Evolution or God the deceiver

[notto]

Well, God created Adam an adult male. 5 minutes after that creation Adam would appear a lot older than 5 minutes, quite possibly in his mid twenties or older but certainly not a new-born.

The creation is recent but that which was created appears older than the event of creation. I see no deception.

Did Adam have scars from a cut suffered in young age? The earth does. There is a difference between appearance of age and appearance of history.

 

[GodSaves]

To and to add to Beosulf’s example, God said that Jesus was not conceived of man. However, to everyone around, it would have appeared that he was. I see creation in the same way. Neither miracle is a deception since we’ve been told otherwise.

Very Good Point.

God Bless

 

[Beowulf]

Did Adam have scars from a cut suffered in young age? The earth does. There is a difference between appearance of age and appearance of history.

LOL

The earth was created thousands of years ago. I'd say it has history. Besides, I don't have a pic of Adam when he was created. Nor do I have a pic of Adam during his first birthday. Maybe God gave him a birthmark somewhere. Heck, I don't know. Did Adam have a belly button?

God made the earth and Adam as He saw fit. Who are we to say God had to make it a certain way? We weren't in control of creation, He was.

 

[notto]

LOL

The earth was created thousands of years ago. I'd say it has history. Besides, I don't have a pic of Adam when he was created. Nor do I have a pic of Adam during his first birthday. Maybe God gave him a birthmark somewhere. Heck, I don't know. Did Adam have a belly button?

God made the earth and Adam as He saw fit. Who are we to say God had to make it a certain way? We weren't in control of creation, He was.

That is exactly my point. We can look at the creation to see the nature of it and its attributes and from that we can assess when it was created (regardles of scripture). I adhere to the logical conclusion that it is as old as it looks based not on an 'appearance of age' or 'maturity' but because there is evidence of things that have happened to it such as erosion, meteor impacts, radioactive decay, and many more that tell me this history (not just its age). From this, I conclude that the earth is as old as it looks and that od created it to not decieve with false scars and unneeded characteristics. There are physical characteristics of the earth that cannot be reality if the earth is young. .This leads me to the conclusion that it was created a long time ago. An interpretation of scripture that claims otherwise is either a misinterpretation (which I believe), or is calling God a liar. I can accept this alternative because it would lead me to conclude that God is a liar, which I know can't be true.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

That is exactly my point. We can look at the creation to see the nature of it and its attributes and from that we can assess when it was created (regardles of scripture). I adhere to the logical conclusion that it is as old as it looks based not on an 'appearance of age' or 'maturity' but because there is evidence of things that have happened to it such as erosion, meteor impacts, radioactive decay, and many more that tell me this history (not just its age). From this, I conclude that the earth is as old as it looks and that od created it to not decieve with false scars and unneeded characteristics. There are physical characteristics of the earth that cannot be reality if the earth is young. .This leads me to the conclusion that it was created a long time ago. An interpretation of scripture that claims otherwise is either a misinterpretation (which I believe), or is calling God a liar. I can accept this alternative because it would lead me to conclude that God is a liar, which I know can't be true.

I look at the same evidences and see a young earth. I see comets that have a limited life age and there is no real good idea of how new comets come about, yes, I know about the fantasy Oort Cloud. I see how things like a world wide flood would make things look as they do in geology (scars). The list goes on, including some of the things listed earlier in this thread. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. Since God would tell us though the earth is young I'll favor the evidence I see then, which is the earth is indeed young.

 

[Micaiah]

I'd suggest you move into the other forums Notto if you want to debate this issue.

 

[Beowulf]

Erosion - Flood?
Impacts - By what gauge? Probability?
Radioactivity decay - Assuming no influences whatever.

Dating is OK if there has been nothing to disturb the specimens,if we knew the beginning amounts of what we are sensing, if each dating process supported each other and backward extrapolation from a very small sample can be trusted. For dating to work all things must be on a linear scale or at least something predictable. Each speciman must begin with amounts that are also predictable. How do we know a rock contained a certain amount of something when it was formed or that it was left totally undisturbed in the first place?
Mineral "filtration" from above form structures in caves but how do we know the minerals were filtered by a linear process? Concentrations in the beginning are also unknown.

Uneeded characterics?
I have a lot of those but God still made me. Flaws? I have a lot of those too. But He still made me.
Why must the universe be created absolutely clean, without blemish, without flaw, without scar? Why must the universe be created by our standard of design? If God chose to give Adam a scar to begin with who are we to tell God He can't? If God created Adam with a chipped tooth does that tell me Adam bit into something too hard showing me he existed before he was created?

 

[GodSaves]

To add to Beowulf, how does one know that the earth was not scarred by the fall of man? Since sinned entered the world how do we know that sin only affect humans and not other things as well?

 

[Tachocline]

Dating is OK if there has been nothing to disturb the specimens,if we knew the beginning amounts of what we are sensing, if each dating process supported each other and backward extrapolation from a very small sample can be trusted. For dating to work all things must be on a linear scale or at least something predictable. Each speciman must begin with amounts that are also predictable.

