it was worthless.

Well I am not going to roam through other forums and threads to find out what you really did say. If you want to comment on the issue, do so here.

All I am saying is this isn't the first time you have heard me say these things.

There are no atheists in this forum. It is open to Christians only. And we do all believe in creation.

You should check it out sometime, there are in fact, many atheists on this forum. To the point that many have raised the issue of why atheists have been allowed to join. That is a different topic and you should check and see if there are any current discussions about why atheists are allowed on the forum. You deceive yourself if you think they aren't here.

If we take the evidence as pertaining to a real history, then we can no longer use the context of a recent creation. You cannot have both a recent creation (with appearance of age) and a real history. In a recent creation, the history is an illusion. It is only an appearance.

Not at all, your premise is once again biased. If indeed the earth is relatively young, then there would be things about that "illusionary" history that could identify it as such. The problem is not looking only at the surface (of the issue not of the earth) but digging deeper in search of the truth. But if we use your premise that we cannot know, then our search will end before it has begun and we loose all hope of ever knowing real truth because our bias assures that we will never know.

The evidence of what did happen is the same in an old creation or in a recent creation. It doesn't tell us if the age implied in the evidence is real or apparent.

If you have a suggestion for distinguishing between a real age and an apparent age, I would love to hear it.

If only you meant what you say.........but the evidence suggests these are only words and not heart felt means. You do understand I hope that this is a devils advocate argument, as I stated earlier?

The evidence does show that evolution is a fact provided the history is real. What it cannot show is that the history is real. If, in fact, creation is recent, the history is an illusion. But the illusion still shows evolution as a fact of history. The apparent age of the recent creation hides the illusory nature of its history. So if you study the history which the illusion of age projects, the evidence still adds up to evolution.

Yep, the evolution meaning that is also consistant with the Gen. creation. Isn't it funny how that works?!

In short, whether the history is real or whether the history is an illusion, the evidence still presents evolution as a fact. The fundamental question then is whether the history itself is a fact or an illusion.

you still don't understand that all history is illusion by your use of the word illusion......oiy vye......and you still don't get that evolution as you are using it here is totally consistant with Gen. it is the theory of evolution that deviates from the biblical account of creation. So what you are really saying when we break it all down into meaningful dialog is that our evidence supports all common theories of our origins (both scientific and otherwise) and because of the very nature of history, we can never move beyond that understanding.

So I have to ask then, if this is your stand why do you so adimately proclaim otherwise? And yes, when we read the comments you just made for what they acctually say and not for the illusion you want to present, what you are saying is that the scientific evidence supports all common theories and we cannot ever do better. It is all about going to the heart of the argument not watching the hand waving that is going on to try and deceive us into seeing something else.

And if a recent creation is fact, why did the Creator include a history that points to evolution as a fact? Why would an apparent history of evolution be part of a recent creation?

You do understand that evolution that being change, or some prefer adaptation, is not only consistant with Gen. but illuded to in Gen. and therefore supports any theory that we might base off of Gen. It is only the theory of Evolution that is not consistant with Gen. If only you had stuck with the discussion long enough to learn this.........alas if only's don't exist, they are illusions of what might have been. BTW, I did previously in our discussions show you where in Gen. the bible talks about evolution=change=adaptation=genetics. You choose to ignore it. Your purogative.

It has no scientific merit. But it is an important theological question. Would God give a belly-button to a man who had never had a history of gestation in his mother's womb? If the answer is "yes" then for what reason is this false evidence of history a part of creation?

false evidence? Again I ask you to show this evidence. I didn't even know we had found what we are sure is Adam much less that we know how to test to see if he had a belly button. Oh, I see, your premise is that he did, not that we don't know, we could thus hypothesis that if the earth was created to sustain life thus appears older than it is, then Adam would have no belly button. I keep forgetting that your premise never changes, you always go with the assumption that you are always right and the rest of the world wrong. You see most learned one, if we would create a hypothesis based on the premise that the earth appears old because it was necessary for sustaining life, then if we found Adam, he would have no belly button. Your assumption above other than the premise presented. They need to match if you really understand what you claim to.

This is the same basic question that applies to all of the history that must be a false illusion if creation is recent. Appearance of age is ok if it is necessary, but why so much unnecessary false history as well?

