Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

Archie the Preacher said:

6. Therefore, if God acted as the YEC faction insists, and then left evidence of great age, God placed false evidence in existence.

Click to expand...

I'm not a YEC myself, but I'll address this portion of your post.

What if God creates a load of raisin bread ex nihilo?

Would you accuse Him of placing false evidence in existence, since raisins are aged grapes?

Archie the Preacher said:

When a YEC proponent claims God did something one way and then establishes natural, physical laws which indicate the 'one way' claimed cannot have happened, the YEC proponent is essentially claiming God 'planted' or 'created' false evidence. In other words, God lied.

Click to expand...

Is this claim a lie?

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

AV1611VET said:

Is this claim a lie?

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Click to expand...

What is "waxen?"

The Stamp said:

Yes of course it is, at that time forty years was nearly two generations.

Click to expand...

Here's a doosey for uniformitarianists to deny:

Deuteronomy 34:7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

It looks to me like natural forces can take a hike when God shows up.

The Stamp said:

Did everyone live to be over a hundred years old then or just the chosen few?

Click to expand...

After Noah's time ... under a new dispensation ... the average life spans began to diminish with each generation.

HitchSlap said:

What is "waxen?"

Click to expand...

It's the Jacobean-era spelling of "vaxen". (Vaxen, in case you aren't familiar with them, were popular computers during the 80s.)

sfs said:

It's the Jacobean-era spelling of "vaxen". (Vaxen, in case you aren't familiar with them, were popular computers during the 80s.)

Click to expand...

ouch

Speedwell said:

O

Only with respect to defining Last Thursdayism. If the world was created last Thursday, how come I can remember things that happened as far back as the 1940s?

Click to expand...

Hi speedwell,

Well, that would be because your theory of 'last thursdayism' isn't a valid theory. Neither the Scriptures nor science support such a claim. The creation has existed beyond last Thursday and I imagine that you can remember things from the 40's because you're old.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

Hi speedwell,

Well, that would be because your theory of 'last thursdayism' isn't a valid theory. Neither the Scriptures nor science support such a claim. The creation has existed beyond last Thursday and I imagine that you can remember things from the 40's because you're old.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Not if God created me last Thursday with false memories of the '40s. Do you find that theologically acceptable? Obviously not, since you declare Last Thursdayism to be an invalid theory. But the reason science cannot support Last Thursdayist claims is that it is working from equally false evidence of an ancient past. So either God has planted false evidence of an ancient Earth or the doctrine of Last Thursdayism is wrong.

I feel the same way about 4004 BCism. There is convincing scientific evidence (which you deny or admit you don't understand) that the Earth is much older than that. So either God has planted false evidence of an ancient Earth or your interpretation of the relevant scripture is wrong.

Hi archie,

You responded:

Archie the Preacher said:

Last time, Ted. I really get exercised when ignored repeated.

Click to expand...

Look, you don't have to do anything for me. I understand your position. You're not the only tool in the box that works that way. I've just never understood the idea that if God isn't bound by the natural properties that He created and does something outside of said natural properties, that it makes Him a liar.

I read your testimony, and needless to say, I don't agree that it's the truth that explains what is. Your final one is humorous so I will address it.

Archie the Preacher said:

Therefore, if God acted as the YEC faction insists, and then left evidence of great age, God placed false evidence in existence.

Click to expand...

God didn't leave any evidence. What you see as evidence is what science has told you is evidence that such and such must mean such and such. For example: If we can see a star that is a billion light years away, then that star must be at least a billion years old for us to see it. That's because we know today in the year 2017 that light travels at a reasonably fixed speed. The natural properties of light says that it travels at that speed. While such a theory is absolutely true as relates to any light that we see today, we have no evidence other than, 'all things have always acted as all things act that we see today'. Such an understanding leaves no room for the possibility that when God spoke the stars into existence that the light from every star was immediately, on the day that they were created, visible to the eye of man upon the earth.

According to the account of the exodus, the water that parted stood as a wall on both the left and right hand of the Israelites. God made that water stand because we know that water doesn't stand as a wall. The natural property of water is that it seeks its level. So, your theory is that if that water did stand as the Scriptures tell us that it did, which is against what we know of the natural properties of water, then He's a liar.

Look, go with what you know. For me, God can make water stand at attention and He can make light do whatever He wants light to do also. That He makes something act outside of its natural property, but man can't understand how He did it or just deny that He did it in such a way, doesn't make God a liar. The fact that man says we know the creation is x years old because of the natural properties of light, but it isn't, doesn't make God a liar. You know who it makes a liar?

Have you ever considered Adam. Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. He was formed as a fully functioning adult male. He was never a baby. He was never weaned from his mother's breast. Any forensic pathologist who might have examined Adam on the second day of his life would have concluded that he was likely at least 20 years old or so. Was he? If that forensic pathologist, based on all known information that we have today about the growing human body signed some claim that the man Adam was 20 years old or so, who would be the liar? