is creating with age deceptive?

[archaeologist]

Sorry, archaeologist, but you lost the ability to judge bias, close-mindedness, and hypocrisy when you said

i disagree. saying that has not disqualified me but demonstrates that as an educated person i see problems with the present secular system and i can reject it.

at no time did i say that you had to do it my way or that my way is the only way.

you are saying that the only science that is acceptable is yours and i don't recall reading that God sold the ownership rights to science to you or any other person.

if you want to do science then you need to follow the owner's ways and that is God and God does not follow evolution nor theistic evolution.

remember He clearly said: 'My ways are not your ways...' so i would be careful in claiming how science should be done.

There is only one way of doing science and that is via the scientific method.

i am sorry but who says the present scientific method is right? if it is defined, and originated through secular means. omits God , ignores data and so on, then it isn't right

YECs do not do science because they do not follow the scientific method

i am sorry but yuo cannot say this. who died and left you the final decider on what is or isn't science? this type of arrogance undermines any claim you make or credibility you think you have.

you and the secular world do not own the field and have no authority to decide what is or isn't science. nor do you have the right to stop people from using science anyway they want, or by introducing new information, techniques or whatever.

all you done is shown that you are afraid and want to control the results and conclusions.

 

[archaeologist]

YECs do not do science because they do not follow the scientific method. They start with the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and then work backwards, cherry-picking facts to support that conclusion

they don't have to use the scientific method, there is no law (terrestrial or spiritual) that requires them to follow the secular definitions.

there is nothing wrong with starting out with the idea that genesis is literal, evolutionists believe evolution is true and that is their starting point, so you cannot manipulate the playing field so that you get your desired results no matter who is doing he research.

that is neither honest, objective or even science.

secular science's definitions are flawed and structured so that the truth is never found and believers are not allowed to follow secular people. they do not follow God so they cannot be followed.

so they get to start where God wants them to start and if you do not like that, that means you want to hide the truth and force everyone to do the same. how intolerant you are.

now with that said, i will refer to my other thread and say that creation is outside the scope of secular science for secular science is not of God and has no interest in finding the truth.

secular science is a restricted field where the conclusins are basically predetermined due to the definitions which eliminate the possibility of examining all the data. theories and conclusions are drawn up to go away from God and not to Him thus they have no hope of finding the answers (unless God intervenes) because THEY ARE THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.

 

[Mallon]

if you want to do science then you need to follow the owner's ways and that is God and God does not follow evolution nor theistic evolution.

remember He clearly said: 'My ways are not your ways...' so i would be careful in claiming how science should be done.

My apologies, then. Can you please refer me to the Bible passage that tells me how to do good Christian science? For that matter, what's the point of doing science at all if the best we can do is confirm what's already in the Bible?

i am sorry but who says the present scientific method is right? if it is defined, and originated through secular means. omits God , ignores data and so on, then it isn't right

Perhaps you would like to be the first, then, to explain an objective way of incorporating God into science. How can I use an empirical approach to distinguish between deities and test for their fingerprints? If you can answer this one question, I will personally champion to give you a fifth degree!

i am sorry but yuo cannot say this. who died and left you the final decider on what is or isn't science?

Scientists get to decide what science is. The Bible doesn't mention science -- the methodology wasn't developed for another 1,600 after the Bible was written!

Just to put things into perspective for myself, though: What fields are your four degrees in and where did you get them from?

 

[Jadis40]

Y.E.C.'ers claim that God created with age, in your mind would that be deceptive or practical? why?

for the record i feel that it would be practical but let's hear what others have to say.

I definitely think that a universe created with age is deceptive, and makes God out to be a liar.

The study of the universe reveals the remnants of supernovas which were stars at one time. The lifespan of a star reaches into the billions of years in some cases, all based on mass. So basically, if you argue for a universe that is 6,000 years old, then the Crab Nebula, Veil Nebula, and Supernova 1987a technically were never stars, because according to the illogical position of YEC, these stars didn't exist because the light from them took longer than 6,000 years to reach us, not to mention the fact of stellar evolution. YECs then resort to all sorts of tricks saying that light was faster in the past, or light from these distant stars instantaneously reached our planet, to light in transit, which to me have all been soundly debunked.