Like? I haven't seen it presented in your posts yet.[/quote]

Of course you get confused if you don't keep to the context. Remember that illusory history is a consequence of a recent creation, and only of a recent creation. In any other belief about creation history is real. [/quote] in your world. In the real world all of history is in your words illusionary, in the words of historians, revisionary.

Now, another aspect of belief in a recent creation is that at some point history stopped being an illusion and became real. Adam's history as a fetus is an illusion, but Adam being expelled from the garden is not.

I must insist here that if you continue to use Adams belly button as evidence that God couldn't have created a world that looked older than it was for the purpose of supporting life, that you actually show evidence that science has discovered Adams body and found a belly button. If you cannot do this, you need to change your argument because it is based of false and flawed assumptions.

Most of us think of the history we personally remember as being real. If at the same time, you believe in a recent creation and that much of history was an illusion, then it follows that you believe there was a point when history stopped being an illusion and real events began to happen in a real history.

How can we determine when the real history began? Can it be determined at all? Can we ever know that any history is real?

I think you are confusing the idea of revisionary history with real history. All history is real, revisionary history is what history is.

These are the questions raised when you begin assuming that some history is only a matter of apparent age and not a real history of real events.

These are the questions that led the church to reject the Omphalos argument about Adam's belly-button. And these questions are also why science rejects the argument about apparent age. The evidence never tells us whether the age is real or apparent, so it makes most scientific sense to treat it all as real.

Again, in order to understand what the heck you are intending to say here, it is important for you to grasp a real understanding of what history is, or else all the things you are saying are nothing more than gibberish.

And BTW, there are tests that can be done to determine if the history is real or appear to be real (using your words) but, if they were conclusive, we wouldn't be having this discussion which once again brings us back to the conclusion that when it comes to knowing the origins of life, the simple yet to some disturbing answer is we simply don't know.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, so that first part of our test to determine whether or not we can make a hypothesis off Gen. 1 passes.

No, I don't think it does. Gen. 1 does not say that humans were created from the stuff of the universe. It only says that they were created, and it uses the term 'bara' which some people interpret as "created from nothing'.

Gen. 1 does suggest use of already created matter for the creation of plants, sea creatures and land creatures other than humans. See Gen 1:11, 12, 20, 24. But there is no equivalent to "let the earth/waters bring forth..." in relation to the creation of humanity Gen. 1: 26, 27

Since Gen. 1 does not say anything one way or another about the material of which the human body is created, no hypothesis can be constructed from it.

May I assume you really meant to refer to Gen. 2?

it doesn't really matter what definition was being used for creation because the comments were that science is biased toward evolution not against creation.

Oh, it does matter. Science is not actually biased toward evolution. It is biased toward taking evidence seriously. And the evidence points to evolution. So science takes evolution seriously.

Now does that mean it points away from creation? That depends on how you define creation, so the definition does matter.

If you define creation to be consistent with evolution, then evidence that points to evolution also points to creation. If you define creation to be inconsistent with evolution, then the evidence that points to evolution points away from creation.

Either way, science will follow the evidence. It is you who choose what that means for creation by how you define creation.

You make it sound like this would prevent us from creating a hypothesis from what we know in Gen. 1. If this is not what you intended, I appologize.

I don't know how you could come to this conclusion when I just showed you an example of such a hypothesis. So you can dispense with the irrelevant lecture.

That would be to assume many things that we don't know as fact. One, the actual age of the earth. Though it might be young, it doesn't state in the bible how young young really is.

This is what I mean about changing your proposal. Going back over this thread, I see that Jeff 992 first introduced the "appearance of age" argument, asking how I dealt with it, and I answered briefly. You picked up the concept again in post 141 with the question: "what if the "illusion" of history was in some way necessary for the life to exist."

Now what you need to understand is that you only need an "appearance of age" argument if you are proposing a recent creation.

Now I agree with you that the bible doesn't state how young the earth really is. But some people (young earth creationists) do believe that creation was very recent, only a few thousand years ago. Because they believe creation was recent they need to explain the appearance of age. If they didn't believe in a recent creation, the question would not be raised at all as there would be no need to distinguish between an apparent age and an actual age.