Since this forum is not for debate let me ask, if you would please, to state why you think your above statements are correct?

From what I read above you are very mistaken about how dating occurs and even more importantly what assumptions are required.

How do we know a rock contained a certain amount of something when it was formed or that it was left totally undisturbed in the first place?
Mineral "filtration" from above form structures in caves but how do we know the minerals were filtered by a linear process? Concentrations in the beginning are also unknown.

Again some statements of a similar vein. Please could you tell me your opinion as to why these things are required?

 

[Beowulf]

Let's say I observe something for 1 minute and there is measurable change. How can I say with any confidence what the total change will be a year from now? Especially with variables that are not within my control?

To know a conclusion is true I must know what I started with in the first place. And once again what guarantee do I have there has been no other influences over any periods of time? What do I use as a control?

Also, the flood is another very contraversial subject. What influences do we ascribe to something that we're not willing to believe happened? And what if it did?

There a just too many variables that we can not predict or probably are not even aware of when forming a conclusion of something that was supposed to happen in time past.
Can anyone say for certain all possible variables and scenarios have been found and explored? I doubt that very much.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Let's say I observe something for 1 minute and there is measurable change. How can I say with any confidence what the total change will be a year from now? Especially with variables that are not within my control?

To know a conclusion is true I must know what I started with in the first place. And once again what guarantee do I have there has been no other influences over any periods of time? What do I use as a control?

Also, the flood is another very contraversial subject. What influences do we ascribe to something that we're not willing to believe happened? And what if it did?

There a just too many variables that we can not predict or probably are not even aware of when forming a conclusion of something that was supposed to happen in time past.
Can anyone say for certain all possible variables and scenarios have been found and explored? I doubt that very much.

Very good points. To add to that it is shown time and time again (not just rare occurances) where dates are found that make no sense from a long earth, evolutionary perspective. Time and time again excuses are made.

The RATE project is doing a great job when it deals with the topic of dating. I suggest people check out this link.

 

[Tachocline]

Let's say I observe something for 1 minute and there is measurable change. How can I say with any confidence what the total change will be a year from now?

By understanding the physics involved.

Especially with variables that are not within my control?

Control doesn't matter, understanding does.

To know a conclusion is true I must know what I started with in the first place. And once again what guarantee do I have there has been no other influences over any periods of time? What do I use as a control?

You need to know the physics operating and this can either pin down the starting conditions or at least put bounds upon them

Can anyone say for certain all possible variables and scenarios have been found and explored? I doubt that very much.

Perhaps not but one can probably identify the likely scenarios and eliminate the incredulous ones.

 

[Tachocline]

Very good points. To add to that it is shown time and time again (not just rare occurances) where dates are found that make no sense from a long earth, evolutionary perspective. Time and time again excuses are made.

May I just point out that it isn't an excuse when predicted ahead of time.

The RATE project is doing a great job when it deals with the topic of dating. I suggest people check out this link.

Are they? When they attempt to seriously publish and open themselves to scrutiny we shall see. By the way, presenting a couple of posters at a conference does not count as poster sessions are a free for all as long as you pay your money, they are not peer reviewed.

 

[Beowulf]

All these things do is give grounds for a guess. Textbooks are rewritten all the time and I suppose by making that statement I'll have to prove that too.
One guess that supports another guess doesn't make a guess a better guess. I can add ten guesses and it's not going to add up to be a fact.
By taking Genesis as written I'm no longer plaqued by indecision or guesswork. By taking Genesis as literal I already know how the universe began and I already know how it will end and what will replace it.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

If you want to debate this, which is what your doing right now, please take it to forums where it is allowed. That being said many are not predicted ahead of time.

 

[Tachocline]

I very carefully did not debate. I gave no alternate explanation for anything. I gave a generic way of scientific methodology (very generic) and a comment about the RATE group and what they need to do but nothing about their work.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

I very carefully did not debate. I gave no alternate explanation for anything. I gave a generic way of scientific methodology (very generic) and a comment about the RATE group and what they need to do but nothing about their work.

u were totally debating and this is ur excuse? sorry, dude "giving alternative explanations" is what debating is! sheesh! there are forums for this, use them.

 

[Tachocline]

Read what I said. I didn't give any alternate explanation for anything. I asked someone else i.e. NOT YOU, what their thoughts were.

 

[GodSaves]

sigh... how many threads have to be closed before others of the different perspective learn to just leave the debating out. that is what these forums are for. for creationists to debate creationists and evolutionists to debat evolutionists, not inner mixed. why can't some just adhere to this?

 

[notto]

I'd suggest you move into the other forums Notto if you want to debate this issue.

Someone used a statement I had made in another thread here. They misrepresented my position and I was clarifying it.

If the creationists in this forum do not wish others to come in to defend or clarify their positions, then they should not directly quote others in this forum or reference other threads directly.