Do miracles distort evidence?

[Calminian]

Oh come on guys this is circular reasoning. That's a big "apparently" because it's only apparent if you believe no miracle has taken place.

How is it circular reasoning? If the world was miraculously and instantaneously (well not quite--in six days) created about 6,000 years ago, then nothing was alive before that. Therefore we should have no fossils of animals that went extinct 60 million years ago. Or even 6500 years ago. We should have no archeological sites of human habitation that date back to 20,000 years ago, and no cave paintings 35,000 years old, because there were no people to live in that village and no artist to paint that bison on the cave wall.

This just shows you didn’t understand my OP. I tried to illustrate exactly why I would expect an appearance of age if one relies on naturalistic methods of investigation. And as I keep saying, if the earth tested young according to these methods this would show it was indeed young, but also that it formed naturally (which is not what the Bible says). I tried to show this in my illustrations of the wine and Adam.

Now I do understand the distinction you’re making between appearance of age and appearance of history. This is the part I’d liked to see developed better. For instance, I’ve heard preachers try to solve the light distance problem by claiming God connected the light to the stars. Then skeptics answered with the supernova argument and that pretty much refuted the light-in-transit theory. The only problem is, the light-in-transit theory is man made theory and has no root in the Bible. So I (and all YECs for that matter) dropped the man made theory. Most now lean toward Humphreys’ white hole cosmology model which works nicely and is supported better by scripture. But that at least was a good example of “appearance of history” as you call it. Just pointing to dating methods that assume a naturalistic environment won’t do it. I expect old dates from those methods.

Like I said, an instantaneous fully mature function planet should appear old using naturalistic dating methods. You keep ignoring this point.

Quite the contrary. It should appear to be as young as it is. Otherwise you are getting into illusion.

What you’re getting into unfortunately is bad logic. I suggest you reexamine my OP particularity the illustrations I used of the wine and Adam. Then try to show where the analogy falls short. So far the analogy seems to be holding strong. Miraculously created wine, men, planets and solar systems should appear old when examined with naturalistic assumptions.

If you were a scientist, you would find them convincing. But that is not the point here. If the world is only 6,000 years old, these hominid fossils should not exist at all. They are in no way necessary to an appearance of age. Their presence tells us that there was a real history that goes back more than 6,000 years.

Forgive me gluadays but this sounds very gullable. It would be like a scientist viewing the alcohol content of the wine and then saying, “if this wine were created yesterday, these alcohol levels wouldn’t even exist. Its presence tells us that there is a real history that goes back more that one day.” I don’t think you’re grasping the issue.

 

[gluadys]

What you’re getting into unfortunately is bad logic. I suggest you reexamine my OP particularity the illustrations I used of the wine and Adam. Then try to show where the analogy falls short. So far the analogy seems to be holding strong. Miraculously created wine, men, planets and solar systems should appear old when examined with naturalistic assumptions.

Actually, your OP did say exactly the same thing about Adam.

If they came across a created man like Adam, the next day, the same thing would happen. The missing bellybutton would definitely be an anomaly, that along with lack of scare tissue, etc., but practically everything else about him would point to an older age. His muscles would be mature, his brain fully developed, everything right down to his trillions of cells would have to be fully developed and functioning.

You could add a few other things too that would not be consistent with development from an embryo: lack of abrasion on teeth (since they hadn't been used yet), lack of antibodies in the blood system (since he had never been exposed to disease yet.)

These things are consistent with appearance of age but lack of history.

And they do not signify lack of a miracle. Rather the reverse, since such characteristics ought not to appear in a mature man who has developed naturally from infancy.

 

[Vance]

If God created the world six thousand years ago, then it wouldn't have the isotope decay we have now. It wouldn't have craters that could not have come into being within the last six thousand years. It would not have mountains which show the formation over millions of years, and then the erosion over millions more. It would not show dozens and dozens of other things which we see all around us. This is not based on a naturalistic assumption, an assumption that it HAD to have happened naturally, it is based on the evidence that we see.

Consider it this way. What evidence do you have that anything existed before 100 years ago? You would have no eyewitness to it having existed, all you would have is the evidence. Now, does that mean that our belief that the earth existed before that date is based on some naturalistic assumption, or that God could not have created it all exactly as it was 100 years ago or so? Sure, God could have created it at that time, but that would mean He have planted all those books, photographs, buildings, evidences of earlier history. We say that God would not have created the earth 100 years ago, since it would require a LOT of activity that would seem deceptive and confusing, and we know that God is not a deceiver and God is not the author of confusion.