You asked a question that depended on the premise of a recent creation. Now you want to change the premise to one that doesn't depend on the earth being young. But when you change the premise, the original question simply disappears. It no longer needs to be answered, because it no longer needs to be even asked.

Second that our dating is correct. ... What I am saying is that though there is a great basis for our determinations, there is still room for margin of error. ... Any btw, there are many things, some we might be able to identify and some we might not be able to yet identify that could affect the rate of "deterioration" we use to identify age.

Well, this is no longer an argument about apparent age. This is saying that science can determine the date, but is getting the dates wrong because of some deficiency in method or information.

If that is the case, all that remains is to come up with a better method or the missing information. Scientists will be quite happy to work with a better method and to have their conclusions conform to new information.

It should also be pointed out that under current methods, the various different systems of dating concur on pointing to certain dates (or date ranges). Scientists consider such concurrence to be evidence that the dating is reliable. Why would such concurrence occur if the dating is not reliable?

To put it simply, there is only one way to be right, there are a zillion ways to be wrong. If dating is so unreliable, why do all the dating methods point to the same wrong date when there are a zillion to choose from? Why do we not get a bunch of wrong dates that contradict one another?

The problem with logic is that it requires premis and your premis is that a recent history would cause your faith to be worthless.

Sorry, but you fail at mind-reading. My premise is that apparent age is tied to recent creation. A person who subscribes to recent creation has to account for the appearance that creation is not recent. Those who do not subscribe to recent creation don't need to account for the appearance of age because they take it as a true description of reality.

Your problem is that you cannot decide which premise you are going with: recent creation or old creation or even both at once if that is possible.

If the earth is young, then the extinct species you speak of might be younger than we think.

That doesn't change the fact that they look old. It is the appearance of age that has to be accounted for in this "what if".

So let's then do two things, one look again at the text to see how old we could make the earth and still be true to the text.

Sure. I don't see any problem with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The text doesn't specifiy any age as far as I can see. So why not the age specified by scientific discovery?

If not, what non-scientific estimate would you use? And why would you use it? What would make the text more consistent with that estimate than with the scientific estimate?

And secondly study our methods of aging, experiment to see how accurate we are, I am not talking about running the same tests over and over again and see if we come up with the same answer each time but rather study how different environmental changes (extremes) might affect the results of our tests. Things like that.

If you like we can look at some scientific publications describing the results of experiments along this line.

What, in context of the OP and throughout this discussion are we talking about? We are talking about creation according to Gen.1 and what it allows and doesn't allow. That is the context.

The OP did not specifically introduce the concept of a recent creation, but your post 141 did so implicitly. If you want to go back to the context of OP, that's fine. We can discontinue conversation on the implications of a recent creation such as appearance of age and illusory history.

And btw, you are the communication malfunction here because you changed the premise without cause or warning.

No, you were the one who changed the original context with the detour into the appearance of age argument. Now you want to change back. No problem.

we have had this discussion before and from a historian point of view, history is never "real" .

All irrelevant since you no longer wish to continue with the premise of a recent creation.

See the problem is, if we don't know, then any assertion that we do know is faith based not factual based. ... I personally know many creations who freely admit this, while I have yet to meet an evolutionist who does

Because evolutionists know that evolution is fact-based. We don't have a problem knowing that evolution happens, so we don't have to assert it by faith. Creation, OTOH does need to be asserted by faith. That is true even if your definition of creation is compatible with evolution. An evolutionary creationist believes in creation as a matter of faith and accepts evolution as a matter of fact.

and all the while, the evolutionist arguments attest to the fact that theirs also is a faith based belief based on biased science which is not science at all if it is based on bias.

I assume you mean the bias that the evidence in nature speaks of the reality of nature and is not an elaborate disguise. Can you give one reason why scientists should not be biased in favour of believing that what they study really exists?

Sure it takes faith to believe that the world we see is real. It also takes faith to believe it is not real. But which option is more reasonable? Why, without good reason, should we choose to disbelieve what we see? And what would be a good enough reason to disbelieve what we see?

You should check it out sometime, there are in fact, many atheists on this forum.

Do you mean Christian Forums as a whole or this particular forum, Origins Theology. Have you never noticed that Christian Forums is divided into a section open to everyone and a section open only to Christians?

