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

[RickG]

Why do you try to pawn off scientific methods or tools as personal observation?

Seriously? Because I actually have the credentials and experience.

 

[RickG]

.

You misunderstand, I said how did they observe? Nobody was there.

Radioactive decay is an accurate clock. Furthermore, there are numerous non-radiometric dating methods that go back much further than six to ten thousand years.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

So your claim is that God created the universe with apparent age, right? Well, in that case, you have introduced God as a deceiver. I find that totally unsatisfying.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your claim is that God created the universe with apparent age, right? Well, in that case, you have introduced God as a deceiver. I find that totally unsatisfying.

Did Peter blow the whistle on Him?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[StanJ]

Seems like a rather risky and unnecessary move, to pit your beliefs against the facts.

Well that's because I'm a 'Pascal Wager' kind of guy.

 

[StanJ]

So your claim is that God created the universe with apparent age, right? Well, in that case, you have introduced God as a deceiver. I find that totally unsatisfying.

Well this statement is not surprising coming from somebody who tries to humanize God at every turn. You call it deceit, I call it the unknown and I am in no position nor am I willing to judge God in regards to how he formulized creation.

 

[StanJ]

You can form an explanation without observing an explanation. For example, Rutherford famously theorized that the center of an atom was made up of a small positively charged molecule. To test that theory, he shot an particle beam at some gold foil and observed readings consistent with particles bouncing off of each other. He never directly observed a particle striking an atomic nuclei. What he did have were observations that were consistent with his theory.

Yes and it was a great experiment. The fact that he wasn't able to observe what he theorized was only because of the lack of technical prowess or ability. Today can be observed. Your pet theory, not so much.

Theories are models that try to describe why we see the observations we do see. Theories are never the observations themselves. Theories are the explanation for what we can't directly observe.

I don't have a problem with this but I don't really get why 'Germ Theory' is still called a theory when it's been proven, observed, and is falsifiable? What exactly is it that motivates different branches of science to have their own rules? Why shouldn't the rules for theory be the same for every science?

Again with the hand waves.

Well at 62 I gotta exercise whenever I can.

Do we have to have faith that a suspect committed a crime when we have his DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, fibers, and tire prints right at the scene of the crime?

Again you keep comparing apples to oranges.

We don't need faith. We have evidence. We can test all of the aspects of radiometric dating to see if they are accurate.

How exactly do you test something that you can't verify is accurate without assuming it is?

The age of the Earth is the hypothesis, and it has been tested. Also, you don't directly observe a hypothesis or a theory.

It's been tested by an unproven technology that has not been physically and actually observed or falsified?

You say that denial doesn't prove anything, and then you flat deny that what is in the present came from the past. I think you need a dose of your own medicine.

Nope, not what I said. Please try your call again.

Are you seriously denying that what we have in the present is a direct result of what happened in the past?

I have no idea how you came up with this observation.

And again with the denial.

Yeah it's funny how that happens when people don't give you proof.

And yet here you are trying to tell everyone exactly how God created, and in a way that requires God to fake all of the evidence. Presumptuous much?

No you're asserting that I'm just saying that science doesn't understand creation and assumes things not in evidence.
Well I guess I am being presumptuous and presumptive. I guess not only scientists can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that's because I'm a 'Pascal Wager' kind of guy.

Pascal's Wager is a losing bet. There are thousands of gods out there, how do you know that you have the right one? What if the idea of Christianity is right but creationism is wrong? Such a God might get ticked off that you threw away his gift of thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and it was a great experiment. The fact that he wasn't able to observe what he theorized was only because of the lack of technical prowess or ability. Today can be observed. Your pet theory, not so much.

Let me step in for a few of these. Evolution can be observed all over the place. Your limited definition of "observation" is not correct and is not the one that is used by scientists.

I don't have a problem with this but I don't really get why 'Germ Theory' is still called a theory when it's been proven, observed, and is falsifiable? What exactly is it that motivates different branches of science to have their own rules? Why shouldn't the rules for theory be the same for every science?

You mean just like the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not seem to understand that in science a theory is as high as it gets. If anything they "outrank" scientific laws. Laws are just an observation that under certain conditions certain events occur. A theory is that along with an explanation and predictive powers. The rules are the same for all branches of science. What makes you think that they aren't? And germ theory, like the theory of evolution, are both under the purview of biology.

Again you keep comparing apples to oranges.

Wrong he gave you an apt analogy.

How exactly do you test something that you can't verify is accurate without assuming it is?

Could you be clearer here? I thought that you were discussing evolution and now I have no idea what you are attacking.

It's been tested by an unproven technology that has not been physically and actually observed or falsified?

I looked back at this one and once again it seems that you are confused. You don't seem to know that we knew the Earth was old long before evolution came along. Now you are describing the science of geology. Radiometric dating is a very well understood science that is very accurate, when done correctly. But if you give a hammer to a monkey you can't complain if it breaks a few light bulbs.

It looks like the rest of this gets personal. You seem to be rather ignorant about quite a few aspects of science. I would be more than happy to help you to learn.

 

[StanJ]

Pascal's Wager is a losing bet. There are thousands of gods out there, how do you know that you have the right one? What if the idea of Christianity is right but creationism is wrong? Such a God might get ticked off that you threw away his gift of thought.

Look at that, an atheist telling me all about God! No offense but given the amount of time you've been on this form and the number of posts you've accumulated, I have no desire to talk to you whatsoever. Buh by.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at that, an atheist telling me all about God! No offense but given the amount of time you've been on this form and the number of posts you've accumulated, I have no desire to talk to you whatsoever. Buh by.

That is too bad. I could help a lost soul like you.

And you may not know this, but most atheists know more about the Bible than most Christians. So an atheist offering to help a Christian with their misunderstandings is quite reasonable.

 

[StanJ]

That is too bad. I could help a lost soul like you.
And you may not know this, but most atheists know more about the Bible than most Christians. So an atheist offering to help a Christian with their misunderstandings is quite reasonable.

yeah you keep telling yourself that. There's two things I know about atheists that come on to Christian forums. The first thing is that they're full of themselves and the second thing is that they aren't real atheists.

 

[VirOptimus]

yeah you keep telling yourself that. There's two things I know about atheists that come on to Christian forums. The first thing is that they're full of themselves and the second thing is that they aren't real atheists.

I see, so an insult and then mindreading too? Impressive.

 

[StanJ]

I see, so an insult and then mindreading too? Impressive.

Oh look... the other part of the tag team. You guys work part-time for WWE?

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh look... the other part of the tag team. You guys work part-time for WWE?

How mature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah you keep telling yourself that. There's two things I know about atheists that come on to Christian forums. The first thing is that they're full of themselves and the second thing is that they aren't real atheists.

Whoa, tread lightly there. You are actually breaking forum rules. You can no more say that someone is not a true atheist here than an atheist can claim that you are not a true Christian.

By the way, I can always support my claims with valid sources. Something that no creationist can do.

 

[StanJ]

How mature.

How trollish.

 

[StanJ]

Whoa, tread lightly there. You are actually breaking forum rules. You can no more say that someone is not a true atheist here than an atheist can claim that you are not a true Christian.
By the way, I can always support my claims with valid sources. Something that no creationist can do.

You may want to revisit those rules there partner. In any event what don't you get about 'I'm not interested in discussing anything with you'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may want to revisit those rules there partner. In any event what don't you get about 'I'm not interested in discussing anything with you'?

I can assure you that I know them better than you do. And you keep responding to me. It seems that you can't help yourself.

Meanwhile I am still willing to help a lost soul like you.

Creationists come here because they know that they are wrong. I have yet to see one that can remain honest and debate here.

 

[StanJ]

I can assure you that I know them better than you do. And you keep responding to me. It seems that you can't help yourself.
Meanwhile I am still willing to help a lost soul like you.
Creationists come here because they know that they are wrong. I have yet to see one that can remain honest and debate here.

Really, you're going to keep on harassing me? Here's an excerpt from the rules you say you know really well;

● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

Now please go away or I will report you.