So, yes, I think that science is pretty reliable in determining the actual age of the universe (13+ billion) and our earth (4.6 billion). An age that Moses could not have even fathomed when he wrote Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[seekingmyLord]

There is only one way of doing science and that is via the scientific method. YECs do not do science because they do not follow the scientific method. They start with the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and then work backwards, cherry-picking facts to support that conclusion. Even AiG attests to this. You can read about it on their website. Heck, even the late Henry Morris attested to this.

It is called circular reasoning and it is used in every facet of research, if the researcher is honest enough to admit. So, regardless what your beliefs are, even those based on science, you are still using the same method of making conclusions based on the evidence you have chosen to use. Those who believe in an old Earth base all evidence on an old Earth and anomalies are simply rejected: cherry-picked evidence. Likewise, YEC do the same. Same, same. The only real difference is perspective.

No doubt someone will say, "Not I."

So desparate are we to make it all fit within the limitations of our understanding.

 

[gluadys]

there is nothing wrong with starting out with the idea that genesis is literal, evolutionists believe evolution is true and that is their starting point, so you cannot manipulate the playing field so that you get your desired results no matter who is doing he research.

No, evolutionists do not start with the belief that evolution is true. They start with the evidence that leads to the observation that evolution happens. They do not, as AiG does, begin with their conclusion. They let the evidence dictate what the conclusion will be. That is the difference between dogma and science.

 

[seekingmyLord]

I share your feelings, seekingmyLord. Though as far as I am concerned (and I think I speak on behalf of most evolutionary creationists here), my beef is not with what YECs believe, but with their abuse of the word "science" as though it somehow substantiates their faith. Believe what you want -- that's your perogative in a free country! But don't try to convince the world that your views are scientifically sound in an effort to gain converts!


I know how you feel. I was recently refused holy communion in my own church after my pastor found out that I was not a YEC!

Let me ask you, does it really concern you more that there might be an abuse of the word "science" or that Christians (oh, and for the record, Christianity is not the only religion to believe in a YEC) look stupid to the people who believe science's explanation is more believable than God creating the world?

As to being refused communion, it is truly a shame. However, that is exactly the kind of problems that goes with this whole thing on creationism and it is happening on all sides of the issue. That is the part that concerns me the most.

As I said, we should have better things to do for the Lord than nitpick at each other about it.

G'night all.

 

[theIdi0t]

Those who believe in an old Earth base all evidence on an old Earth and anomalies are simply rejected: cherry-picked evidence. Likewise, YEC do the same. Same, same. The only real difference is perspective. .

I assume that this time, when you say old Earthers, you are also lumping TEs into this term, but I notice you accuse us of cherry-picking. Now, I can present numerous bits of evidence that YECs here do not have a response for, and YEC websites do not cover, but I will ask you what evidence do you think the TE is overlooking in his cherry-picking. Most of the TEs here are quite familiar with all the nuances of the YEC position, but many of the YECs here do not even possess some of the basic understandings of evolution.

TEs in this forum are not silent, you'll find several of them willing to go the mile for one inquiring YEC who wants to understand and question the TE position on Genesis and Science. Not a single YEC thread will go by with multiple responses from the TEs here. But there have been numerous TE threads, where the YEC voice is silent, or scarce. In fact most of the creationist here have locked themselves into their subforum, and banned TEs from posting there, while we have opened our subforums to all, and to all questions. A good sign of a cherry-picker is one who hides, when confronted with the cherries he forgot to pick.

I don't believe in evolution, I accept evolution, I have nothing to gain by cherry picking, I have no ulterior motivations to do so. But it is fine that you accuse us of such, but it is required that you tell us what we are ignoring, or failing to look at?

