God Creating Complex Objects With Apparent Age

[Heissonear]

Well, you would have to define "transitional fossils" for me. It was science fiction author Isaac Asimov who wrote that the Lord could create a world that appeared to be billions of years old. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

No need to wonder if God Created an Earth that look like it was formed by natural process.

One unmistakable Biblical example is Eve.

After she was 1 day old if an old Earth believer was to ask her how old she was, when said 24 hours would the old Earth believer have said she was correct or that she was lying?

 

[dreadnought]

No need to wonder if God Created an Earth that look like it was formed by natural process.

One unmistakable Biblical example is Eve.

After she was 1 day old if an old Earth believer was to ask her how old she was, when said 24 hours would the old Earth believer have said she was correct or that she was lying?

That is a good point. It might also suggest Eve was a symbol.

 

[Zatek]

No need to wonder if God Created an Earth that look like it was formed by natural process.

One unmistakable Biblical example is Eve.

After she was 1 day old if an old Earth believer was to ask her how old she was, when said 24 hours would the old Earth believer have said she was correct or that she was lying?

Age and history are not the same thing. Eve may look 20-25 because she was a full grown adult, but would she have fake scars from cuts that never happened, or fake callouses from work she never did?

The world looks old because it has an appearance of history. We can see evidence of all sorts of things in Earth's history such as huge meteor impacts that made the entire planet uninhabitable for life.

If Adam and Eve were on the Earth only a few days after it was created, how did they survive when dust from meteor impacts blocked out the sun for decades? If such events never happened, why did God put hundreds of thousands of impact craters on Earth, the moon, and Mars, to make it look like they did?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Which should a person do foremost towards understanding Earth's origin and history: turn to God or to Science?

Which one of the above holds the Key that unlocks Reality?

Does mankind need to know God and His Ways first or can they by-pass such and through scientific enquiry understand the Reality of Earth's past?

If they by-pass God to know about Earth's history do they make geologic science an idol?

Does a person first need to learn of God's Ways before concluding what they learned from geologic science?

Does the Bible clearly present Scriptures of at least one of God's Ways of Creating? Scriptures plain to understand of at least one of His Creative Ways?

Does the Bible present that God has used Apparent-Embedded Age when Creating complex objects?

I'd recommend starting with science, if that's too hard to understand, go for religion. IMO religion should always be taken figuratively and not as seriously as people on this site do. Just look for the positive aspects of religion, while discarding stuff that retards the progress of society. IMO.
Why does a person even need an idol?
I don't get the last part.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Has mankind found any transitional fossils of the billions recovered?

Yes, lots of them. And, in a sense, every fossil is transitional, because all populations evolve.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Well, you would have to define "transitional fossils" for me. It was science fiction author Isaac Asimov who wrote that the Lord could create a world that appeared to be billions of years old. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

That's a complete misrepresentation of Asimov's views. You may note that he was an atheist. It is also a bit disingenuous to refer to him a science fiction writer, since the main part of his writing was in science and education. He was a professor of biochemistry.

What he actually wrote was:

What kind of a Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that included the creation and development of life on Earth.

Why? Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong? Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth? Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor? The argument from authority.

The quote is from an opinion piece in The New York Times 1981 titled The 'Threat' of Creationism.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which should a person do foremost towards understanding Earth's origin and history: turn to God or to Science?

Which one of the above holds the Key that unlocks Reality?

Does mankind need to know God and His Ways first or can they by-pass such and through scientific enquiry understand the Reality of Earth's past?

If they by-pass God to know about Earth's history do they make geologic science an idol?

Does a person first need to learn of God's Ways before concluding what they learned from geologic science?

Does the Bible clearly present Scriptures of at least one of God's Ways of Creating? Scriptures plain to understand of at least one of His Creative Ways?

Does the Bible present that God has used Apparent-Embedded Age when Creating complex objects?

An understanding of both geology and scripture is needed. The thing is, it takes years and years to study and to understand the earth through geology. But genesis 1 and 2 are only so many pages long. A lot of young earthers are taught that the earth is 6000 years old from the day they are born, but dont put forth the time necessary to understand geology. And so, unjustified bias is formed toward a young earth. However, geologists like myself, typically would say that its pretty clear the earth is old. But its a task trying to show that to others who havent studied the science, and it is even harder to discuss the topic with people who have opposing preconceived notions that theyve had since birth.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[durangodawood]

Its a matter of perspective. Nothing looks billions of years old to me. Everything appears exactly as it should according to the Bible.

