I'm tired of the "last Tuesday" argument, so..

[truthteller]

So here it is.

If you believe in a miraculous Creation, they say, well, it could have been last Tuesday, and God would have created everything with an illusion of age, therefore God would be a deceiver. A variant of this argument is that He then deceived the world by making it look like it's billions of years old.

Just to give some perspective, this is an argument that one could use against *any* evidence of a Creation event. It "logically" invalidates any pro-Creation evidence of Creation. This shows that there has to be a vital flaw in the logic. It's certainly not scientific, there's no "falsifiability".

Now, they say, well, you can make up any creation story, or explain away anything with Divine intervention. Sure you have cockamamie stories all through pagan tribes. One of these has snuck into modern "science" in disguise, even: Jeremiah 2:27: "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face.."

The only one that has stuck credibly is the Bible's.

But I don't believe in "just any ol' thing", my challenge is to prove or disprove the Bible. This is part of the purpose of the long-age "science": to say that the Bible is disproved on the very first page. Hah!

The evidence does *not* point to old Earth ages. There are YEC scientists who do actual nuclear physics (I worked as a missionary side by side with a former nuclear engineer); biochemistry; geology; zoology, botany, genetics; astrophsyics; astronomy; cosmology; relativity; quantum physics; you name it. To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages. Au contraire, long age beliefs have resulted in misguided efforts plenty. One example is widespread famines in Stalinist Russia, due to Lamarckian agriculture, a logical implication of Darwinism, that plants would adopt new genetic traits according to their environment.

The point is, how do you view the evidence? What do you do when your math says that in a solar system billions of years old, all the comets would be swallowed up by the sun, long gone? A YEC believes his eyes and the math and says let's study it more! If you believe in long-ages, whether atheist or not, you invent an Oort cloud where these things have to sit around until they're bumped out of orbit. Hunh?
Or you do like they say about trusting God, you just put it on a shelf and say, I just don't understand right now, maybe later.

Isaac Asimov even used that one, saying they can't be expected to understand everything right now. But they want to disallow that permission to a creationist. Huh!

 

[Arikay]

"This is part of the purpose of the long-age "science": to say that the Bible is disproved on the very first page."

Nope, sorry.
1) There is no conspiracy here, science is not trying to destroy the bible.

2) It Does Not Disprove the bible. It only disproves an interpretation of Genesis. That would be the literal interpretation.

"The evidence does *not* point to old Earth ages."

Really? Then maybe you can explain why we have Many Many Many threads that show the earth is old, and yet, no one has ever been able to explain them away.

"There are YEC scientists..."

Good for them. Of course, some Creationist groups make a statement that the YEC possition is correct, no matter what the evidence points too.
A quick example is ICR's Tenets: http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
All ICR researchs are supposed to be commited to these Tenets.

So, they come to a conclusion, then they pick or ignore data to fit their conclusion. Because they view their conclusion as correct, before they do any research at all. Not a good way to do science.

"What do you do when your math says that in a solar system billions of years old, all the comets would be swallowed up by the sun, long gone?"

A source maybe?

Easy, we check the math:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#comets

[snip]

 

[Michali]

I too have heard of evidence's regarding a young earth. Many will ask me for the evidence of evidence (a link), but I don't have any. Perhaps you may have heard of fossilized footprints of man's feet next to a dinosaur's. Or about an ancient tree, standing vertically, fossilized in layers of dirt that are used to date the age of something. Now, I've only heard of these things. It was from an educated creationist. (I wouldn't have mentioned it if I thought he was lying). I'm not sure what to think.

Now about the whole "God is a liar if he makes the earth look old" thing. I don't see this being a decption, unless those flashy faded jeans your wearing makes people think you're a liar. But, I don't think he made it look old. A person studying spirituality must recall the history of things. God made the earth, Lucifer fell so he gives dominion to man, and then man becomes subject to Satan so he gives it to Satan. Ever since then, up until the point of Jesus, has Satan been in his dominion with complete power over it. He blesses whom he chooses and curses whom he can. He is the "god of this age". He was able to even give Jesus whatever he wanted, but Jesus turned him down. If there is any decieving going on, it is the Devil's doing and not God's. A lot of people disregard the opposite end of the spectrum and so all of everything is placed on God. People don't like it when we go "The Devil... blah blah", but it is a vital part of what we believe.

