In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[RickG]

I have a problem with anything that opposes scripture.

So you think they are invalid?

 

[Hammster]

Would it be fair to say that no matter what evidence is found, you will not change your mind?

No.

 

[Hammster]

So you think they are invalid?

Scriptures? No.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Then what features would a geologic formation need in order to convince you that it was millions of years old?

 

[Hammster]

Then what features would a geologic formation need in order to convince you that it was millions of years old?

I'm not sure there are any, to be honest.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure there are any, to be honest.

This is a bit confusing. You say that evidence could change your mind. I ask you what this evidence would look like, and you seem to back track and say that no evidence would change your mind.

Perhaps you could clear this up?

 

[StanJ]

Why would God do such a thing,knowing that it would sow the seeds of confusion and disbelief?
My God would do no such thing.
Please keep with the OP and keep it civil.

You're assuming scientists are getting it right as far as actually judging the real age of the Earth and the universe. Not quite sure how they come up with 14 billion for the universe and 4 billion for the Earth, but in any event, to take it down to a smaller level how old do you think Adam was when God made him out of the soil of the Earth? Obviously he was a day old, but did he look that old or did he look like a man in his late teens early twenties? I don't really know, but the bottom line is I trust what God's word says is true and even though Genesis and the Bible is not a science book per se, it is still God's truth and if it contradicts so-called science then I will forgo accepting this so-called science and believe in the word of God.

 

[RickG]

Scriptures? No.

Come on Hammster, you know very well what I mean. Please answer the question.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're assuming scientists are getting it right as far as actually judging the age of the Earth and the universe.

We have all of the data and observations. No such assumption is being made.

If you want to claim that their conclusion is wrong, you will have to do better than waving the word "assumption" about.

Not quite sure how they come up with 14 billion for the universe and 4 billion for the Earth in any event to take it down to a smaller level how old do you think Adam was when God made him out of the soil of the Earth?

Focusing on the Earth for now, we use the history of radioactive decay seen in rocks to measure the age of those rocks. The oldest rocks in the solar system are meteorites which all date to 4.5 billion years old. From this, we conclude that rock formation, and therefore planet formation, started 4.5 billion years ago.

As for Adam, would God create Adam with a scar over his eye from a punch he never received? Would Adam have a calcification on his right tibia from a broken bone he never suffered? The things we use to date the Earth come from processes that leave evidence, just as a broken bone leaves a calcification when it heals.

Obviously he was a day but did you look at a old or do they look like a man in his late teens early twenties? I don't really know but the bottom line is I trust that what God's word says is true and even though Genesis and the Bible is not a science book per se it is still God's truth and if it contradicts so-called science then I will forgo accepting this so-called science and believe in the word of God.

That leaves us with the question of why God would put a fake history into the Earth when it wasn't necessary for the Earth to function as it does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Talking snakes, magical trees, angels with flaming swords . . . what more do you need to indicate a parable?

Walking on water?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is really sad that the only responses we can get in a science forum is apologetics.

Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

 

[RickG]

Walking on water?

Off topic.

 

[Hammster]

This is a bit confusing. You say that evidence could change your mind. I ask you what this evidence would look like, and you seem to back track and say that no evidence would change your mind.

Perhaps you could clear this up?

You asked if evidence could change my mind. Then you asked about geological evidence. You moved the goal posts.

 

[RickG]

You asked if evidence could change my mind. Then you asked about geological evidence. You moved the goal posts.

It is what the thread is about. No one is moving the goal posts but you. This is the physical and life sciences forum of the CF. We would really appreciate have a science discussion.

 

[Hammster]

It is what the thread is about. No one is moving the goal posts but you. This is the physical and life sciences forum of the CF. We would really appreciate have a science discussion.

My replies have been consistent with the OP, for the most part.

 

[StanJ]

We have all of the data and observations. No such assumption is being made.
If you want to claim that their conclusion is wrong, you will have to do better than waving the word "assumption" about.

Is it observable or falsifiable? If not, it is a theory, and thus in my opinion an assumption.

Focusing on the Earth for now, we use the history of radioactive decay seen in rocks to measure the age of those rocks. The oldest rocks in the solar system are meteorites which all date to 4.5 billion years old. From this, we conclude that rock formation, and therefore planet formation, started 4.5 billion years ago.

Yes, conclusions Based on unproven data. It was never observed in the can't be falsifiable. It also assumes it is accurate.

As for Adam, would God create Adam with a scar over his eye from a punch he never received? Would Adam have a calcification on his right tibia from a broken bone he never suffered? The things we use to date the Earth come from processes that leave evidence, just as a broken bone leaves a calcification when it heals.

These are scenarios that are not relative. The processes are based on assumptions. If those processes were used on Adam the day he was made what would they show? Obviously we don't know so it's not observable with the original man for the original world and it's not falsifiable.

That leaves us with the question of why God would put a fake history into the Earth when it wasn't necessary for the Earth to function as it does.

Well seeing as though you don't know why or even if he did and you also don't know how to create a universe and the world, I'm not quite sure how you are able to make a conclusion that you don't have the credentials to make?

 

[Loudmouth]

You asked if evidence could change my mind. Then you asked about geological evidence. You moved the goal posts.

Then let me rephrase. Is there any geologic evidence that would ever change your mind? Or more generally, is there any physical evidence from science that would ever change your mind?

 

[RickG]

My replies have been consistent with the OP, for the most part.

I boldly disagree.

 

[Hammster]

Then let me rephrase. Is there any geologic evidence that would ever change your mind? Or more generally, is there any physical evidence from science that would ever change your mind?

Probably not. Is there act scriptural evidence that will change your mind?

 

[StanJ]

It is what the thread is about. No one is moving the goal posts but you. This is the physical and life sciences forum of the CF. We would really appreciate have a science discussion.

This is creation and evolution is it not?