What would look billions of years old to you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which should a person do foremost towards understanding Earth's origin and history: turn to God or to Science?

I'ld say we would have to turn to the earth itself and investigate.
Which incidently, is how you do science. You don't "turn to" science. Instead, you use science to try and find answers to questions about reality.

Which one of the above holds the Key that unlocks Reality?

None "holds the key". As for which path will be more succesfull in providing usefull answers to questions, obviously that path is the scientific one.

Does mankind need to know God and His Ways first or can they by-pass such and through scientific enquiry understand the Reality of Earth's past?

Assuming God and "his ways" first, as in: before actually investigating the earth, then it seems to me that you are engaging in the fallacy of assumed conclusion.

If they by-pass God to know about Earth's history do they make geologic science an idol?

No.

Does a person first need to learn of God's Ways before concluding what they learned from geologic science?

How would we find out what "God's Ways" are?

Also: what if what you believe religiously, is contradicted by actual reality? Does that mean that your beliefs are wrong, or does it mean that reality is wrong?

Does the Bible clearly present Scriptures of at least one of God's Ways of Creating? Scriptures plain to understand of at least one of His Creative Ways?

Scriptures? Sure, the bible makes all kinds of claims.
Does it provide actual evidence in support of those claims? Nope.

Does the Bible present that God has used Apparent-Embedded Age when Creating complex objects?

How about "embedded history"?
"apparant age" is one thing, "apparant history" is quite another.

For example....
Consider finding this vehicle at a local car dealer:

Let's say it has some 150.000 km's noted on its display.
It has a price tag of $30.000 and the shop owner swears that it is a brand new vehicle created with "embedded age/history".

Would you buy it (both figuratively as well as literally)?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, "fake" is not His Ways. Look again at OP.

Which should a person do foremost towards understanding Earth's origin andhistory: turn to God or to Science?

Turn to the actual data that needs explaining and have that data do the talking.
In other words: turn to the evidence.

Because it's the data that requires an explanation. Your god-claims are about trying to push an explanation/answer, before even asking the questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No need to wonder if God Created an Earth that look like it was formed by natural process.

One unmistakable Biblical example is Eve.

After she was 1 day old if an old Earth believer was to ask her how old she was, when said 24 hours would the old Earth believer have said she was correct or that she was lying?

Would this woman have had a scar from an accident she had back when she was 4-years old?
Thus a scar from an accident that never happened, since she was created with the body of a 20-year old, or whatever, and thus never had the body of a 4-year old?

Because that's how the earth looks: full of scars of things that supposedly never happened under your "embedded age YEC model".

This is why it is important to understand the difference between "apparant age" and "apparant history".

For example, there are hundreds of thousands of winter/summer cycles exhibited in the layers of snow-ice in ice cores taken from the permafrost at the poles.

In a world of just a few thousand year olds, we shouldn't see more layers then just those few thousands.... If "his plan" required a thick layer of permafrost ice - then why don't we just see one thick layer of permafrost ice? Why does it look exactly like that ice is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation of snowy winters followed by non-snowy summers?

See?

And that's just one example....

I could also point out the several salt deposit layers underneath the mediteranian, which is evidence of that sea drying up multiple times throughout geological history (a process that takes millions of years to unfold). Or I could point to the famous white cliffs in England which are the result of millions of years of deposits of sea life.

If you wish to hold on to your "embedded YEC model", then one can only conclude that your god went out of his way to deceive us.



Also, I'ld like to point out that your "embedded model" has the exact same merrit as "Last Thursdayism". Which is the idea that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories, was created last thursday.

 

[Jimmy D]

Would this woman have had a scar from an accident she had back when she was 4-years old?
Thus a scar from an accident that never happened, since she was created with the body of a 20-year old, or whatever, and thus never had the body of a 4-year old?

Because that's how the earth looks: full of scars of things that supposedly never happened under your "embedded age YEC model".

This is why it is important to understand the difference between "apparant age" and "apparant history".

No offence DH, but I think posts like this are part of the reason Creationists feel emboldened enough to actually think that these bizarre ideas have any merit and that there is a legitimate debate to be had.

