How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[troodon]

You think that people go through ten years of education and spend decades in the field of study and it never dawns on them that they are just presupposing everything?

No... when did I ever claim such a thing? I can only really speak to geology, but we are well aware of the assumptions we make and the assumptions we can't make. We do not presuppose everything, but we do "stand on the shoulders of giants" and generally accept previous work, at least tentatively, until and unless we have reason to do otherwise.

The earth being older than 6,000 years is one thing that we safely presume.

All that and they don't really have evidence it's just what they were taught?

We have tons of evidence, but we also don't reinvent the wheel every time we do research. I'm looking at biodiversity in the early Anisian Holbrook Member of the Moenkopi Formation. I don't start out my research by again demonstrating that the Holbrook is early Anisian in age. I accept the work done by previous researchers who demonstrated this to my satisfaction and proceed from there.

 

[sfs]

We're going to be learning what those old-earth presuppositions are real soon now, right?

 

[Jig]

We're going to be learning what those old-earth presuppositions are real soon now, right?

Do you not know your own presuppositions? I am aware of mine. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about.

Since I interpret Genesis 1-11 as true historical narrative, I presuppose that God supernaturally created the Earth fully mature - in much the same way He created Adam fully mature. Another example of this supernatural maturity is found in Jesus' miracle at Cana. Jesus created fermented grape juice (wine).

Let's say this wine was examined by a scientist one minutes after it was supernaturally created. Of course he would come to the conclusion that it was more than one minute old. In fact, he would probably assume that it was many months, if not years, old.

Why is that?

If I examined the same wine I, too, would assume that the wine was much older than one minute. This is because I would be using the same presuppositions the scientist used. How is someone to know the wine was supernaturally created? They would need to be told. God tells us in Genesis that the universe is supernaturally created. Science is based on naturalism - as it should be! However, this limits its ability to detect supernatural activity, it must always assume a natural explanation and conclusion.

The natural conclusion for the Earth's maturity is that it took millions of years to form.

 

[Jazer]

The earth being older than 6,000 years is one thing that we safely presume.

I think what is safe to assume is Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." It looks like OEC & YEC can agree when God finished. They seem to not agree on the Beginning. OEC is not quite sure when the beginning was, but they believe the beginning was a long time ago. YEC is of the opinion that the beginning was much more recent. Still they seem to agree on when God finished the work that He began.

 

[Jazer]

Let's say that there are 3 hypotheses:

1) God created the universe ~14 billion years ago and allowed the universe to evolve naturally
2) God created the universe ~6000 years ago with the appearance of age
3) God created the universe last Tuesday with the appearance of age, including false memories in all earth's organisms.

Two is a contradiction. Either you have a universe or you have the appearance of a universe. There are so many things we go by to determine the age of the universe. WE have a lot of fossils and skeltons that seems to be a personal message from God showing us His work. We have lime deposits that are made up skeltons from many organisms no longer alive. How can all of that be an appearance and not real?

 

[shernren]

Do you not know your own presuppositions? I am aware of mine. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about.

Since I interpret Genesis 1-11 as true historical narrative, I presuppose that God supernaturally created the Earth fully mature - in much the same way He created Adam fully mature. Another example of this supernatural maturity is found in Jesus' miracle at Cana. Jesus created fermented grape juice (wine).

Let's say this wine was examined by a scientist one minutes after it was supernaturally created. Of course he would come to the conclusion that it was more than one minute old. In fact, he would probably assume that it was many months, if not years, old.

Why is that?

If I examined the same wine I, too, would assume that the wine was much older than one minute. This is because I would be using the same presuppositions the scientist used. How is someone to know the wine was supernaturally created? They would need to be told. God tells us in Genesis that the universe is supernaturally created. Science is based on naturalism - as it should be! However, this limits its ability to detect supernatural activity, it must always assume a natural explanation and conclusion.

The natural conclusion for the Earth's maturity is that it took millions of years to form.

An evolutionist and a creationist sit down to date a zircon. (They should've read more Joshua Harris. Zing!)

The evolutionist says:

I will presuppose that the zircon had no lead when it was initially formed, and that the rate of uranium's decay was the same as what it is now.
Let's test its uranium-lead ratio. *whirr buzz creak blam*
Aha! If I am right that the zircon had no lead when it was initially formed, and that the rate of uranium's decay was the same as what it is now, then it is about 4.64 billion years old!
​

The creationist says:

I will presuppose that the zircon was created a few thousand years ago, but it might look a bazillion years older for no reason.
Let's test its uranium-lead ratio. *whirr buzz creak blam*
Aha! If I am right that the zircon was created a few thousand years ago, but it might look a bazillion years older for no reason, then it really was created a few thousand years ago but looks a bazillion years older for no reason!
​

The evolutionist ends up with much more than he put in with his presuppositions. The creationist ends up with exactly the same (and often less).

For the evolutionist uses his presuppositions to explore God's physical creation; the creationist, to immunize himself from it.

 

[Jig]

An evolutionist and a creationist sit down to date a zircon. (They should've read more Joshua Harris. Zing!)

The evolutionist says:

I will presuppose that the zircon had no lead when it was initially formed, and that the rate of uranium's decay was the same as what it is now.
Let's test its uranium-lead ratio. *whirr buzz creak blam*
Aha! If I am right that the zircon had no lead when it was initially formed, and that the rate of uranium's decay was the same as what it is now, then it is about 4.64 billion years old!
​

The creationist says:

I will presuppose that the zircon was created a few thousand years ago, but it might look a bazillion years older for no reason.
Let's test its uranium-lead ratio. *whirr buzz creak blam*
Aha! If I am right that the zircon was created a few thousand years ago, but it might look a bazillion years older for no reason, then it really was created a few thousand years ago but looks a bazillion years older for no reason!
​

The evolutionist ends up with much more than he put in with his presuppositions. The creationist ends up with exactly the same (and often less).

For the evolutionist uses his presuppositions to explore God's physical creation; the creationist, to immunize himself from it.

You have misrepresented my position to make your position look superior - but be my guest and have all the fun you want with that straw man. I also sense that you would rather appeal to ridicule than actually treat me like an intelligent person.

 

[sfs]

Do you not know your own presuppositions? I am aware of mine. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about.

Since I interpret Genesis 1-11 as true historical narrative, I presuppose that God supernaturally created the Earth fully mature - in much the same way He created Adam fully mature. Another example of this supernatural maturity is found in Jesus' miracle at Cana. Jesus created fermented grape juice (wine).

Let's say this wine was examined by a scientist one minutes after it was supernaturally created. Of course he would come to the conclusion that it was more than one minute old. In fact, he would probably assume that it was many months, if not years, old.

Why is that?

If I examined the same wine I, too, would assume that the wine was much older than one minute. This is because I would be using the same presuppositions the scientist used. How is someone to know the wine was supernaturally created? They would need to be told. God tells us in Genesis that the universe is supernaturally created. Science is based on naturalism - as it should be! However, this limits its ability to detect supernatural activity, it must always assume a natural explanation and conclusion.

The natural conclusion for the Earth's maturity is that it took millions of years to form.

Yes, I know my own presuppositions, and you don't know them, I'm afraid. Or rather, you don't know that I started out with the presupposition that Genesis 1-11 was a true historical account of the world's origin and early history. Trying to square that presupposition with the physical evidence eventually became too hard an exercise in mental gymnastics for me, however. It's not just that the world looks mature; it looks like it has billions of years of detailed history. It also looks like it had never had a global flood on it. Similarly, the genetics of almost all species look like they have never gone through a tight genetic bottleneck like the Flood (or Adam and Eve, for humans). So it is logically possible to believe that every event in Genesis 1-11 happened just as written, and that God supernaturally removed every trace of every one of them, and replaced them with billions of pieces of evidence pointing to things that never happened -- but I am simply not capable of maintaining that belief, especially since the presupposition it rests on seems to have been pulled from thin air. It ends up looking like faith as Mark Twain would have it: believing what you know ain't so. Why believe that every piece of physical evidence is unreliable except for the physical evidence of some marks on a few pages in a book?

 

[troodon]

How can all of that be an appearance and not real?

If God deliberately made it that way, as suggested in post #163. That's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it's the only way the Earth can possibly be 6,000 years old.

 

[miamited]

hi 1nChrist,

You asked how each of us have resolved the creation\evolution debate within our own mind.

I start with the knowledge that God's word is true.

There may be much that I don't understand about the ways and power of God, but rule #1 is that God's word is true. I also begin with the knowledge that God is more powerful and wiser than any other being in either this realm or the angelic realm.

By starting with these two basic understandings of God, then when the word says that in the beginning God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence, I reflect upon the power, majesty and wisdom of God and fully agree that He is able, without problem, to do just that. That the God I know can take a black, empty void of never ending emptiness and suddenly by the power of His command cause to appear a fully formed and mature planet standing singular within the blackness of the never ending void of space. I understand that that same God can then merely command that there be light of some kind shining into the black empty void of limitless space. What is the source of the light? We are not given that information, but I am confidently assured that whatever it's source, it didn't exist in this realm mere moments before the singular planet was commanded into existence by this powerful, majestic and awesome, wise God.

So, according to the Scriptures we now have God, Jesus, God's Spirit, the angelic realm and a singular planet in the empty void of space surrounded by light. The planet that God created then spins once on it's axis and it completes the time of a day. Now, knowing that God is the Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, He knows that there will come a day that man will choose to follow myths and his own wisdom to discern the way of creation. He knows that a time will come when men will argue that we have no definitive 'proof' that this 'day' God speaks of is a literal, roughly 24 hour day. One rotation of the earth on it's axis, just as it is today and so God causes to be written into the account of the creation that He reveals to us, that there was evening and there was morning the first day.

For practically the entire period of the 6,000 year history of this realm of creation, man has defined a day as the period of an evening and morning. Of course, today in our modern understanding we have actually turned the sequence around to morning and evening, but it makes no difference. A day has always been the time it takes for the earth to make one complete turn on it's axis and divided into two equal parts of morning/evening or evening/morning.

Yes, today in our modern understanding and because it has been thus for as long as history records, we have the mistaken understanding that a day really includes the rising and setting of the sun. However, strictly speaking of the scientific calculation of the period of a day, it is merely one full rotation of the earth upon it's axis. The rising and setting of the sun are actually symptoms of the rotation, but not the definition of the rotation.

One fact that I have come to clearly understand is that God knew all the history of mankind before it came to be history. I believe that this is made clear by all the prophetic passages of the Scriptures. There is no way that God could cause to have written in His revelation to us, the many, many prophecies of events to come unless He is able to see the beginning and the end. Knowing this 'fact' and accepting it gives me great assurance that God didn't just add the evening and morning reference to define the days of creation as just some superflous explanation. No, not at all.

Some argue that the 'days' might be 1000 years. After all God's word does declare that 1000 years is like a day unto the Lord and a day like unto a 1000 years. God knew there would be people who would fall into that error and so He purposely caused to be written, 'evening and morning'. No one has ever described a millineal period as an evening and morning.

Some argue that the 'days' might be epochs or eons of time. These are generally the more scientific minded who have decided that man's wisdom supercedes God's. But again, I don't believe there has ever been a singular literary reference ever made that an epoch or eon of time is defined as an evening and morning. Never! Although I am certainly willing to look at any information passed on to me regarding this.

So, let's recap. Understanding that God's word is truth and that God's wisdom supreme and that this God knew long ago that men would continually work to discredit His truth, after all that seems to be the clear implication of Paul's writing in the first chapter of Romans and his instruction to Timothy, God blessed those who would believe with certain written 'proofs' that confirm the literal events and time of His creating this realm of existence as a place for flesh to live.

