How would you have created the world?

[Northern Christian]

If you had the power to create the world quickly, would you do it over billions of years?

 

[Vance]

Yes, if it fit some greater purpose that I had. For example, if I had a particular idea of what I wanted the natural world I was creating to look like and what laws and rules I wanted it to follow, and it was more appropriate to allow these processes to develop over billions of years, then yes, I would do it over billions of years.

The LAST thing I would do is create a world instantly which looks identical to one which took billions of years to get to where it is now.

I guess another question would be why I would create a universe in even six 24 hour days if I could do it instantly? I definitely wouldn't feel it was necessary to do it that way just to set up a seventh day of rest for my human creations. I could provide this example just as well by explaining that I created over six periods of time, then didn't take any action on the seventh, then tell them what I want them to take from that. I could also tell them to apply the same 6-1 ratio to growing crops for six *years* then resting that field during the seventh. Hey, that is not a bad idea . . .

 

[lucaspa]

If you had the power to create the world quickly, would you do it over billions of years?

Absolutely! And I would use natural selection to create biodiversity. It's a much better designer than I am.

 

[Karaite]

The LAST thing I would do is create a world instantly which looks identical to one which took billions of years to get to where it is now.

Tell me, did you review your post before you submitted it? You should make it a habit to do that, because you would avoid making statements like the above.

So, would you also not create a world which apparently seemed impossible to arise randomly? You would not create a world which seemed to have been intelligently designed? A world which would testify of some kind of purpose?

The question was 'if you had the power to create the world quickly' (the world means, the earth which is now considered to be billions of years old).

You also say

and it was more appropriate

These things don't apply to an all-powerful God; nothing is more appropriate, when everything is available, possible. To God it would not be more appropriate to create in an instant, than it would be to create in a billion years.

 

[Karaite]

BTW,

If it was up to me, I would probably use all of eternity to do things...I mean, I got all eternity at my disposal...what am I going to do all that time, if I was doing it all instantly...

 

[Vance]

Tell me, did you review your post before you submitted it? You should make it a habit to do that, because you would avoid making statements like the above.

So, would you also not create a world which apparently seemed impossible to arise randomly? You would not create a world which seemed to have been intelligently designed? A world which would testify of some kind of purpose?

The question was 'if you had the power to create the world quickly' (the world means, the earth which is now considered to be billions of years old).

These things don't apply to an all-powerful God; nothing is more appropriate, when everything is available, possible. To God it would not be more appropriate to create in an instant, than it would be to create in a billion years.

I am not sure what problem you have with the statement you qouted first. God did create a world which looks EXACTLY like it is billions of years old. All I am saying is that I would not do that unless I *did* take billions of years to create it. In short, I would not deceive my created beings, who will later be observing the world. God may have chosen to create in such a way, as I have explained in other posts, and if He did, I am sure He had a good reason (being God and all), but I don't see any reason why I would do so.

If I created a world which I did not allow to develop randomly, I would not have it look like it developed randomly. If I created a world in which I *did* allow things to develop randomly, I would not make it look otherwise. If I created a world in which I allowed some things to develop randomly (even if according to a process I had designed), I would make sure the evidence which could later be observed would not be deceiving.

If I created a world in which I designed each and every thing in it separately, I would not make it look otherwise. If I created a world in which my intelligent design was a process which then worked on its own according to the rules I had set up, I would not make it look otherwise.

And true, "appropriate" is not a word applicable to God. But the question is how *I* would create. There is simply no way I could put myself in God's position, even hypothetically. Still, a better way to say it would be that if it fit my purpose better (whatever that purpose may be . . .)

 

[Karaite]

The point was, it is your opinion that the world was created in billions of years, that evolution took place, and that that all of this was God's purpose. Yet, the Darwinist will claim that the world did take billions of years to 'become' what it is now, and that evolution took place, BUT that it was not guided by any supernatural power. Instead, that it was randomly created, that it was by chance that species survived, not because they were supposed to survive, but because natural-selection allowed them to do so.

So, did God create the world in a way that it would seem as if He had nothing to do with it? Why does God not show up, in real person? Why does God not make something, even the slightest thing, to show us that He indeed exists?