We have no qualms in confronting our theology or our science, and you are more than welcome to ask away. What you will find is that not a single question you ask, will go by unanswered, and not a single cherry is left unpicked.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Let me ask you, does it really concern you more that there might be an abuse of the word "science" or that Christians (oh, and for the record, Christianity is not the only religion to believe in a YEC)

Can you name any outside the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)? Seriously, I've not heard of any others.

look stupid to the people who believe science's explanation is more believable than God creating the world?

Everyone is this forum believes God created the world. Some of us believe that science reveals bits and pieces of how.

As to being refused communion, it is truly a shame. However, that is exactly the kind of problems that goes with this whole thing on creationism and it is happening on all sides of the issue. That is the part that concerns me the most.

Agree 100% -- ok 95%. Can you give an example of this sort of thing happening on the other side of the issue? Like a YEC being refused communion by a TE priest/pastor?

 

[laptoppop]

There is only one way of doing science and that is via the scientific method. YECs do not do science because they do not follow the scientific method. They start with the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and then work backwards, cherry-picking facts to support that conclusion. Even AiG attests to this. You can read about it on their website. Heck, even the late Henry Morris attested to this.

Yes, we believe that the Scriptures speak plainly about creation. Our belief in God and His ability to communicate is an openly stated presupposition.

We use the scientific method - but only as appropriate. The scientific method presupposes the absence of God in its methodology. Therefore it is fine for certain things, like figuring out how things normally work -- but its presupposition must be acknowledged and accounted for. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to use the scientific method to investigate hydrodeposition and the way floods work. It is perfectly reasonable to test if the strata that we find are consistent with the historical record in Scripture.

The place where you crossed the line, is accusing YECs of "cherry-picking" facts. This is, as I read it, accusing people of deliberately ignoring evidence against their position -- of being dishonest.

If the evidence really was unable to be reconciled with Scripture - then either our understanding of Scripture or our understanding of the evidence is in error, and we need to check both. However, when they are in agreement - I do not see a need to disregard the interpretation because it disagrees with a non-theistic explanation.

Should I accuse conventional geologists of cherry picking facts when they define regions that should show gaps of millions of years BUT DO NOT as "paraconformities" -- unconformities with no evidence? YECs have no problem with unconformities -- flood waters can deposit or erode sections based on a number of variables such as speed of the water flow, amounts of dissolved solids, temperature, etc. -- variables which would be expected to be changing in many ways in the midst of a global flood -- both spatially and temporally. However, I would submit there is no reason to define something as a paraconformity unless you are trying to make the evidence fit a prior conclusion -- to make it fit into a preconceived model.

I will not call it cherry picking, but we must be open to the actual evidence -- even if it agrees with Scripture and disagrees with conventional consensus opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The scientific method presupposes the absence of God in its methodology.

How exactly would presupposing God change our investigations into gravity?

 

[theIdi0t]

Let me ask you, does it really concern you more that there might be an abuse of the word "science" or that Christians (oh, and for the record, Christianity is not the only religion to believe in a YEC) look stupid to the people who believe science's explanation is more believable than God creating the world?

I've mentioned this before, but I find the whole idea of kids, of children singing "Behemoth is dinosaur, a might saurapod" to be deeply disturbing, and a great injustice to God, and the Gospel. I've already said that if I ever walked into a church, that was teaching children to sing such a song, I will personally remove and rebuke such ministers out of the pews, for making a mockery out of the house of God.

I have no issue with a believer's personal origin of life position, in fact many of my friends and family are YECs, and we do not even debate the topic. But I take deep offense of YECs who try to strong arm their origin of life position on children, on believers, and unbelievers.

My issue with the YEC position is that it is based on a false premise, that evolution prevents unbelievers from believing in God, but this is a lie. Someone here took a poll in the crevo forum asking unbelievers if they thought evolution and Christianity are incompatible, and many voted but not a single person voted yes. What does this tell you about a creation based spread of the Gospel?

 

[theIdi0t]

Y
The place where you crossed the line, is accusing YECs of "cherry-picking" facts. This is, as I read it, accusing people of deliberately ignoring evidence against their position -- of being dishonest.