Further, God then continues with an accounting of the generations of man from Adam to Noah, Noah to Moses and finally both Adam and Abraham to Jesus. It is a fairly simple mathematical calculation to arrive at a very, very close approximation of the number of years that this created realm has existed. Both the Hebrew calendar and the revelation of God to us through His written word affirm that the span of 'time' in this realm of creation is approximately 6,000 years.

Yes, I am mocked and ridiculed near daily when I propose this understanding of God's word, but I console myself that I'm not here to agree with men, but to agree with my loving Creator. The one who gives and sustains life. The one who loves me so much that He gave His only begotten Son's life as a substitute for mine. It is that God, and that God alone that I seek to be in agreement with. As far as I am concerned all the facts and figures and scientific data that point to an old naturally created heirarchy of the animals and some trillion year old history of the universe falls under the warning of Paul to his protege' Timothy: For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/4.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/4.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

So, surely we find a great, great, great number of teachers telling all that will listen what their itching ears want to hear.

(Disclaimer: The truths expressed herein are only known to be believed by the author and should not in any way be construed as being the truth that all men believe)

God bless you and thanks for asking.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

....

I will presuppose that the zircon was created a few thousand years ago, but it might look a bazillion years older for no reason.....​

Meh, nice try. You still don't understand the other side. You exposed yourself by adding "for no reason." Special creation and miracles is a concept you're never going get, mainly because you're so emotionally dug in.​

 

[troodon]

Meh, nice try. You still don't understand the other side. You exposed yourself by adding "for no reason." Special creation and miracles is a concept you're never going get, mainly because you're so emotionally dug in.

Then what is the reason that zircons appear to be billions of years old?

 

[Jig]

Then what is the reason that zircons appear to be billions of years old?

Since I have not studied zircons I am unable to provide you with a specific explanation for this.

Why did Adam and Eve "appear" to have gone through childhood and puberty?

Why did the wine at Cana "appear" to have gone through the prolonged process of fermentation?

 

[shernren]

Meh, nice try. You still don't understand the other side. You exposed yourself by adding "for no reason." Special creation and miracles is a concept you're never going get, mainly because you're so emotionally dug in.

Yeah, I'm sure this guy is so totally closed-minded that he'll never understand the other side:

My presuppositions are already strongly Christian enough for me to believe that a man can be God, rise from the dead, and ascend into Heaven, something nobody in my lifetime or yours has ever reliably witnessed. I will spit in the face of scientific materialism to hold to that outlandish belief ... and yet I won't accept what you say about a few meters of lake mud.

Shouldn't you find that curious? Just what do you propose I add to my presuppositions, so that I may believe in addition to the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ that dust can settle on the bottom of a lake in a few thousand years instead of a few tens of thousands of years?
​

And of course, this sounds like a guy so emotionally dug in that he's never going to get special creation and miracles:

Now I happen to be quite unconvinced by the whole "Apparent age makes God a liar" stuff. I do happen to think that there is very good coherent evidence for the old age of the universe. But when things are created ex nihilo, there are bound to be many measures of age that will give "inaccurate" results, simply by definition.

Adam in the Garden is a good example. Sure, he wouldn't have a navel. But you could fit his height and weight to a normal human growth curve and determine that he's about 20 - or 30 - or whatever. The only way his height and weight could have reflected his real age is if he were created a pint-sized midget. Furthermore, that carbon in his body? That is only produced as a result of nucleosynthesis in fairly aged stars, and it could only have gotten to the Earth as a result of dispersion from a supernova (it couldn't have been made in our Sun, since our Sun is obviously not yet a red giant). So the very fact that God used carbon to create things in a young universe would be a "lie"?​

Someone sure is dug in in this conversation but I highly doubt it's me.

Since I have not studied zircons I am unable to provide you with a specific explanation for this.

Why did Adam and Eve "appear" to have gone through childhood and puberty?

Why did the wine at Cana "appear" to have gone through the prolonged process of fermentation?

