How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[shernren]

It really just boils down to this:

Is there any good reason zircons created a few thousand years ago should have more lead than uranium in them?

The moment you answer this, you will have completely answered my objection.

Conversely, the longer you fail to answer this, the longer you have failed to answer my objection.

 

[Jig]

It really just boils down to this:

Is there any good reason zircons created a few thousand years ago should have more lead than uranium in them?

The moment you answer this, you will have completely answered my objection.

Conversely, the longer you fail to answer this, the longer you have failed to answer my objection.

Your original objection was flawed. It included the idea that God created with "apparent age". I had to first address that issue.

As for your new objection, it is subjective because you desire a "good" reason. We both have a different opinion on what constitutes a "good" reason. Any interpretation I give that doesn't align with your presuppositions will get rejected as "not good". Since I have different presuppositions than you, it is impossible for me to answer your objection in a way that will satisfy you.

 

[shernren]

Your original objection was flawed. It included the idea that God created with "apparent age". I had to first address that issue.

So not wrapping an otherwise cogent objection in the correct creationist shibboleth is a "flaw". Got it.

As for your new objection, it is subjective because you desire a "good" reason. We both have a different opinion on what constitutes a "good" reason. Any interpretation I give that doesn't align with your presuppositions will get rejected as "not good". Since I have different presuppositions than you, it is impossible for me to answer your objection in a way that will satisfy you.

Again with the self-defeating talk. Have you ever tried evangelizing like this, by the way? "Look, I know you have problems with Christianity, but guess what - it's impossible for me to answer your objection in a way that will satisfy you, because we have different presuppositions."

I wonder how far the apostles would have gotten as presuppositionalists.

Anyway, let's talk about your presuppositions, then. According to your own post:

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.

Can I take that as a reasonable working definition of "mature"? Fully developed and ready for life to thrive?

If not, then you're confusing your own self.

But if yes, then I think I can formulate my objection in a way that makes sense even if I adopt your presuppositions:

Would zircons being created with more lead than uranium in them make the world more "fully developed", or "more ready for life to thrive on it"?
​

If not, then their being found as such cannot constitute an instance of being created with apparent maturity.

 

[Jig]

So not wrapping an otherwise cogent objection in the correct creationist shibboleth is a "flaw". Got it.

First off, your objection was not convincing, because - yes - it was flawed. The idea and term "apparent age" may be used by some misguided creationists but it is not the majority view of those who have properly studied "young earth" creationism. Concerning my position this idea is far from being "correct creationist shibboleth".

Would zircons being created with more lead than uranium in them make the world more "fully developed", or "more ready for life to thrive on it"?

This is not objectively answerable. You are forcing me to make assumptions I (or you) simply cannot know. How would I know what zircons looked like after God created them?

 

[shernren]

But we know what zircons look like now: with more lead than uranium.

Furthermore, there is no known natural process that incorporates lead into existing zircons without disrupting them.

So isn't it a straightforward conclusion that zircons, should they have been created thousands of years ago, must indeed have been created with more lead than uranium? (Note that in doing so I assume absolutely nothing about their age or their "maturity".)

 

[shernren]

First off, your objection was not convincing, because - yes - it was flawed. The idea and term "apparent age" may be used by some misguided creationists but it is not the majority view of those who have properly studied "young earth" creationism. Concerning my position this idea is far from being "correct creationist shibboleth".

Some misguided creationists indeed, like this guy:

If a tree were cut down in the Garden of Eden one day after the Creation week, how many rings would it have had? Possibly hundreds, yet it would have been only five days old (trees and other plants, remember, were created on day three of the Creation week). So, the real age of the tree and the apparent age of the tree would have been quite different. Just because this Earth may appear older than 6,000 years, that does not mean it is older than that. [emphases in original]
​

Or maybe this guy:

When Adam was created, he would have been a fully functioning human being. But this would require him to have some “apparent age,” since he would have been a “fully-grown” man. It has been suggested that the universe is similar, displaying “apparent age” in order to function properly.
​

Or maybe this guy:

This is a tough one, my assignment: "Why does the universe look so old?" Well, we have limited options. Number one, maybe the universe looks so old because it is old. Option number two, maybe the universe looks very old but it is not actually so old as it looks. There could be perhaps a third option or any number of derivatives in which we simply say "we can't answer the question". Or, there may be some who would say "the question is not important". But I am going to suggest to you this morning that the question is extremely important, and it is one for which we must be ready to give an answer.
​

Or maybe this book:

It [the universe] must have had an "appearance of age" at the moment of creation. The photons of light energy were created at the same instant as the stars from which they were apparently derived, so that an observer on earth would have been able to see the most distant stars within his vision at that instant of creation.​

I think it's quite fitting that you would consider Apologetics Press, Answers in Genesis, Albert Mohler, and Whitcomb and Morris - writing The Genesis Flood - as "some misguided creationists". I happen to agree heartily with you.