 

[obediah001]

Hay ther friend look at the Mt St Helens volcano eruption in 1982 it has deposited thousands of trees into the lake Spirit lake which over the years have sank into the bottom & become buried like poly sterata buried shoewing how the Noahic Flood did it. see drdino.com & others.

 

[Arikay]

I have yet to hear about a true piece of evidence for creationism.

The tracks were a hoax.
For more information, look up "paluxy tracks"

Polystrate fossils (the tree) are not a problem for dating, and never have been.
For more information, go here,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

The biggest problem is people trust creationist organizations, and dont think they could be giving out false data. But most do. They give out, old information, false information, or only half the story and come to an incorrect conclusion.
One example is a dating in conflict story AIG did (that came to an incorect conclusion),
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/datinginconflict.html


As far as god being a liar, the problem isnt just that he made the world look worn, its that it would have required a Massive amount of changes to fake the earth looking old as everything fits together. Worn jeans can be shown to be new through different methods, yet the earth cant. Also, remember, the YECs claim god made the earth look 750,000X the age it really is.

As far as DrDino, dont bother going there if you want truth. The guy claims there is 666 in most barcodes. He cant (or doesnt want to) even take the 2 minutes it takes to look up how the barcode system works, and see that it is false.

I too have heard of evidence's regarding a young earth. Many will ask me for the evidence of evidence (a link), but I don't have any. Perhaps you may have heard of fossilized footprints of man's feet next to a dinosaur's. Or about an ancient tree, standing vertically, fossilized in layers of dirt that are used to date the age of something. Now, I've only heard of these things. It was from an educated creationist. (I wouldn't have mentioned it if I thought he was lying). I'm not sure what to think.

Now about the whole "God is a liar if he makes the earth look old" thing. I don't see this being a decption, unless those flashy faded jeans your wearing makes people think you're a liar. But, I don't think he made it look old. A person studying spirituality must recall the history of things. God made the earth, Lucifer fell so he gives dominion to man, and then man becomes subject to Satan so he gives it to Satan. Ever since then, up until the point of Jesus, has Satan been in his dominion with complete power over it. He blesses whom he chooses and curses whom he can. He is the "god of this age". He was able to even give Jesus whatever he wanted, but Jesus turned him down. If there is any decieving going on, it is the Devil's doing and not God's. A lot of people disregard the opposite end of the spectrum and so all of everything is placed on God. People don't like it when we go "The Devil... blah blah", but it is a vital part of what we believe.

 

[DrLao]

Just to give some perspective, this is an argument that one could use against *any* evidence of a Creation event. It "logically" invalidates any pro-Creation evidence of Creation.

No, it doesn't. It only invalidates arguments which state that the evidence doesn't matter. Creationists who claim that God created star light enroute to Earth from stars which never existed, in order to explain supernova from billions of light years away, are basically claiming that the evidence doesn't matter. What we observe about the natural world makes no difference. Well, if that is so, then literally anything is possible. All of history may be a lie, my entire life could be. "Last Tuesdayism" is just a demostration of where this Biblical solipsism leads when taken to its logical conclusion. It means we can't know anything about anything, including the Bible or God or ourselves.

 

[webboffin]

But ain't creation so snug lol

 

[Plan 9]

Au contraire, long age beliefs have resulted in misguided efforts plenty. One example is widespread famines in Stalinist Russia, due to Lamarckian agriculture, a logical implication of Darwinism, that plants would adopt new genetic traits according to their environment.

Lamarkism a "long age belief"? Lamarkism "a logical implication of Darwinism?"

Truthteller, could you elucidate, please?

 

[lucaspa]

If you believe in a miraculous Creation, they say, well, it could have been last Tuesday, and God would have created everything with an illusion of age, therefore God would be a deceiver. A variant of this argument is that He then deceived the world by making it look like it's billions of years old.