Well, maybe you should have studied zircons, because there's a difference between them and Adam.

This is what a 5-year-old Adam might have looked like:

And this is what a 20-year-old Adam might have looked like:

This is what 5-minute-old grape juice tastes like:

and this is what 100-year-old grape juice might taste like:

So how does that compare to zircons? Find out in my next exciting post (because CF.com doesn't let me post more than 5 pictures per post).

 

[shernren]

This is what a zircon with lots of uranium in it - i.e., a young-looking zircon - might look like:

And this is what a zircon with lots of lead in it - i.e. an old-looking zircon - might look like:

For what it's worth, here's what a zircon with neither uranium nor lead in it - a zircon which not only looks young, but will always look young - might look like:

"But they all look the same!"

And wouldn't you know it? (There's an even more dramatic presentation here of how little a zircon's age affects its appearance and functional characteristic, but the picture is massive.)

See, there's a big functional difference between a 5-year-old baby and a 20-year-old young man, or 5-minute-old grape juice and 100-year-old wine. But the only difference between a world full of old-looking zircons and a world full of young-looking zircons is that in the latter the evolutionists have one piece of evidence less to prove that the world is older than a few thousand years. Back to the emotionally dug in, closed-minded evolutionist:

... there is very good evidence of the age of the universe and of the earth. I'm just saying that it is no lie for God to create with apparent age / history, given that 1) there is little logical possibility of Him creating without apparent age / history and 2) God never guaranteed that our age measurements were going to work anyway. The question is, what motive would God have had to create with apparent age?

I think the way I would put it is, there are many evidences of apparent age which God would have had no sensible motive to create. The motivations would have been insensible, not in the sense that God is going foaming mad at the mouth (although if you want to paint those connotations in I can't stop you), but in the sense that they would not be motives that we can understand or "sense".

For example, what would compel God to create every single rock we have ever been able to get our hands on with coherent isotopic ratios that enable isochron dating?​

Which includes zircons.

Pro-tip for Calminian and Jig: next time stop pontificating about how obviously bigoted your opponent is and maybe, I dunno, answer the argument. (Like, find out what a zircon is? Maybe that would help?) Or is it only ever a personal attack when an evolutionist tries to answer a creationist?

EDIT: While zircons do undergo metamictization after extensive uranium decay, the process often doesn't produce much visible change. Furthermore, zircons are only used as decorative gemstones (and for radiodating): nobody would notice tomorrow if all the old-looking zircons in the world were replaced with young-looking zircons. Except them evolutionists ...

 

[Jig]

Wait...you think Jesus made "grape juice" out of water at Cana and not wine?

Either way, grape juice comes from mature, grown, and crushed grapes. Yet, no grapes were ever grown for this wine, no grapes were ever crushed for this wine, and no grape juice went through the process of fermentation for this wine. It just was. Was Jesus being deceptive?

 

[shernren]

Wine is grape juice. Fermented, yes, but still fermented grape juice. (And there are people who would in fact think that what Jesus made in Cana was unfermented grape juice, not wine, for example: Did Jesus Turn The Water Into Alcoholic Wine)

In any case, you are simply not reading what I am posting. I said:

... it is no lie for God to create with apparent age / history, given that 1) there is little logical possibility of Him creating without apparent age / history and 2) God never guaranteed that our age measurements were going to work anyway. The question is, what motive would God have had to create with apparent age?
​

In the context of Jesus creating wine at Cana, the motive is obvious: certain chemicals which make wine (or grape juice) taste good are produced by many years of fermentation, and so the wine could not have been created with a good taste without there being chemical signals pointing to many years of fermentation.

(So no, that would not be deceptive, and notice that I have never argued that God was or is being deceptive in creating with apparent age - as I have pointed out many times in this and previous posts - so quit with the strawman.)

By contrast, what is the motive for God to make zircons all over the world contain both uranium and lead? And not just uranium and lead, but uranium and lead in specific ratios? And not just uranium and lead in specific ratios in individual rocks, but in such a way that rocks all around the world have ratios that correlate very specifically with the environments in which they are found; and not just with any old correlation, but with the kinds of correlations which are most naturally explained by them being billions of years old?