 

[Jig]

Some misguided creationists indeed, like this guy:

If a tree were cut down in the Garden of Eden one day after the Creation week, how many rings would it have had? Possibly hundreds, yet it would have been only five days old (trees and other plants, remember, were created on day three of the Creation week). So, the real age of the tree and the apparent age of the tree would have been quite different. Just because this Earth may appear older than 6,000 years, that does not mean it is older than that. [emphases in original]
​

Or maybe this guy:

When Adam was created, he would have been a fully functioning human being. But this would require him to have some “apparent age,” since he would have been a “fully-grown” man. It has been suggested that the universe is similar, displaying “apparent age” in order to function properly.
​

Or maybe this guy:

This is a tough one, my assignment: "Why does the universe look so old?" Well, we have limited options. Number one, maybe the universe looks so old because it is old. Option number two, maybe the universe looks very old but it is not actually so old as it looks. There could be perhaps a third option or any number of derivatives in which we simply say "we can't answer the question". Or, there may be some who would say "the question is not important". But I am going to suggest to you this morning that the question is extremely important, and it is one for which we must be ready to give an answer.
​

Or maybe this book:

It [the universe] must have had an "appearance of age" at the moment of creation. The photons of light energy were created at the same instant as the stars from which they were apparently derived, so that an observer on earth would have been able to see the most distant stars within his vision at that instant of creation.​

I think it's quite fitting that you would consider Apologetics Press, Answers in Genesis, Albert Mohler, and Whitcomb and Morris - writing The Genesis Flood - as "some misguided creationists". I happen to agree heartily with you.

I actually agree with the above quotes. Before you claim I'm being hypocritical check this out:

I now understand our problem. We have been interpreting the term "apparent age" differently.

I have not been defining the term "apparent" as "ostensible rather than actual". I have been defining it as "evident and actual". It just so happens that "apparent" has contrasting definitions.

I do not believe God created with actual age. However, I would agree that under your presuppositions God's fully developed creation would merely be perceived to be aged - when it is in fact not.

 

[Jig]

But we know what zircons look like now: with more lead than uranium.

Furthermore, there is no known natural process that incorporates lead into existing zircons without disrupting them.

So isn't it a straightforward conclusion that zircons, should they have been created thousands of years ago, must indeed have been created with more lead than uranium? (Note that in doing so I assume absolutely nothing about their age or their "maturity".)

But you assume they appear this way because they were initially formed by purely natural processes that fit within your uniformitarianistic worldview.

 

[Papias]

Why do discussions with creationists so often come to the point where the creationist states that he or she has redefined common and already defined words with the creationist's new, personal definitions, and expects others to take them seriously?

Papias

 

[shernren]

I actually agree with the above quotes. Before you claim I'm being hypocritical check this out:

I now understand our problem. We have been interpreting the term "apparent age" differently.

I have not been defining the term "apparent" as "ostensible rather than actual". I have been defining it as "evident and actual". It just so happens that "apparent" has contrasting definitions.

I do not believe God created with actual age. However, I would agree that under your presuppositions God's fully developed creation would merely be perceived to be aged - when it is in fact not.

Fair enough - but you should be aware that, as the creationist quotes above show, not just evolutionists but the majority of creationists use the term "apparent age" to mean "ostensible rather than actual age", just the way you choose not to use the word.

You may be thinking of Ken Ham's commentary here where he opines that "maturity" and "age" are separate concepts. While his point is clear, his language is not: in this case it is the word "age" that is not being treated properly, and two (or three) concepts are being squashed into one. "Aging" does have a negative sense, of course, but it can also have a neutral sense or even a positive one. I would like to believe, for example, that in a perfect world wine would still get better with age. Certainly Adam's children would have been born babies, and have had to grow up into adults, so that the passage of time would have effect on them, in contrast to Ham's vision of a world in which time apparently (ostensibly, that is) stands still so that the idea of "apparent age" is meaningless.

In any case, be aware that the way you are using these terms is highly non-standard, and you will have to explain yourself much more clearly if you want to stick to these usages.