And even a group like AiG agrees with this type of analysis. It rejects that "God created light half-way here" argument which has been used by other Creationists because that would be a deceptive Creation and they don't believe God is deceptive. Here is what they say:

“There is something God can’t do—lie or deceive. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the logic of why the ‘fully grown’ ‘light on its way’ argument falls down badly . . . If the ‘light on its way’ idea is true, God created misleading information ‘part way’ along a beam of light, recording events that never happened.”

Now, it is good that they see the logic and theology behind that position, but it is sad that they don't see that it applies to almost every other "age of the earth" evidence going.

Now, for the modern geologist (and many other professions), the evidences of the earth being vastly older than 6,000 years is as convincing as the evidences of photographs and books and buildings, etc, of the earth being more than 100 years old. And, for the biologist, the evidence that species developed from earlier species over billions of years is also AS CONVINCING as those photographs and books would be for you.

 

[Calminian]

If God created the world six thousand years ago, then it wouldn't have the isotope decay we have now. It wouldn't have craters that could not have come into being within the last six thousand years. It would not have mountains which show the formation over millions of years, and then the erosion over millions more. It would not show dozens and dozens of other things which we see all around us. This is not based on a naturalistic assumption, an assumption that it HAD to have happened naturally, it is based on the evidence that we see.

See this is what I'm talking about. You guys throw out this stuff rapid fire but never explain the philosophical implications. I give credit to those who objected to the light-in-transit theory because they were able to make their case on a level understood by everyone, even me. I ask for more objections like it and you throw out the term isotope decay. Okay let's focus on that then. What is it and why could it not have been bi-product of a miraculous creation or flood? Remember we don't know most of the details of these miracles.

AiG has a slew of information on this topic, BTW, but let's here your side.

Consider it this way. What evidence do you have that anything existed before 100 years ago? You would have no eyewitness to it having existed, all you would have is the evidence. Now, does that mean that our belief that the earth existed before that date is based on some naturalistic assumption, or that God could not have created it all exactly as it was 100 years ago or so? Sure, God could have created it at that time, but that would mean He have planted all those books, photographs, buildings, evidences of earlier history.

Unless of course all those things are younger than you think. So go ahead and make the case as to why you think they were old.

We say that God would not have created the earth 100 years ago, since it would require a LOT of activity that would seem deceptive and confusing, and we know that God is not a deceiver and God is not the author of confusion.

If you really believe this why do you side with modern naturalistic theories every time they conflict with God's word?

And even a group like AiG agrees with this type of analysis. It rejects that "God created light half-way here" argument which has been used by other Creationists because that would be a deceptive Creation and they don't believe God is deceptive. Here is what they say:

“There is something God can’t do—lie or deceive. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the logic of why the ‘fully grown’ ‘light on its way’ argument falls down badly . . . If the ‘light on its way’ idea is true, God created misleading information ‘part way’ along a beam of light, recording events that never happened.”

There was no need to make this point as I've already made it several times. You'll find most YECs take this approach. The LIT theory was abandoned long ago.

Now, it is good that they see the logic and theology behind that position, but it is sad that they don't see that it applies to almost every other "age of the earth" evidence going.

Well I'm still waiting for you to make a logical theological case. Let's hear what ya got. The supernova argument is a very good one but unfortunately it only discredits a man made theory about light created in transit.

Now, for the modern geologist (and many other professions), the evidences of the earth being vastly older than 6,000 years is as convincing as the evidences of photographs and books and buildings, etc, of the earth being more than 100 years old. And, for the biologist, the evidence that species developed from earlier species over billions of years is also AS CONVINCING as those photographs and books would be for you.

And the fact that Christ never rose from the dead is obvious to most "experts" as well. Ever watch the History Channel? What's the point?

I'm giving you guys a great opportunity to make a good case. Why not take it? Put it in plain terms like they did with the supernova argument. This is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. And one at a time please, no rapid fire.