Do you agree that there is evidence enough to testify of God's existence? Or do you agree that there is an impossibility in proving that God exists?

What is that I am saying?

Well, the complexities and misunderstandings come, not from God, but from MAN. If to you the world would seem to be older than what it took for God to make it, it is not God's fault, but your fault. You are using your own perceptions, your own understandings to define how long it took God to create it. The same as the Darwinist uses his own perception to define what guided the world (or what did not guide) and how long it took.

Did God purposefully misguide the darwinist? Or is the darwinist correct?

 

[troodon]

So, did God create the world in a way that it would seem as if He had nothing to do with it? Why does God not show up, in real person? Why does God not make something, even the slightest thing, to show us that He indeed exists?

The same could be asked as to why God doesn't put a huge, geostationary burning cross into earth's orbit to convert all the unbelievers. If God shows Himself through his acts or His creation, what's the point in faith?

 

[Vance]

Karaite said:

"The point was, it is your opinion that the world was created in billions of years, that evolution took place, and that all of this was God's purpose. Yet, the Darwinist will claim that the world did take billions of years to 'become' what it is now, and that evolution took place, BUT that it was not guided by any supernatural power. Instead, that it was randomly created, that it was by chance that species survived, not because they were supposed to survive, but because natural-selection allowed them to do so."
Well, of course I think the atheistic evolutionists are wrong in saying that evolution was not the product of a supernatural force, was merely chance, etc. Just as I would disagree with them when they say that gravity was not the product of a supernatural Creator. The belief that God had nothing to do with the creative process is not required at all by the theory of evolution. You are mistaking atheistic beliefs with evolutionary beliefs. The fact that atheists believe in evolution is irrelevant. They believe in lots of things you, yourself, believe in.

So, did God create the world in a way that it would seem as if He had nothing to do with it? Why does God not show up, in real person? Why does God not make something, even the slightest thing, to show us that He indeed exists?

Well, it is argued many times and oft whether He did or not. Personally, I am very persuaded by the nature of the universe that God was the Creator, even without reference to Scripture. But, I think you would agree that He did not create the world in a way which *required* acknowledgment of His role by all intelligent people, since not all intelligent people see that truth. On the other hand, the fact that He did create means that there is no way for anyone to convincingly argue that He was not the author of Creation. The important thing is that He left us His Word which indicates very clearly that He was the Creator, while His Creation itself gives us the clues about *how* He did it.

Do you agree that there is evidence enough to testify of God's existence? Or do you agree that there is an impossibility in proving that God exists?

I am not sure, but I know there is evidence enough for me.

What is that I am saying?

Well, the complexities and misunderstandings come, not from God, but from MAN. If to you the world would seem to be older than what it took for God to make it, it is not God's fault, but your fault. You are using your own perceptions, your own understandings to define how long it took God to create it. The same as the Darwinist uses his own perception to define what guided the world (or what did not guide) and how long it took.

Well that is making the presumption that I perceive the world to be older than He actually created it. I am only using the evidence God gave us in the Creation itself.

Do you not think that the overwhelming evidence we see before us is that the earth is older than 12,000 years?

Did God purposefully misguide the darwinist? Or is the darwinist correct?

I don’t think God purposefully misguided the Darwinist, nor do I think the Darwinist is correct if the particular Darwinist states that God had nothing to do with Creation. I think that He is simply not believing the Word of God which makes it clear that God did, indeed, create the universe.

Similarly, I do not think that God purposefully misguided the YEC’s, I just think that they are reading the Scripture incorrectly (which is, at least, better than not reading it at all).

 

[Karaite]

Well, of course I think the atheistic evolutionists are wrong in saying that evolution was not the product of a supernatural force, was merely chance, etc.

But the world certainly seems to have no purpose, and to have no guide to them. So, what makes your view more valid than theirs? You say that the world seems to be old to you, and you use this argument to say that God would not create a world that looks old, if it was not old. That is why I point out that, just because to you it may seem a certain way, it does not mean that it is that way, and much less that everyone else will see it the same way. You are not the standard by which all things are judged.

You are mistaking atheistic beliefs with evolutionary beliefs. The fact that atheists believe in evolution is irrelevant. They believe in lots of things you, yourself, believe in.