Reinvented the wheel. You just restated the position of the book Oomphalos by Paul Gosse published in 1857.

The only one that has stuck credibly is the Bible's.

Since when did God's Creation lose credibility?

But I don't believe in "just any ol' thing", my challenge is to prove or disprove the Bible. This is part of the purpose of the long-age "science": to say that the Bible is disproved on the very first page.

Science NEVER had that objective. You do realize that creationism was THE scientific theory prior to 1831, don't you?

Look, if you want to prove or disprove the Bible, then go to Apologetics. Or better yet, go to an atheist website since trying to prove the Bible as literal plays right into the hands of atheists.

There are YEC scientists who do actual nuclear physics (I worked as a missionary side by side with a former nuclear engineer); biochemistry; geology; zoology, botany, genetics; astrophsyics; astronomy; cosmology; relativity; quantum physics; you name it. To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages.

Geology, astronomy, cosmology, relativity, and astrophysics leads to a CONCLUSION of an ancient universe. I can't think of any YECers that publish in the areas above. Can you name one?

Au contraire, long age beliefs have resulted in misguided efforts plenty. One example is widespread famines in Stalinist Russia, due to Lamarckian agriculture, a logical implication of Darwinism, that plants would adopt new genetic traits according to their environment.

LOL! Lamarckism is AGAINST Darwinism, since it involves inheritance of ACQUIRED characteristics. Darwinism doesn't allow that, and neither does biochemistry and genetics.

The point is, how do you view the evidence? What do you do when your math says that in a solar system billions of years old, all the comets would be swallowed up by the sun, long gone?

You realize that comets in the inner solar system -- the ones you are talking about -- are renewed from a source of comets in orbits beyond Pluto.

you invent an Oort cloud where these things have to sit around until they're bumped out of orbit.

You HYPOTHESIZE an Oort cloud and then look for some INDEPEDENT means of testing it. And you find comets via astronomy in orbits byond Pluto.

Oort Cloud is an example of a successful ad hoc hypothesis.

 

[obediah001]

The creation does not look bilions of years old thet perception is the Big Lie of our day as all of Creation shouts the young age. Only Evil-uotion THEORY says otherwise & theory is all it is, thereis NO proof of any of its claims.

 

[lucaspa]

If there is any decieving going on, it is the Devil's doing and not God's. A lot of people disregard the opposite end of the spectrum and so all of everything is placed on God. People don't like it when we go "The Devil... blah blah", but it is a vital part of what we believe.

"The Devil .." seems to be a vital part of your excuse and perhaps of YOUR belief, but not a vital part of Christianity.

Tell me, Michali, where in Genesis does it say Satan had ANY hand in creation? Where does it say that Satan created ANY star or starlight. Or ANY species? Satan had NOTHING to do with Creation. Where does it say that Satan changed ANYTHING in Creation? What happed to the SERPENT after the Fall is that he lost his legs.

If you are going to take the Bible as authority, shouldn't you at least follow it? Otherwise you are making up your own religion, and shouldn't be surprised if no one follows you.

 

[obediah001]

God did not use Evil-oution to do anything! Evil-oution is a tool of deception, Satans tool.

 

[pudmuddle]

"The Devil .." seems to be a vital part of your excuse and perhaps of YOUR belief, but not a vital part of Christianity.

So, all that casting out of demons in the NT never really happened? Unless you have a "scientific" answer for that, too..."

Tell me, Michali, where in Genesis does it say Satan had ANY hand in creation? Where does it say that Satan created ANY star or starlight. Or ANY species? Satan had NOTHING to do with Creation. Where does it say that Satan changed ANYTHING in Creation? What happed to the SERPENT after the Fall is that he lost his legs.

If you are going to take the Bible as authority, shouldn't you at least follow it? Otherwise you are making up your own religion, and shouldn't be surprised if no one follows you.