The notion that a woman magically appeared out of thin air at the behest of a mysterious, invisible deity should not really be treated as a proposition worthy of consideration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No offence DH, but I think posts like this are part of the reason Creationists feel emboldened enough to actually think that these bizarre ideas have any merit and that there is a legitimate debate to be had.

The notion that a woman magically appeared out of thin air at the behest of a mysterious, invisible deity should not really be treated as a proposition worthy of consideration.

I know. But on the flip side, practically nothing any creationist, especially YECs, has to say on such topics is worthy of consideration. Engaging any of that nonsense on any level, aside from just calling it nonsense, can be said to be giving it more attention then it deserves.

I'm also not new at this.... I realise extremely well that people like Heiss are so far gone that there's really nothing I could do or say to bring him back to this dimension we all call "reality".

On the other hand.... pointing out specifically how such models of reality don't explain anything at all and how they are problematic to the highest degree, might hopefully bring some understanding to "lurkers on the fence".

I absolutely agree though, that the only real proper response to posts such as that one, is just a big fat "LOL" in capital letters - if not a "ROTFL".



Also, I must admit that I find it amusing and challenging to actually respond to said nonsense.


But sure, point taken and acknowledged.

 

[Heissonear]

Age and history are not the same thing. Eve may look 20-25 because she was a full grown adult, but would she have fake scars from cuts that never happened. ................

If such events never happened, why did God put hundreds of thousands of impact craters on Earth, the moon, and Mars, to make it look like they did?

It appears you may not understand the multitude of ramifications of Apparent-Embedded Age when God Creates objects from your post example. There are more than one example in the Bible.

 

[Heissonear]

So? That really is a negligible aspect of the story.

Have you been baptisted by the Holy Spirit, where as a Christain Rivers of Living Water directs your mind and teaches you?

 

[Heissonear]

That is a good point. It might also suggest Eve was a symbol.

I fully agree.

 

[Speedwell]

I'ld say we would have to turn to the earth itself and investigate.
Which incidently, is how you do science. You don't "turn to" science. Instead, you use science to try and find answers to questions about reality.



None "holds the key". As for which path will be more succesfull in providing usefull answers to questions, obviously that path is the scientific one.



Assuming God and "his ways" first, as in: before actually investigating the earth, then it seems to me that you are engaging in the fallacy of assumed conclusion.




No.



How would we find out what "God's Ways" are?

Also: what if what you believe religiously, is contradicted by actual reality? Does that mean that your beliefs are wrong, or does it mean that reality is wrong?



Scriptures? Sure, the bible makes all kinds of claims.
Does it provide actual evidence in support of those claims? Nope.



How about "embedded history"?
"apparant age" is one thing, "apparant history" is quite another.

For example....
Consider finding this vehicle at a local car dealer:

View attachment 219791

Let's say it has some 150.000 km's noted on its display.
It has a price tag of $30.000 and the shop owner swears that it is a brand new vehicle created with "embedded age/history".

Would you buy it (both figuratively as well as literally)?

I should say not. A 2CV in that condition isn't worth more than $10K--assuming it runs.

 

[Heissonear]

I'd recommend starting with science, if that's too hard to understand, go for religion. IMO religion should always be taken figuratively and not as seriously as people on this site do. Just look for the positive aspects of religion, while discarding stuff that retards the progress of society. IMO.
Why does a person even need an idol?
I don't get the last part.

But on your path to science as first and foremost knowledge you lack what knowledge and understanding Life from the Holy Spirit will instruct and make you aware of.

Do you think the below verse presents an option to attaining Reality of things around us?

 

[Jimmy D]

I know. But on the flip side, practically nothing any creationist, especially YECs, has to say on such topics is worthy of consideration. Engaging any of that nonsense on any level, aside from just calling it nonsense, can be said to be giving it more attention then it deserves.

I'm also not new at this.... I realise extremely well that people like Heiss are so far gone that there's really nothing I could do or say to bring him back to this dimension we all call "reality".

On the other hand.... pointing out specifically how such models of reality don't explain anything at all and how they are problematic to the highest degree, might hopefully bring some understanding to "lurkers on the fence".

I absolutely agree though, that the only real proper response to posts such as that one, is just a big fat "LOL" in capital letters - if not a "ROTFL".



Also, I must admit that I find it amusing and challenging to actually respond to said nonsense.


But sure, point taken and acknowledged.

Oh, I'm not trying to discourage you, and I completely agree with the above points. It just seems a bit weird sometimes