 

[Delta One]

Hello gluadys,

Indeed, miracles can distort the evidence. The Great Flood as recorded in Genesis is testament to this. Landforms that would normally take millions and billions of years to produce like the Grand Canyon could be formed in a matter of days, weeks, or months. In fact, creationists believe that the amazing landform in the middle of Australia, Uluru (the Aborginal name), or Ayers Rock, was formed as a direct result of the Flood. There is evidence in the rocks that support the assumption.

It would not make scientific investigation difficult. Science would still investigate physical events and processes as they appear to be and still tell us they appear to be old. And they would be right, because they do appear to be old.

Did you know that this so-called scientific investigation is based on an assumption: that things have kept going on just as they are now for billions of years? This is nothing more than an arbitary assumption that can easily proven to be alse in the present! Just take a look at what the erruption of Mount St. Helen's did! The mud flow created a mini-Grand Canyon several metres deep (20 metres?) and several metres wide in a matter of days or something like that. Damn, the book that I got that information out of is packed along with most of the family books while we wait for our new home to be built.

All of the natural forces, e.g. floods, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and so on, can drastically alter the landscape of a given area that geologists assume that would take a long time to do. In reality, we know that our planet is still very geologically active and that making such an assumption that things have went on forever exactly as they are now is nothing short of ridicious. It is more reasonable to believe in the Great Flood and other geological changes recorded in the Bible, for example, the Curse may have caused somethings, or the ice age that followed the Great Flood.

The earth only looks old to you because of your long age view. Take off the evolutionary glasses and you will see a very different picture. Of course, this is easier said than done.

With reference to the radiometric dating methods, they have many fallible assumptions that most people are most likely unaware of. Change the assumptions and you get radically different results. Some assumptions include you think you might know the amount of daughter element there was, that the decay rate was constant, etc.

In fact, when we test radiometric dating methods in the present on rocks of known ages, they fail miserably. Why then, should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages with the assumptions used? That's illogical!

So, scientifically, they are right about the appearance (which is what they are investigating) but wrong about the reality, because the appearance and the reality do not coincide.

They are right about the appearance based on their long age assumptions...

One thing you must learn is that science is not very effecting when extrapolating back into the distant, unobservable past, because of the amount of biased assumptions that must be made to fill the ever present gaps. These assumptions are not scientific but are typically based on religious prejudice and views. In science that deals with the present, the amount of assumptions used are very small and the inferences are closely related to the experiments.

And that is why I disagree with it. I do not believe and could never believe that the God to whom scripture bears witness would create a universe in which the appearance of nature does not coincide with the reality of nature.

You're forgetting that this world today is not the original world that God created! This is a cursed world! You are also forgetting the massive effects that a global flood would have on the earth's geology...

God Bless,

Delta One.

 

[Delta One]

Hi Calminian,

And the fact that Christ never rose from the dead is obvious to most "experts" as well.

Nice point. The majority of the scientific experts believe that evolution is true as do the TEs; then it should follow that since the majority of the experts don't believe that Christ was raised from the dead, the TEs shouldn't either. But, then again, the majority of people didn't survive the Great Flood...

[No insult inteded to any TEs, just my ill sense of humour]

It just seems to me that you TEs are taking man's ideas of billions of years and evolution and shoving them into the Bible and trying to bend the Bible to fit.

And one at a time please, no rapid fire.

Don't you hate that? Just pick the one argument that makes the most sense and refute that one, ignore the others other wise you'll be swamped...

Three on one eh? That's one of the most effective techniques to drive you crazy. Sometimes, playing Christian music helps relieve the annoyance at some people's stupid arguments, typically these are usually atheistic arguments where you give them all the information in the world and they still either ignore it and repeat their proven-wrong assertion or go "What"?

God Bless and have a good day,

Delta One.

 

[Delta One]

Hi notto,

There is no young earth explanation for what we find as we look at this history (not just age).

Perhaps you should investigate and research a little bit harder, eh?

Every evidence has multiple interpretations. At least you didn't say that there is no evidence for a young universe unlike some of your atheistic counterparts.

There may well be some evidences to which we currently have no satisfying solution, but the old age view also has some destructive holes, e.g. the fact that there are no 3rd stage SuperNova Remnants (SNRs) in our galaxy. This severely limits the age of the universe and implies a young universe. The evidence of SNRs in our galaxy is best interpreted by a young earth view. In fact, this evidence is very destructive to the old agers and at present denies the big bang theory's origin and age of our galaxy...

The above is just one of many.

God Bless,

Delta One.

 

[shernren]

Calminian, if you believe that science cannot prove that the earth is young, then you should agree with me that AiG are misguided at best and deceptive at worst with all their stuffings. Because they are precisely trying to prove that the earth is young via science.

 

[notto]

Hi notto,

There is no young earth explanation for what we find as we look at this history (not just age).

Perhaps you should investigate and research a little bit harder, eh?

Every evidence has multiple interpretations. At least you didn't say that there is no evidence for a young universe unlike some of your atheistic counterparts.

There may well be some evidences to which we currently have no satisfying solution, but the old age view also has some destructive holes, e.g. the fact that there are no 3rd stage SuperNova Remnants (SNRs) in our galaxy. This severely limits the age of the universe and implies a young universe. The evidence of SNRs in our galaxy is best interpreted by a young earth view. In fact, this evidence is very destructive to the old agers and at present denies the big bang theory's origin and age of our galaxy...

The above is just one of many.

God Bless,

Delta One.

Perhaps you can point me to the scientific research that bears this out. Why limit the field of observation to only our own galaxy? What minimum age of the universe is born out by this research? Where can I see the numbers that were used to destroy the big bang theory?

 

[notto]

Nice point. The majority of the scientific experts believe that evolution is true as do the TEs; then it should follow that since the majority of the experts don't believe that Christ was raised from the dead, the TEs shouldn't either. But, then again, the majority of people didn't survive the Great Flood...

The resurection was miraculous and has not been falsified. You are distorting the view of TEs. A young earth, a global flood, and special creation are directly falsified by evidence we find in the creation itself. Miraculous resurrection has not been falsified.

It is not based on 'majority of experts', it is based on the evidence itself.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Interesting.



This is what I believe most OECs believe but I never thought one would come out and say it. God would never create the world miraculously because that would confuse those investigating it using naturalistic assumptions. Never mind that He gave us a written text that basically said "hey I created this world in six days!" Is it really God's fault if we don't listen to that?

Because if what God does doesn't match with what God says, then either we're mistaken about what He said or did, or else God is deceiving us.

We've checked over what God did numerous times with the same answer, and God is not a deceiver, so what's the only option left?

That the men who wrote down that God did it in six days meant something else...

 

[Vance]

See this is what I'm talking about. You guys throw out this stuff rapid fire but never explain the philosophical implications. I give credit to those who objected to the light-in-transit theory because they were able to make their case on a level understood by everyone, even me. I ask for more objections like it and you throw out the term isotope decay. Okay let's focus on that then. What is it and why could it not have been bi-product of a miraculous creation or flood? Remember we don't know most of the details of these miracles.

AiG has a slew of information on this topic, BTW, but let's here your side.



Unless of course all those things are younger than you think. So go ahead and make the case as to why you think they were old.



If you really believe this why do you side with modern naturalistic theories every time they conflict with God's word?



There was no need to make this point as I've already made it several times. You'll find most YECs take this approach. The LIT theory was abandoned long ago.



Well I'm still waiting for you to make a logical theological case. Let's hear what ya got. The supernova argument is a very good one but unfortunately it only discredits a man made theory about light created in transit.



And the fact that Christ never rose from the dead is obvious to most "experts" as well. Ever watch the History Channel? What's the point?

I'm giving you guys a great opportunity to make a good case. Why not take it? Put it in plain terms like they did with the supernova argument. This is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. And one at a time please, no rapid fire.

Calminian, on the isotope decay, this is basic dating stuff, which we have given you guys over and over again. We should not have to present the same evidence multiple times if you have not yet provided any substantive reason why it is not an issue. This is where part of the problem lies. Science has laid out the evidence for all of these things in hundreds of places and in hundreds of ways, so it is all there to review and refute. But no one has been able to do it. I have read everything on the AiG site and it simply does not work, as even someone like Hugh Ross (an anti-evolutionist scientist) has pointed out.

Now, do you want scientific arguments or theological arguments? We have provided both in droves on this forum and on the other, and I think you have read them all. What YEC's tend to do is simply ignore the evidence they don't like and restate the same position and ask for the same proofs, without having refuted the evidence provided. What is your response to the varves issue, for example?

As for AiG's acceptance of the "God can not be a deceiver" argument, SBG for one has objected vehemently that TE's making this exact same argument, but when AiG makes the argument, then it seems OK.

And the resurrection issue is entirely different, as has been explained to you (and ignored) a dozen times. Resurrection from the dead requires a supernatural act, so those who don't accept supernatural acts reject it. But the age of the earth is DRAMATICALLY more than that. It is not just the rejection of a supernatural act, it would require the rejection of evidence that is there right in front of us. There is no specific evidence that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, beyond the "supernatural" issue. No physical evidence that it did not happen. But we have tons and tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

And to say that it is simply a matter of "different interpretation of the same evidence" is simply a false statement. The fact that some have chosen, for religious reasons based on a particular reading of Scripture, to reach a different conclusion does not make their opinion valid. There is NO SINGLE QUALIFIED SCIENTIST who has looked at the evidence without such a religious bias and come to the conclusion that the earth is young. Without starting with the presumption that it MUST be young, no one can reach the conclusion that it IS young. The evidence is simply contrary to this conclusion. And not just by a little bit.

We have provided this evidence over and over, and I for one and not about to lay it all out for you again. If you want the evidence for the age of the earth from a Christian scientist who rejects evolution, read here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth


and on the dating issue in particular:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

If you can refute what they are saying, then go for it.

 

[Calminian]

The resurection was miraculous and has not been falsified. You are distorting the view of TEs. A young earth, a global flood, and special creation are directly falsified by evidence we find in the creation itself. Miraculous resurrection has not been falsified.

A miracle cannot be falsified by science. Science cannot investigate miracles. The supernova argument disproved the light-in-transit theory philosophically, not scientifically. Fortunately for bible believers the LIT theory is not in scripture, it was merely compatible with scripture. Thus YECs dropped it. If you accept creation and the flood to be supernatural events, science can't falsify it nor affirm them, nor their age. It really becomes a philosophical debate. So let's hear some philosophical arguments.

 

[notto]

A miracle cannot be falsified by science. Science cannot investigate miracles. The supernova argument disproved the light-in-transit theory philosophically, not scientifically. Fortunately for bible believers the LIT theory is not in scripture, it was merely compatible with scripture. Thus YECs dropped it. If you accept creation and the flood to be supernatural events, science can't falsify it nor affirm them, nor their age. It really becomes a philosophical debate. So let's hear some philosophical arguments.

A worldwide flood, a young earth, and special creation can (and have) been falsified because the evidence we find in the creation itself doesn't match the description of the miracle as defined by YEC statements.

Philosophically, God could do these miracles. The evidence shows us that God didn't do them the way YEC's like to paint them. The results of these miracles would be evident (like the empty tomb) but they are not.

 

[Calminian]

Calminian, on the isotope decay, this is basic dating stuff, which we have given you guys over and over again. We should not have to present the same evidence multiple times if you have not yet provided any substantive reason why it is not an issue. This is where part of the problem lies. Science has laid out the evidence for all of these things in hundreds of places and in hundreds of ways, so it is all there to review and refute. But no one has been able to do it. I have read everything on the AiG site and it simply does not work, as even someone like Hugh Ross (an anti-evolutionist scientist) has pointed out.

That's because you keep trying to refute miracles using scientific evidence. As we YECs have been saying over and over science cannot refute miracles nor date them. Here's my reply to notto:

A miracle cannot be falsified by science. Science cannot investigate miracles. The supernova argument disproved the light-in-transit theory philosophically, not scientifically. Fortunately for bible believers the LIT theory is not in scripture, it was merely compatible with scripture. Thus YECs dropped it. If you accept creation and the flood to be supernatural events, science can't falsify it nor affirm them, nor their age. It really becomes a philosophical debate. So let's hear some philosophical arguments.

Now, do you want scientific arguments or theological arguments?

Philosophical arguments and the latter! Science cannot refute supernatural acts.

We have provided both in droves on this forum and on the other, and I think you have read them all. What YEC's tend to do is simply ignore the evidence they don't like and restate the same position and ask for the same proofs, without having refuted the evidence provided. What is your response to the varves issue, for example?

I don't think I read that thread.

As for AiG's acceptance of the "God can not be a deceiver" argument, SBG for one has objected vehemently that TE's making this exact same argument, but when AiG makes the argument, then it seems OK.

I'm offering you an opportunity to do so now. TEs always say God is not a deceiver but never offer good philosophical arguments proving a literal reading of Genesis would make Him a liar. Please attempt to do so now.

And the resurrection issue is entirely different, as has been explained to you (and ignored) a dozen times. Resurrection from the dead requires a supernatural act, so those who don't accept supernatural acts reject it. But the age of the earth is DRAMATICALLY more than that. It is not just the rejection of a supernatural act, it would require the rejection of evidence that is there right in front of us.

The problem is, that evidence seems to be compatible with both a natural old earth, or a miraculous young earth. The only thing that evidence would rule out is a natural young earth.

There is no specific evidence that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, beyond the "supernatural" issue. No physical evidence that it did not happen. But we have tons and tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

You have tons of scientific evidence but that doesn't help us with the miracle aspect. What I'm looking for is philosophical/theological evidence like the supernova argument. Yes I know you've claimed to provide these over and over but that's just a cop out. Pick the best one and let's talk about it.

And to say that it is simply a matter of "different interpretation of the same evidence" is simply a false statement. The fact that some have chosen, for religious reasons based on a particular reading of Scripture, to reach a different conclusion does not make their opinion valid. There is NO SINGLE QUALIFIED SCIENTIST who has looked at the evidence without such a religious bias and come to the conclusion that the earth is young. Without starting with the presumption that it MUST be young, no one can reach the conclusion that it IS young. The evidence is simply contrary to this conclusion. And not just by a little bit.

And NO SINGLE QUALIFIED SCIENTIST should be claiming that scientific investigation can verify or falsify a miracle. This can only be done philosophically and theologically.

We have provided this evidence over and over, and I for one and not about to lay it all out for you again.

That's a pretty arrogant position to take, but suit yourself.

 

[Vance]

1. No, I have never tried to refute a miracle with scientific evidence. But what science can do in some instances is give us some very strong indicates about HOW God actually performed the miracle. Name one instance in which I have attempted to refute a miracle.

2. The argument is that the evidence shows that the earth is young. If you don't accept that, then of course you will not accept the whole point being made. But even AiG understands this argument, since they use the SAME argument with regard to the light created half-way. They say that this is a very bad argument for Creationists to use, since it would make God a deceiver, which can not be the case. The point is that the evidence is contrary to a reading of Genesis which requires a young earth and a global flood. We have shown that evidence in other threads. Check out my two threads which discuss the evidences against the flood, for instance. Also, see the arguments set out in the "Reasons to Believe" link I gave you. All the arguments why the evidence shows an old earth you could ever want.

3. No, the evidence is against a miraculous young earth since the evidence shows EVIDENCE OF AN OLD EARTH. Not just 'maturity' issues, but actual "scars", buried in the earth, of billions of years of development. Same in space. Things that would NOT be there if it was all created young. This is not a refutation of the "miraculous" nature of the creation, but simply the nature of the miracle itself.

The philosophy/theology is this: God would not created in a deceptive way. Period. He would not create in a way which imbeds the earth and universe with "scars" of age, with evidences of billions of years of development, when those evidences have nothing whatsoever to do with creating a functional, mature world. In short, He would not snap into existence a universe and planet which, IN EVERY SINGLE WAY, screams out "old" when it is young. Even AiG recognizes this point, when it says:

“There is something God can’t do—lie or deceive. Unfortunately, many people don’t see the logic of why the ‘fully grown’ ‘light on its way’ argument falls down badly . . . If the ‘light on its way’ idea is true, God created misleading information ‘part way’ along a beam of light, recording events that never happened.”

So, AiG gets the theological point exactly. The problem is that they refuse to accept that every other argument for the age of the earth and against a global flood fits the same scenario.

 

[Calminian]

2. The argument is that the evidence shows that the earth is young.

No. The evidence shows a natural earth would be young. It says nothing about an earth created supernaturally.

If you don't accept that, then of course you will not accept the whole point being made. But even AiG understands this argument, since they use the SAME argument with regard to the light created half-way. They say that this is a very bad argument for Creationists to use, since it would make God a deceiver, which can not be the case.

So far so good but you blow it on the next sentence.

The point is that the evidence is contrary to a reading of Genesis which requires a young earth and a global flood.

Wrong! The supernova argument disproves philosophically/theologically the light-in-transit theory. It does not disprove a literal genesis because the LIT theory is not found in scripture. It's was a man-made speculation that was ostensibly compatible with scripture.