But you assume they appear this way because they were initially formed by purely natural processes that fit within your uniformitarianistic worldview.

No, I assume that zircons have more lead than uranium in them, because they actually do.

That is, I take a rock (or a scraping of it) and pop it into a machine called a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer counts how often it picks up an atom of uranium, and how often it picks up an atom of lead, and then tells me how those two numbers compare to each other. All this is done in real time, in the lab - "observationally" or "operationally", to use one of your creationist terms. And it is operationally observed that most typical zircons indeed have far more lead in them than uranium in them.

So once again let me ask you simple questions:

1. Do you think the statement "This zircon has more lead than uranium in it", by itself (assuming it is true of the zircon in question), says nothing about the age of the zircon?

2. Therefore, would you as a creationist feel that you would be able to agree with such a statement?

3. If yes, how would you propose to explain how this state of affairs (the zircon having more lead than uranium in it) came about, within your worldview?

 

[shernren]

Why do discussions with creationists so often come to the point where the creationist states that he or she has redefined common and already defined words with the creationist's new, personal definitions, and expects others to take them seriously?

Papias

To be fair, that's what creationists always think we evolutionists are doing.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

To be fair, that's what creationists always think we evolutionists are doing.

People cognizant of the facts of evolution at least have reality in their side.

 

[gluadys]

To be fair, that's what creationists always think we evolutionists are doing.

With some justification. Science does tend to adopt words in common use and then give them a technical meaning. Look how often one has to explain that a "theory" in science is not, as in common parlance, anyone's guess with or without evidence.

And look at how science has dropped the concept of natural "laws" in favour of statistical probabilities--a practice most non-scientists have not caught up with yet.

The philosophy, practice, theoretical views and language of science does change and it is confusing to anyone who hasn't looked at it seriously in the last decade or so.

Of course, it doesn't help that anti-science sources also redefine scientific terms to suit themselves.

 

[Jig]

In any case, be aware that the way you are using these terms is highly non-standard, and you will have to explain yourself much more clearly if you want to stick to these usages.

Thanks, I have taken this into consideration. At least now you understand that there was never any contradiction between my position and theirs. While I may have been using the term "apparent age" differently, these creationists hold to the same conclusions I do.

1. Do you think the statement "This zircon has more lead than uranium in it", by itself (assuming it is true of the zircon in question), says nothing about the age of the zircon?

2. Therefore, would you as a creationist feel that you would be able to agree with such a statement?

3. If yes, how would you propose to explain how this state of affairs (the zircon having more lead than uranium in it) came about, within your worldview?

It all depends on a number of assumptions. First off, to produce the conclusion you currently hold you must look at the physical evidence and assume its history is purely natural. How can I use science to fully explain a supernatural event like creation?

 

[Jig]

People cognizant of the facts of evolution at least have reality in their side.

If you think that reality is strictly natural - then you may have a point. However, reality goes beyond the natural world.

 

[Jig]

Why do discussions with creationists so often come to the point where the creationist states that he or she has redefined common and already defined words with the creationist's new, personal definitions, and expects others to take them seriously?

Papias

The definition I was using for "apparent" was legitimate. I was not attempting to redefine anything. Taking context into consideration, my position agreed with those who defined "apparent" differently.

I expect you to take me seriously because I do not run from these conversations and attempt to present my position in a civil manner while providing clear answers. The real question is, why should I take you seriously if you constantly ridicule my position?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If you think that reality is strictly natural - then you may have a point. However, reality goes beyond the natural world.

Says you. I've always considered supernatural to be a superfluous term sometimes simply designating unknown things.

 

[Jig]

Says you. I've always considered supernatural to be a superfluous term sometimes simply designating unknown things.

So you don't believe God is a supernatural being?

Supernatural:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

If God was "natural" He must be within nature (and time) and be able to be explained by natural laws. However, God created our natural world (the universe) and, as such, He exists outside the natural realm (and time).

 

[SonOfTheWest]

So you don't believe God is a supernatural being?

Supernatural:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

If God was "natural" He must be within nature (and time) and be able to be explained by natural laws. However, God created our natural world (the universe) and, as such, He exists outside the natural realm (and time).

Again...says you. And I don't really trust the opinion of anti science people anyway so.........

 

[Jig]

Again...says you. And I don't really trust the opinion of anti science people anyway so.........

I am not anti-science. I asked you a question: Do you believe God is a natural being?