What is it with you, man? why can't you stop putting words into other people's mouth? Did I even hint at the idea that evolution means atheism? Could you at least consider that I am different from whoever/whatever group it is that you are confusing me with? I say what I mean, and I do not hold back on anything, unless it is necessary for discussion's purposes. If I am going to say that I see evolution as atheism, then I will say it. I don't have to hope for you to see the connection, or assume the connection.

But, I think you would agree that He did not create the world in a way which *required* acknowledgment of His role by all intelligent people, since not all intelligent people see that truth.

Then He did not create the world. If He did not give absolute information of His role in creation, then He had no role. If the evidence is vague, then He is purposely deceiving us, leaving us with no knowledge as to how to decide. At least that is how you have made your argument of 'the world looks like it is old, therefore, it is old.'

You require absolute, uncontested evidence for the young earth theory. Then should we not also require an absolute, uncontested evidence for God's (absolute) role in the creation?

On the other hand, the fact that He did create means that there is no way for anyone to convincingly argue that He was not the author of Creation.

But isn't that just assuming the answer, before seeing the evidence? You just stated that the evidence is not clear, so how can you say "the fact"? The fact is uncontested evidence, and any intelligent (and even non-intelligent) being will be able to see it clearly.

I am not sure, but I know there is evidence enough for me.

Do you see a possiblity that God might not actually exist? or that God might have had no actual role in the creation of the world?

Wether yes, or no, why do you think so?

Well that is making the presumption that I perceive the world to be older than He actually created it. I am only using the evidence God gave us in the Creation itself.

You are wrong. I did not declare the earth to be younger, nor older. But I was saying that, if to you it seems old, yet God created in less time than you think, it is not God's fault that you saw it that way. The same as it is not God's fault that the darwinist sees no supernatural force behind the whole creation, and process of evolution.

To the darwinist, the evidences against any supernatural being are extremely clear, undeniable. Nevertheless, if God does exist, and if He indeed created the world, the fault of not seeing Him in the creation would be on the darwinist, not on God.

That is what I was pointing out. Our perceptions may differ from reality, eventhough to us they may be very real.

 

[Vance]

But the world certainly seems to have no purpose, and to have no guide to them. So, what makes your view more valid than theirs?

It only seems to have no purpose if you do not combine the Creation with the Scripture. Even then, my belief in the Scripture is so integral to my life that I can’t help but see the purpose and design in Creation as well. I am not sure I could prove such design to a non-believer (although some ID’ers have a pretty good start on it), but for me it all fits together.

You say that the world seems to be old to you, and you use this argument to say that God would not create a world that looks old, if it was not old. That is why I point out that, just because to you it may seem a certain way, it does not mean that it is that way, and much less that everyone else will see it the same way. You are not the standard by which all things are judged.

Of course not. I am saying that the evidence, to my mind, is so overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth, and most people (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree with this. In fact, it is SO compelling that many YEC’s adopt the view that even though the earth does, indeed, look billions of years old, God just created it to *look* that old a few thousand years ago. This position concedes that it does look that old.

What is it with you, man? why can't you stop putting words into other people's mouth? Did I even hint at the idea that evolution means atheism? Could you at least consider that I am different from whoever/whatever group it is that you are confusing me with? I say what I mean, and I do not hold back on anything, unless it is necessary for discussion's purposes. If I am going to say that I see evolution as atheism, then I will say it. I don't have to hope for you to see the connection, or assume the connection.

You said "Yet, the Darwinist will claim that the world did take billions of years to 'become' what it is now, and that evolution took place, BUT that it was not guided by any supernatural power. Instead, that it was randomly created, that it was by chance that species survived."

This sounds an awful lot like you are talking about atheistic beliefs, not just evolutionary beliefs. Do you agree, then, that evolutionary beliefs are not necessarily atheistic beliefs?



Then He did not create the world. If He did not give absolute information of His role in creation, then He had no role. If the evidence is vague, then He is purposely deceiving us, leaving us with no knowledge as to how to decide. At least that is how you have made your argument of 'the world looks like it is old, therefore, it is old.'