We have shown that evidence in other threads. Check out my two threads which discuss the evidences against the flood, for instance. Also, see the arguments set out in the "Reasons to Believe" link I gave you. All the arguments why the evidence shows an old earth you could ever want.

Yet none of them address the issue I brought up in this thread. I'm agree that those disprove a naturally formed young earth. But I don't see how they disprove a miraculously formed one. If you don't see the difference you didn't understand the OP.

Vance this is such a waste of time. I agree with the AiG position about God not deceiving. They would disagree with you on the same basis I am. Why not just pick out the best argument you have and explain the philosophical ramifications. Do you really expect me to look through all your posts? Why are you so reluctant to do this?

 

[Vance]

First of all, you seem to agree that the evidence shows that, naturally, the earth looks billions of years old, correct?

Next, you agree with AiG that since God can not deceive, even though God's Creative act is a miracle (a point on which we can all agree), God could not "create" evidence which would show the earth or universe to be billions of years old, if He actually created it 6,000 years ago, correct?

Thus, the "light in transit" theory, according to AiG, should not be used by Creationists, since it would require God to create something 6,000 years ago which, by all natural standards and tests, would show a universe billions of years old.

So, TO THE EXTENT (since nothing can ever be proved 100%) ANY evidence exists that shows the earth to be older than 6,000 is exactly THE EXTENT to which it likely IS older than 6,000 years. Thus, it comes down to what the natural evidence actually and convincingly shows.

So, let's look at some of the evidence, then. Since we have some threads already existing which set out the evidence, I will refer you to them. First of all, here is a link to the archive thread, which shows all the threads in which the evidences are given, almost none of which has ever been adequately addressed by YEC's. You can make history by addressing some of them:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

In the second post, there is a long list of "age of the earth" threads. You can see why we get tired of having to present these points over and over. But, sometimes we still do, as I did in the "varves" thread on the front page of this very forum. While that thread also shows why there can not have been a world-wide flood, it also provides solid evidence that the earth is greater than 6,000 years old. God would have had to imbed at the time of creation a history of these varve layers which goes beyond the 6,000 year limit.

And what do you say about the evidence provided in the link I gave you? Hugh Ross and his colleagues seem to have a very strong handle on the age of the earth, and they are obviously not swayed by evolutionary thinking. Which is why even such staunch YEC's like SBG and Remus here on this forum back away from the 6,000 year old earth issue. It just creates too many problems for Creationism.

 

[Vance]

And here is another one recently posted by Glenn:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1452477-meteor-craters-and-the-flood-year.html

Again, God would have had to embed false evidence of meteors that never actually existed, which God can not do, even according to AiG.

And, of course, most of the stuff in the "Quiet Thread"

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html

 

[Calminian]

First of all, you seem to agree that the evidence shows that, naturally, the earth looks billions of years old, correct?

Correct. If naturalism is assumed, the earth looks old.

Next, you agree with AiG that since God can not deceive, even though God's Creative act is a miracle (a point on which we can all agree), God could not "create" evidence which would show the earth or universe to be billions of years old, if He actually created it 6,000 years ago, correct?

Incorrect. God can still do miracles even though they will confuse those refusing to accept miracles. In other words, just because someone may test the alcohol levels of created wine, doesn't mean God is obligated not to create it. It's not God's fault if man stubbornly chooses to assume a natural creation even after he is told otherwise.

Thus, the "light in transit" theory, according to AiG, should not be used by Creationists, since it would require God to create something 6,000 years ago which, by all natural standards and tests, would show a universe billions of years old.

I see you're not familiar with this subject. The light in transit theory was disproved (IMO) by the fact that we see supernovas that are more than 6,000 light years away. This would mean the light from the explosion we see was just an illusion God created. Understand? It's not that God could not do such a thing, but would He? Therefore if the Bible taught that God created the light in transit, the Bible would have a big problem. But I can say gladly it does not.

So, TO THE EXTENT (since nothing can ever be proved 100%) ANY evidence exists that shows the earth to be older than 6,000 is exactly THE EXTENT to which it likely IS older than 6,000 years. Thus, it comes down to what the natural evidence actually and convincingly shows.

If the Bible taught the earth was naturally formed you would be correct. But we both know it doesn't. Sorry I know that pulls the rug from the rest of your post but that's just the way it is. The Creation and Flood are Goddidit events.