I think you misinterpreted his point. After the fall, Satan began to "bruise the heel" of the human race. He is "the angel of light" who decieves us. And he obviously has been given more power than most of us would care to think. I'll re-quote what he said, as I think it bears repeating:

"Now about the whole "God is a liar if he makes the earth look old" thing. I don't see this being a decption, unless those flashy faded jeans your wearing makes people think you're a liar. But, I don't think he made it look old. A person studying spirituality must recall the history of things. God made the earth, Lucifer fell so he gives dominion to man, and then man becomes subject to Satan so he gives it to Satan. Ever since then, up until the point of Jesus, has Satan been in his dominion with complete power over it. He blesses whom he chooses and curses whom he can. He is the "god of this age". He was able to even give Jesus whatever he wanted, but Jesus turned him down. If there is any decieving going on, it is the Devil's doing and not God's. A lot of people disregard the opposite end of the spectrum and so all of everything is placed on God. People don't like it when we go "The Devil... blah blah", but it is a vital part of what we believe."

lucaspa-I'm sure the power of Satan doesn't fit into a tidy scientific veiw of your world, but we can find loads of scripture to back it up, if you want.

 

[Michali]

"The Devil .." seems to be a vital part of your excuse and perhaps of YOUR belief, but not a vital part of Christianity.

Tell me, Michali, where in Genesis does it say Satan had ANY hand in creation? Where does it say that Satan created ANY star or starlight. Or ANY species? Satan had NOTHING to do with Creation. Where does it say that Satan changed ANYTHING in Creation? What happed to the SERPENT after the Fall is that he lost his legs.

If you are going to take the Bible as authority, shouldn't you at least follow it? Otherwise you are making up your own religion, and shouldn't be surprised if no one follows you.

I have read the book of Adam and Eve. A rejected book of the current canon which does not have detailed origins. It was either a collection of ancient stories, or a fairy tale. It does show, however, a possible common belief among the Hebrews. It gives a lot of insight toward Satan and his goals.

I never said I had any stand on the authority of the Bible. I am not trying to make up my own religion, either. I don't care if anyone "follows" me. I am only inputting thought.

I know you didn't know this, that's alright. I just want you to know this for future posts. In one moment I might have an idea, and after reading a response, I might change my mind. You, lucaspa, have made me change my mind many times. Try to disregard a person's history and answer according to the post.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The creation does not look bilions of years old thet perception is the Big Lie of our day as all of Creation shouts the young age. Only Evil-uotion THEORY says otherwise & theory is all it is, thereis NO proof of any of its claims.

Geologists and astronomers have arrived at the conclusion that the earth and the universe are very old based upon all available evidence, and that is completely independent of whether or not evolution is valid. It has nothing to do with evolution, troll.

 

[Jet Black]

God did not use Evil-oution to do anything! Evil-oution is a tool of deception, Satans tool.

 

[Philosoft]

Lamarkism "a logical implication of Darwinism?"

Well, the first edition of Origin lacked a theoretical foundation for natural selection to operate on, so the second edition in 1869(?) postulated something like Lamarckism. Mendel's work of 1866 languished unrecognized until about 1900, when genetics and natural selection were synthesized into modern neo-Darwinism.

Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.

 

[-Jae-]

Whats that I smell? Troll?

 

[Cantuar]

Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.

I'm not sure it is. I thought that Darwinian evolution was considered anti-Soviet because its main tenet was that it occurred through random processes undirected by the individual concerned (although you'd think that something that happened to populations rather than individuals would have been very Soviet) and that they preferred Lysenko's version of Lamarckism because it involved individuals striving to improve for the common good. Pity the wheat plants didn't cooperate, but maybe they weren't good communists.

 

[Philosoft]

I thought that Darwinian evolution was considered anti-Soviet because its main tenet was that it occurred through random processes undirected by the individual concerned (although you'd think that something that happened to populations rather than individuals would have been very Soviet) and that they preferred Lysenko's version of Lamarckism because it involved individuals striving to improve for the common good.

All true as far as I know. However, Lamarkism, per Lysenko's impetus, didn't become 'official Soviet science, comrade' until about 1930, well after the advent of modern neo-Darwinian theory.

Pity the wheat plants didn't cooperate, but maybe they weren't good communists.

Maybe, but I think it was the livestock that gave them the most problems. They were always going on about "capitalist pigs."