No, my point is that if the world does look old then either (1) it IS old or (2) it is young and God is deceiving us. But as to your first point, I would definitely *never* draw that line in the sand. God did give absolute information about His role in Creation: the Scripture. Do you think, then, that He did provide positive proof within His natural Creation that He was the author of that Creation? That might be so, and I would welcome it since I could then use it to witness for God’s active role rather than relying solely on Scripture. I know the ID movement has some basic ideas that persuasive, but I am not sure that they are completely conclusive. I would welcome anything you could share on this.

You require absolute, uncontested evidence for the young earth theory. Then should we not also require an absolute, uncontested evidence for God's (absolute) role in the creation?

No, I only require convincing evidence for a young earth, but have not seen it yet, even though I have read just about every YEC theory out there. And, I do have absolute uncontested evidence (for me, anyway) in God’s Scripture.

But isn't that just assuming the answer, before seeing the evidence? You just stated that the evidence is not clear, so how can you say "the fact"? The fact is uncontested evidence, and any intelligent (and even non-intelligent) being will be able to see it clearly.

The fact is set forth for me in God’s Word. I suppose that there might be evidence that is incontrovertible in the actual Creation itself, in its very existence, for example, but the statements of His role as Creator in Scripture is enough for me.

Do you see a possiblity that God might not actually exist? or that God might have had no actual role in the creation of the world?

Wether yes, or no, why do you think so?

No, I am absolutely convinced that God was and is the Creator of the universe and all that is in it based on my conviction that his Holy Word is true.



You are wrong. I did not declare the earth to be younger, nor older. But I was saying that, if to you it seems old, yet God created in less time than you think, it is not God's fault that you saw it that way. The same as it is not God's fault that the darwinist sees no supernatural force behind the whole creation, and process of evolution.

It would only be his "fault" if He did, in fact, all the evidence He left for us makes a dramatically clear case for an old earth. I think it is dramatically clear and is actual positive evidence, not a believe based on an absence of proof to the contrary. On the other hand, the atheistic Darwinist believes in the lack of a supernatural due to a *lack* of evidence they will accept. In short, they are taking absence for proof of non-existence, and ignoring the evidence we DO have in Scripture.

To the darwinist, the evidences against any supernatural being are extremely clear, undeniable. Nevertheless, if God does exist, and if He indeed created the world, the fault of not seeing Him in the creation would be on the darwinist, not on God.

Actually most atheists (you keep calling them darwinists, but I am not sure why, since not all darwinists are atheists) believe as they do because of a LACK of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence which supports their view. And, as I mentioned above, they ignore evidence that is there in the Scripture. That is, indeed, their fault.

That is what I was pointing out. Our perceptions may differ from reality, even though to us they may be very real.

Well, of course. All we can do is weigh the evidence as best we can and as objectively as we can. The fact that we may be missing something does not excuse us from going through this process and coming to conclusions. Of course, those conclusions should always be held with the understanding that we are fallible humans. Still, the greater the evidence, the stronger should be the belief. The evidence for an old earth is SO dramatically strong, that my belief in it is correspondingly strong.

 

[Karaite]

(you keep calling them darwinists, but I am not sure why, since not all darwinists are atheists)

Now I see why you keep arguing that I am mixing evolution with atheism. You keep thinking that 'darwinist' is a synonym of 'evolutionist.' But it is not. Darwinist is referring to those who believe in a naturalistic evolution--i.e. godless--,while 'theistic evolutionist' is the one who believes in a god as the source and guide of evolution. Evolutionist would be the middle ground, the general term.

Hope this clears that up for you.

It only seems to have no purpose

So, if it looks like it is purposeless, why is it not purposeless? Why do you argue that despite the "look", it is not what it looks like? Yet, at the same time, you turn around and say that "because it looks old, then it must be old."

Does that not sound like a double standard? Or are you going to tell me that it just sounds like it, but that it is not?

It only seems to have no purpose if you do not combine the Creation with the Scripture.

But you see, the problem here is that you choose which one will define the other, but are never consistent with which is the one that should define the other.

On one side, you use the apparent (observed?) "age of the earth" to reject the Scripture that would imply that the earth is younger than that. While on the other side, you use the apparent "purpose" defined by the Scriptures, to reject the observations of a purposeless world.