The uranium-lead ratio of zircons is not used for anything other than radiometric dating. Did God create those zircons, then, specifically to give us a particular value of radiometric dates? I leave you to ponder the ramifications.

 

[Jig]

Wine is grape juice. Fermented, yes, but still fermented grape juice. (And there are people who would in fact think that what Jesus made in Cana was unfermented grape juice, not wine, for example: Did Jesus Turn The Water Into Alcoholic Wine)

In any case, you are simply not reading what I am posting. I said:

... it is no lie for God to create with apparent age / history, given that 1) there is little logical possibility of Him creating without apparent age / history and 2) God never guaranteed that our age measurements were going to work anyway. The question is, what motive would God have had to create with apparent age?
​

In the context of Jesus creating wine at Cana, the motive is obvious: certain chemicals which make wine (or grape juice) taste good are produced by many years of fermentation, and so the wine could not have been created with a good taste without there being chemical signals pointing to many years of fermentation.

(So no, that would not be deceptive, and notice that I have never argued that God was or is being deceptive in creating with apparent age - as I have pointed out many times in this and previous posts - so quit with the strawman.)

By contrast, what is the motive for God to make zircons all over the world contain both uranium and lead? And not just uranium and lead, but uranium and lead in specific ratios? And not just uranium and lead in specific ratios in individual rocks, but in such a way that rocks all around the world have ratios that correlate very specifically with the environments in which they are found; and not just with any old correlation, but with the kinds of correlations which are most naturally explained by them being billions of years old?

The uranium-lead ratio of zircons is not used for anything other than radiometric dating. Did God create those zircons, then, specifically to give us a particular value of radiometric dates? I leave you to ponder the ramifications.

I do not believe God created with "apparent age". You seem to think that age and maturity are analogous. They are not.

Age is the actual amount of time something has existed.
Maturity is the state or quality of being developed.

I believe God created a mature world - fully developed and ready for life to thrive on it. To do this God would not need to embed age.

The age of these zircons seem to formulated from presuppositions. Again, this is not an issue of science. It is an issue of philosophy.

 

[shernren]

I do not believe God created with "apparent age". You seem to think that age and maturity are analogous. They are not.

Age is the actual amount of time something has existed.
Maturity is the state or quality of being developed.

I believe God created a mature world - fully developed and ready for life to thrive on it. To do this God would not need to embed age.

So how is a zircon with lots of lead in it any more "mature" than a zircon with lots of uranium in it?

Remember, this is all it boils down to: a zircon can either have more lead than uranium or less lead than uranium, and you're saying that the world is somehow a sparklier and livelier place if the former is true rather than the latter.

Age, schmage - you can try to whiz away the words you don't like, but you won't be able to escape the concepts behind them. I agree that it's not an issue of science. It's more an issue of refusing to deal with evidence that won't go away.

 

[Jig]

So how is a zircon with lots of lead in it any more "mature" than a zircon with lots of uranium in it?

Your zircon post boiled down to this: what motive would God have had to create with apparent age?

This is a fallacious question because it falsely assumes that God did create with apparent age (which you and I both know to be illogical). When I was explaining the difference between maturity and age it was this fallacy I was addressing, not the issue of zircon appearance.

As for the zircon appearance, how it got that way is an issue of presupposition.

Remember, this is all it boils down to: a zircon can either have more lead than uranium or less lead than uranium, and you're saying that the world is somehow a sparklier and livelier place if the former is true rather than the latter.

When did I say that? When I was talking about maturity I was not taking about the zircon appearance. I was correcting your fallacious statement.

Age, schmage - you can try to whiz away the words you don't like, but you won't be able to escape the concepts behind them. I agree that it's not an issue of science. It's more an issue of refusing to deal with evidence that won't go away.

Whiz away the words? Do you really think age an maturity are the same thing?