Can I ask you a question Pop, I am just curious. I know perhaps the comparison is not fair, but would you consider a modern day geocentrist to be a cherry-picker? It would be hard to call them dishonest, or even to say that they deliberately ignore evidence against their position, but would you still see them as cherry-pickers?

I still consider them cherry pickers, but perhaps your definition of cherry picking is different than mine?

 

[gluadys]

The scientific method presupposes the absence of God in its methodology.

I wish people would stop spreading this lie. Scientific methodology can only be seen as presupposing the absence of God if your belief is that God is absent from all natural process and only present in supernatural acts.

As far as I am concerned that is the proposition of an athiest and materialist and a Christian should be ashamed to uphold it.

Therefore it is fine for certain things, like figuring out how things normally work -- but its presupposition must be acknowledged and accounted for.

Finding out how things in nature normally work is precisely what the scientific method is for, and that presupposition is acknowledged and accounted for.

See more here

 

[archaeologist]

Mallon

Can you please refer me to the Bible passage that tells me how to do good Christian science?

certainly, prov. 3:4-6, i can get more but i am not at home right now.

For that matter, what's the point of doing science at all if the best we can do is confirm what's already in the Bible?

there is still a use for science, but adhering to alternatives when there is no foundation to do so, is just wasting time, money and work.

Perhaps you would like to be the first, then, to explain an objective way of incorporating God into science. How can I use an empirical approach to distinguish between deities and test for their fingerprints

so you want to use a secular way to test the the spiritual. right there that shows you how inferior the secular way is and how it cannot obtain all the data needed to make proper conclusions.

to perpetuate this inferiority is just wrong.

Scientists get to decide what science is

no, they don't. they do not have that authority. they do not have all knowledge, they cannot agree with each other, they are fallible thus who is to say they are doing it correctly?

The Bible doesn't mention science -- the methodology wasn't developed for another 1,600 after the Bible was written

that is where you are wrong, as we know that the ancient civilizations had science, they had math and other interesting subjects you think were originated by the greeks and the romans.

also the Bible was written over a long period of time so which book does the clock start ticking on?

 

[Mallon]

Those who believe in an old Earth base all evidence on an old Earth and anomalies are simply rejected: cherry-picked evidence.

To my knowledge, there are no anomalies contradicting the ancient age of the earth. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to post them so we can scrutinize over them (but please don't post anything that hasn't already been addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). Beyond that, if the only evidence supporting the young age of the earth were anomalous, isolated finds, as you suggest, then the majority of the evidence must therefore support deep time. Right?

The place where you crossed the line, is accusing YECs of "cherry-picking" facts.

Answers in Genesis -- the mecca of creationist apologetics material -- admits to it themselves! From their website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

In other words, they reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs. If that isn't cherry-picking, I don't know what is.

And I'm sorry to say it, archaeologist, but I just couldn't be bothered arguing with you any more. Your faith is an unpenetrable wall, and I feel there is little that I could say that would possibly make a difference, so I won't waste my time.

 

[archaeologist]

jadis:

The lifespan of a star reaches into the billions of years in some cases, all based on mass.

based on mass?? not fact. how do you know then that they have a billion+ year lifespan. they could be a lot shorter.

So basically, if you argue for a universe that is 6,000 years old, then the Crab Nebula, Veil Nebula, and Supernova 1987a technically were never stars, because according to the illogical position of YEC, these stars didn't exist because the light from them took longer than 6,000 years to reach us, not to mention the fact of stellar evolution. YECs then resort to all sorts of tricks saying that light was faster in the past, or light from these distant stars instantaneously reached our planet, to light in transit, which to me have all been soundly debunked.

except you omit the God Factor. God created the stars as well and he put it all in place so obviously things did not go according to what science says but what God did. you are using science as the moral barometer when it cannot be such a thing. it is a fallible science missing too much data.

gluadys

No, evolutionists do not start with the belief that evolution is true. They start with the evidence that leads to the observation that evolution happens. They do not, as AiG does, begin with their conclusion

according to my recent research that is not true as they are now declaring evoloution to be a fact not a theory anymore.. (i have quotes at home)

theidiot

Now, I can present numerous bits of evidence that YECs here do not have a response for, and YEC websites do not cover

please present these and examples of where YEC's cherrypick. i would like to take a crack at answering them, won't promise i have all the answers but i may have some.