You are picking and choosing without using a coherent method.

Even then, my belief in the Scripture is so integral to my life that I can’t help but see the purpose and design in Creation as well. I am not sure I could prove such design to a non-believer (although some ID’ers have a pretty good start on it), but for me it all fits together.

You are using blind faith when you declare the purpose of the world. This purpose of which you speak is not evident in the world, and it cannot be falsified. It is fantasy, if judged by scientific standards.

The IDist doesn't do anything other than point out that, the current theories of natural selection, and other such mechanisms could not account for the complexities of the world. This does little to discredit the darwinist naturalistic view, since it only argues that, as of yet, no mechanism can account for it--whether or not this will be fully understood in the future is not part of the arguement. Since the darwinist believes that in the future such mechanism will be understood, because science is a continuous work, then the objections presented by the IDist is seen as mere pessimism.

This sounds an awful lot like you are talking about atheistic beliefs, not just evolutionary beliefs.

You were mixing the terms, that is what happened.

No, my point is that if the world does look old then either (1) it IS old or (2) it is young and God is deceiving us.

Which only leaves us with one option, doesn't it? In other words, you are saying, "God either created it like I say He did" or else, He is not God. (<--That is a deduction, since you claim that God is deceiving us, if He did not create it in billions of years, as you say. And since the God of the Bible is claimed to be Righteous; then deception belongs to another god, and this God of the Bible would be false.)

But as to your first point, I would definitely *never* draw that line in the sand. God did give absolute information about His role in Creation: the Scripture.

Once again, be careful with what you say. You have just proved with certainty the incoherence that exists in your beliefs, and claims of how you came to believe that way.

All along you have been arguing that you use the Word [in Creation] and the Word [by Prophets] to reach your conclusions. But now you just declared that the Scriptures are "absolute" proof; meaning, there is no need for anything outside of them, to prove that God exists, and whatever the Scriptures declare, that is the absolute truth, and needs no clarification by anything outside of them.

That is what absolute means! Complete, not conditional upon human perception. Any attempt to interpret the Scriptures, outside of its obvious literary form would be erroneous.

No, I am absolutely convinced that God was and is the Creator of the universe and all that is in it based on my conviction that his Holy Word is true.

Once again, you are using blind faith to make your claim. I for one, will honestly admit that there is A POSSIBILITY that God may not exist. Is that a sign of doubt? Perhaps yes, or perhaps not. I believe that He exists, but I admit that it may only be my own limited perception. My inability to understand why anything could be, without the need for a "creator".

An honest thinker will admit to this. Only a stubborn person will say that he/she has never perceived the world as being without a god.

What has convinced you that the Holy Word is holy, and His? Do you believe in an inerrant Bible? If you do, on what grounds do you hold to this belief? And if not, then what makes you think that any part on which you put your faith, is not errant?

It would only be his "fault" if He did

That is quite some confidence you got, huh? So, you are absolutely sure that YOUR perceptions have to be right. That even the slightest of chances for you to be wrong, do not exist.

I would have thought that, since we are not all knowing, and all-understanding, that if God does exist, and He did create the earth in a way different from what we believe (whether based on observations or not), then we would be at fault. We would be the ones who mis-understood the 'so-called' evidences--which interpretations, by the way, continue to change over time.

On the other hand, the atheistic Darwinist believes in the lack of a supernatural due to a *lack* of evidence they will accept. In short, they are taking absence for proof of non-existence, and ignoring the evidence we DO have in Scripture.

But if there is no proof of God, how can you even make a claim for God? If all the evidences point to a 'god-less' world, then why is it not a god-less world?

That is your approach to young-earth-creation. The evidences you use, point to an old earth. But you claim that there is a 'lack of evidence' for a young earth. Is that not the same argument? Again, call me crazy, but that looks like double standard to me.

 

[Vance]

Kariate said:

Now I see why you keep arguing that I am mixing evolution with atheism. You keep thinking that 'darwinist' is a synonym of 'evolutionist.' But it is not. Darwinist is referring to those who believe in a naturalistic evolution--i.e. godless--,while 'theistic evolutionist' is the one who believes in a god as the source and guide of evolution. Evolutionist would be the middle ground, the general term.