This forum, Origins Theology, is in the section open only to Christians. There are no atheists in this forum. There are plenty elsewhere in Christian Forums, and plenty (as you are aware) in the Creo-Evo Forum in the Discussion and Debate area. But not here in Origins Theology.

Not at all, your premise is once again biased. If indeed the earth is relatively young, then there would be things about that "illusionary" history that could identify it as such.

Well, that is the assertion I would like you to substantiate. What are the identifying marks that would tell us whether or not history is illusory so that we could distinguish between apparent and actual history?

You do understand I hope that this is a devils advocate argument, as I stated earlier?

Sure. You've made it clear that you don't personally take a stand on a recent creation. But you asked a "what if" and I am just showing the consequences. History becomes illusory and we cannot know if any of our experience is more than a passing dream. We cannot know if our experience is of anything real outside of ourselves. IOW using this argument of an illusory appearance of age ends up questioning the reality of creation itself.

Unless, as you said above, there is a way to identify when history is illusion and when it is not. But you had better study some epistemology before you tackle that question. You would take the Nobel Prize in philosophy if you came up with an answer that eluded Descartes, Kant and a whole bunch of other people a lot smarter than me.

you still don't understand that all history is illusion by your use of the word illusion.

I understand it very well. That is the point I have been making. I am glad to see it got through.

you still don't get that evolution as you are using it here is totally consistant with Gen.

Yes, I get it. That's my definition #3, remember?

it is the theory of evolution that deviates from the biblical account of creation.

Doesn't that conclusion depend on defining "biblical creation" so that it disagrees with the theory of evolution. Why would you want to do that?

So I have to ask then, if this is your stand why do you so adimately proclaim otherwise?

I am not sure what you think my stand is. What is it you think I am adamantly proclaiming? I doubt it has much relationship to what I have actually said.

And yes, when we read the comments you just made for what they acctually say and not for the illusion you want to present, what you are saying is that the scientific evidence supports all common theories and we cannot ever do better.

Common theories? I don't know that there is any such thing.

If you mean, can a person who accepts evolution believe in creation, the answer is "yes". Can a person who believes in creation be an evolutionist? The answer, again, is "yes". Is that what you mean by "common theories"?

I would only say then that you are misapplying the word "theory" to creation. Creation is not a theory supported by evidence. It is a doctrine accepted by faith. Evolution is not a doctrine accepted by faith. It is a theory based on evidence.

Are they compatible? Sure. You can accept the evidence for evolution and believe in creation by faith. No problem. But that doesn't turn your faith in creation into an evidence -based scientific theory like evolution.

false evidence? Again I ask you to show this evidence. I didn't even know we had found what we are sure is Adam much less that we know how to test to see if he had a belly button.

Reminder again. We are dealing with a hypothesis. Do I have to bold the word "if" every time I use it?

we could thus hypothesis that if the earth was created to sustain life thus appears older than it is,

Yes that was your hypothesis back in post 141 (although as a 'devil's advocate). Now given that hypothesis, would there be any reason to include in the earth any appearance of age not necessary to sustain life? Would there be any reason for God to create Adam with a belly-button?

Would there be any reason to create fossils of extinct animals?
Would there be any reason to create evidence of past seasons that never were?
Would there be any reason to create a star that super-novaed a billion years ago if history only goes back a few thousand years?

What do any of these things have to do with making the earth able to sustain life?

And BTW, there are tests that can be done to determine if the history is real or appear to be real (using your words)

And what are they? Where can I learn about them?

but, if they were conclusive,

Oh, so there are tests that don't actually work. So what's the point of alluding to them?

which once again brings us back to the conclusion that when it comes to knowing the origins of life, the simple yet to some disturbing answer is we simply don't know.

What we can know is what the evidence points to. Is that the correct answer? Depends. Did God make a real world? or an illusory world?

 

[ArmyMatt]

This seems like a pretty deep thread. I'm just gonna post what I believe. What has been revealed to us is that only God is uncreated and therefore without beginning. Out of nothing, God spoke and it was so. The Son/Word of God was that which fashioned and perfects all of creation. The Spirit/Breath of God was that which sanctifies and gave Life to all of creation.

One could ask, how is it possible that something could come from nothing. Christ Himself says that with God all things are possible. It is possible for it to happen, though we never understand it, being a part of creation and not outside of it. Any thoughts?