gluadys

I wish people would stop spreading this lie. Scientific methodology can only be seen as presupposing the absence of God if your belief is that God is absent from all natural process and only present in supernatural acts.

it is not a lie, it has been recorded over and over again where God is not allowed in science. i believe i posted a couple such quotes in another thread. even the dictionary definitions of science do not include God as a part of the system. it is usually 'finding answers through natural means' or something similar

remove God's acting as God and limit Him solely to natural methods means you are omiting God. creation was not done scientifically, it was done through God's way and until you drop the secularisms, you will not see that fact.

 

[jckstraw72]

However the Bible nowhere tells us that either the fall or the flood radically changed creation.

well with the fall things began to die -- thats a pretty noticeable change. and the Church has always interpreted these things to bring drastic changes.

 

[theIdi0t]

it is not a lie, it has been recorded over and over again where God is not allowed in science. i believe i posted a couple such quotes in another thread. even the dictionary definitions of science do not include God as a part of the system. it is usually 'finding answers through natural means' or something similar

remove God's acting as God and limit Him solely to natural methods means you are omiting God. creation was not done scientifically, it was done through God's way and until you drop the secularisms, you will not see that fact.

You are going about this all wrong. God is not removed from science, supernatural intervention is removed from science, God's natural intervention is always present.

You don't believe that God supernaturally intervenes to select the sex of your child, or which genes of a particular parent the child carries. Nor do you believe that God supernaturally intervenes to provide a caterpillar resistance to a particular fertilizer, now do you? If you give credit to the natural order and mechanics which God created are you removing God?

Answer this.

please present these and examples of where YEC's cherrypick. i would like to take a crack at answering them, won't promise i

Did Noah carry a pair of over 10 million species in the Ark, or do you agree with the largest creation science organization in the world, AiG, that Noah carried somewhere around a few hundred species or Kinds as they like to call it, in the Ark?

 

[gluadys]

according to my recent research that is not true as they are now declaring evoloution to be a fact not a theory anymore.. (i have quotes at home)

Evolution has always been a fact, long before we discovered it. Just as the Americas were a fact long before Columbus sailed across the Atlantic. Just as the earth has always been a planet orbiting the sun even during the long ages when it was thought to be the motionless centre of the cosmos.

Theories are not infant facts. Theories are explanatory frameworks for facts. They show how facts fit together. The theory of evolution shows how mechanisms such as mutation, selection, genetic drift and other factors produce variation and speciation i.e. evolution. Evolution is a fact whether we know about it or not, whether we can explain it or not. But we do know about it, and we do have a theory that explains it.

it is not a lie, it has been recorded over and over again where God is not allowed in science.

It is a lie. God is not excluded from science. God's miraculous actions, his direct interventions that disrupt the flow of natural process are excluded. But God is not excluded since God also works through natural process. In fact, God normally works through natural process.

i believe i posted a couple such quotes in another thread. even the dictionary definitions of science do not include God as a part of the system. it is usually 'finding answers through natural means' or something similar

Exactly. Science studies the ordinary, natural means that God uses. It does not study God's extraordinary methods. In fact, it cannot as such actions are singular, anomalous and unrepeated, so they cannot be studied via scientific method.

remove God's acting as God

Are you saying that when God sends rain via ordinary meteorological processes God is not acting as God? Are you saying that when God causes babies to be conceived through the sexual relations of their parents that God is not acting as God? Are you saying that when God punished Israel and Judah by sending human armies against them (Assyria & Babylon respectively) God was not acting as God?

Who are you to decide when God is acting as God?

Natural or supernatural means, God is always acting as God.

and limit Him solely to natural methods

I am not limiting God to natural methods. It is science that is limited to the study of God's natural methods. Science can study God's ordinary means of doing things through the natural processes he has created for that purpose. Science cannot study the special supernatural actions which defy scientific analysis.