Hope this clears that up for you.

Yes, it is important to define your terms. I use the term darwinist as someone who believes in evolution. You use the term to describe someone who believes in an atheistic version of evolution. I don't think "darwinist" is how most people define one who follows naturalistic philosophy (Nature exists without God), but that is fine. Now I will know what you mean by the term.

So, if it looks like it is purposeless, why is it not purposeless? Why do you argue that despite the "look", it is not what it looks like? Yet, at the same time, you turn around and say that "because it looks old, then it must be old."

I said very specifically that it did not look purposeless to me, and even for those who don’t believe the Scripture, it is not that there is evidence of purposelessness, only a lack of evidence for a specific purpose. These are two very different things.. I think that the sheer existence of the universe is speaking proof of God’s creative role. But the fact that many do not see this means that, by definition, it is not so obvious as to be clear to all. It takes also believing in the Scripture and accepting it as God’s Word. The important point is nothing in God’s Creation *denies* God’s role as Creator, which would, indeed, be deceptive. A perceived lack of purpose does not indicate that there *is* no purpose, only that we have no specific evidence of it (if you neither perceive it in Creation or believe the Scripture). This is VERY different than a compilation of evidence which points very clearly in the wrong direction (as with the evidence for an old earth).


But you see, the problem here is that you choose which one will define the other, but are never consistent with which is the one that should define the other.

On one side, you use the apparent (observed?) "age of the earth" to reject the Scripture that would imply that the earth is younger than that. While on the other side, you use the apparent "purpose" defined by the Scriptures, to reject the observations of a purposeless world.

Yes, I treat both sources from God with equal respect and understand that I can wrong in my interpretation of either. So, I choose the evidence which is the most persuasive considering the WHOLE of God’s message to us. If I never let the evidence of God’s Creation inform my reading of Scripture, I would be a Geocentrist. If I never let God’s Scripture inform my understanding of God’s Creation, I would not understand the purpose of God’s Creative effort.

You are picking and choosing without using a coherent method.

No, the method is reviewing all the evidence and attempting to discern what is the most likely combination of circumstances. I am fairly consistent in this application.

You are using blind faith when you declare the purpose of the world. This purpose of which you speak is not evident in the world, and it cannot be falsified. It is fantasy.

No, it is there in Scripture in a way that is perfectly consistent with God’s Creation. Why would I ignore God’s Scripture regarding His Creative work, his communion with Man, Man’s rejection of that communion and the need for Man to regain that communion by accepting God’s gift of redemption?


Which only leaves us with one option, doesn't it? In other words, you are saying, "God either created it like I say He did" or else, He is not God. (<--That is a deduction, since you claim that God is deceiving us, if He did not create it in billions of years, as you say. And since the God of the Bible is claimed to be Righteous; then deception belongs to another god, and this God of the Bible would be false.)

Listen again to my point "IF the world does look old (in other words, if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the vast weight of the evidence is that the earth is billions of years old), then there are only two possibilities: it IS old, or God is deceiving us.

Which part of this last statement, assuming the "if" to be true, do you disagree with?

Once we agree that my two choices are the only possibilities if the earth DOES, indeed, look old, then the only question is whether it does actually look old. If the evidence is that it does look old, then it must be old, since the only alternative is that God deceived.


Once again, be careful with what you say. You have just proved with certainty the incoherence that exists in your beliefs, and claims of how you came to believe that way.

All along you have been arguing that you use the Word [in Creation] and the Word [by Prophets] to reach your conclusions. But now you just declared that the Scriptures are "absolute" proof; meaning, there is no need for anything outside of them, to prove that God exists, and whatever the Scriptures declare, that is the absolute truth, and needs no clarification by anything outside of them.

That is what absolute means! Complete, not conditional upon human perception. Any attempt to interpret the Scriptures, outside of its obvious literary form would be erroneous.

No, you are creating your own definitions again. The Scripture is absolute proof of God’s creative role *because* there is nothing unclear about that in Scripture and nothing which does (or can) contradict it God’s Creation. So, this point is absolute truth.

Once again, you are using blind faith to make your claim. I for one, will honestly admit that there is A POSSIBILITY that God may not exist. Is that a sign of doubt? Perhaps yes, or perhaps not. I believe that He exists, but I admit that it may only be my own limited perception. My inability to understand why anything could be, without the need for a "creator".

Well, that is where we differ. I really don’t have any doubt in my mind about God’s existence and His role as the Creator of all we see and experience. This is, indeed, based on my Faith.

An honest thinker will admit to this. Only a stubborn person will say that he/she has never perceived the world as being without a god.

Well, I have wondered what the world would be like without God having created it and the Gospel message not being true. But I have never seriously "perceived the world as being without a god."

What has convinced you that the Holy Word is holy, and His? Do you believe in an inerrant Bible? If you do, on what grounds do you hold to this belief? And if not, then what makes you think that any part on which you put your faith, is not errant?

Faith. Reinforced by my personal experience and relationship with Christ.



That is quite some confidence you got, huh? So, you are absolutely sure that YOUR perceptions have to be right. That even the slightest of chances for you to be wrong, do not exist.

I would have thought that, since we are not all knowing, and all-understanding, that if God does exist, and He did create the earth in a way different from what we believe (whether based on observations or not), then we would be at fault. We would be the ones who mis-understood the 'so-called' evidences--which interpretations, by the way, continue to change over time.


Well, of course, we could be at fault. As I said, God could only be at fault if He did, actually deceive us. I see neither (His "fault" or His "deception") as a true possibility. I just think that it is vastly more likely, considering the evidence we have, that we as humans are mistaken if we read the Scriptures to require a young earth than if we read the Creation as showing us an old earth. What YEC’s tend to do (and I know that you may not be a YEC) is to hold their interpretations of Scripture as absolutely correct and Man’s interpretation of Creation as subject to human error. I see both as possibilities (no, sureties!).


But if there is no proof of God, how can you even make a claim for God? If all the evidences point to a 'god-less' world, then why is it not a god-less world?

You are missing what I just said. The evidences don’t point to a god-less world, just that the non-believers don’t see it pointing out God explicitly. There is nothing in Nature which disproves God.

That is your approach to young-earth-creation. The evidences you use, point to an old earth. But you claim that there is a 'lack of evidence' for a young earth. Is that not the same argument? Again, call me crazy, but that looks like double standard to me.

Well, first of all, they have indeed come forward with evidences of a sort for a young earth, I just find it all spurious, not credible and minuscule in comparison to the vast weight of evidence for an old earth. But the point is that atheists disbelieve in God due to a lack of evidence they will accept (Scripture, for example), and not because there is a vast amount of evidence AGAINST God existing. For them the lack of evidence is sufficient. I disbelieve YEC’ism because there is BOTH a lack of credible evidence *for* its teachings AND a vast amount of evidence from God’s Creation *against* its teachings.

 

[Ark Guy]

vance posted the following statement

The LAST thing I would do is create a world instantly which looks identical to one which took billions of years to get to where it is now

But is that statement true?

click on

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

 

[Vance]

vance posted the following statement

The LAST thing I would do is create a world instantly which looks identical to one which took billions of years to get to where it is now

But is that statement true?

Well, of course it is true. The question was about how *I* would create the world. My response was that I would never create a world which looked identical to one which took billions of years to get to where it is now. How could I make a statement about how *I* would create (or not create, in this case) and have it be false?

The statement I made is absolutely, without doubt, a true statement. I would not create that way.

 

[Ark Guy]

science show us that your statement is false....the link shows that the earth doesn't look old after all.

You did visit it?

 

[Vance]

science show us that your statement is false....the link shows that the earth doesn't look old after all.

You did visit it?

You seem to be missing the point. Please read my statment again. I am talking about how I would create or not create.

If I say that I would not create a world to look old if it was not, how can that statement about my own method of potential creation NOT be true?

And, yes, I have read all the AIG stuff and it is simply does not hold up. But, that is beside the immediate point of you saying my statement was false.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

AiG reaches an honesty low with http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp

Point is, the middle of Greenland (where ice cores are taken) is a desert. It has very little snowfall.

Where the planes crashed is near the coast, which has a lot of snowfall.

Somehow, AiG thinks that the same amount of snow should build up on the central icecap (a desert) as on the coastal fringe (which has high snowfall).

The reason for using the ice cores as evidence of the age of the ice cap is that there are clearly discernable annual layers. It is not the thickness of the ice, but the number of these layers that matters. Did Wieland go to the site and take an ice core next to the planes? Did it have lots of "annual" layers, thereby showing that the annual layer model is incorrect? The answer to these is astonishingly simple, because creation scientists almost never actually do any real research - NO.

Can you see how they're trying to dupe you?

 

[lucaspa]

The point was, it is your opinion that the world was created in billions of years, that evolution took place, and that that all of this was God's purpose. Yet, the Darwinist will claim that the world did take billions of years to 'become' what it is now, and that evolution took place, BUT that it was not guided by any supernatural power. Instead, that it was randomly created, that it was by chance that species survived, not because they were supposed to survive, but because natural-selection allowed them to do so.

Several misuses of the word "Darwinist" here.

First, theistic evolutionists are Darwinists. What you mean in in your second sentence is "atheist". And, of course atheists claim that evolution was not guided. However, atheism is also a faith. That claim is not science but faith.

Second, Darwinists do NOT cliam that the universe was random or that survival is random. Quite the opposite. The processes of physics and chemistry are not random. And natural selection is the exact opposite of random. Individuals survive and reproduce more than other individuals not by chance but because they have superior designs for that particular environment.

So, did God create the world in a way that it would seem as if He had nothing to do with it?

Because that is the way He chose. Also because science is the wrong tool to detect God.

Why does God not show up, in real person?

Excuse me, but isn't that what He did do in the person of Jesus? Nice of you to deny your own religion here.

Why does God not make something, even the slightest thing, to show us that He indeed exists?

He did. The universe.

Do you agree that there is evidence enough to testify of God's existence? Or do you agree that there is an impossibility in proving that God exists? ]/quote]

There is not the objective, intersubjective evidence to "prove" God exists. However, millions of people have the personal experience necessary to convince them that God exists. Apparently you aren't among them.

Right now, science can't prove that God exists or does not exist. But then, if you use the Hubble telescope you can't prove that mitochondria exist. Wrong tool.

If to you the world would seem to be older than what it took for God to make it, it is not God's fault, but your fault. You are using your own perceptions, your own understandings to define how long it took God to create it.

The people who disproved a young earth were all Christians. Many of them were ministers. NONE of them lost their faith as a result. The universe is God's book just as much as the Bible.

I suggest two books for you: Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller and Can a Darwinian be a Christian? by Michael Ruse.

Did God purposefully misguide the darwinist? Or is the darwinist correct?

If God misled us about the age of the earth, He is not a god we can worship. So God did not purposefully misguide the darwinist (many of whom are Christian). Christians beleive the atheist is not correct.

 

[lucaspa]

Now I see why you keep arguing that I am mixing evolution with atheism. You keep thinking that 'darwinist' is a synonym of 'evolutionist.' But it is not. Darwinist is referring to those who believe in a naturalistic evolution--i.e. godless--,while 'theistic evolutionist' is the one who believes in a god as the source and guide of evolution. Evolutionist would be the middle ground, the general term.

Hope this clears that up for you.

Yes, it is clearer, but it is a wrong definition.

Evolution is the basic statement "descent with modification". But now we come to the mechanism of that modification. A "Darwinist" is one who accepts that the mechanism of modification is natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift. Specifically, that both natural selection and sexual selection are responsible for the designs in biological organisms.

However, there have been other mechanisms proposed for the modification. The most famous of these is Lamarck's inherited characteristics.

So, evolutionist is one who accepts common ancestry.

A Lamarckist is one who thinks the the modification was by inherited characteristics.

A Darwinist is one who thinks the modification was by natural selection.

A saltationist is one who thinks the modification was by huge leaps.

A panspermist thinks the modification was by introduction of foreign DNA.

Etc.

Clear now? If you mean atheist, then say atheist. Science is agnostic and the theories in science are agnostic. Darwinist says nothing about God. All the theistic evolutionists on the board are Darwinists.

The part that confused you is that natural selection is so widely accepted that most people forget that there are other forms of evolution.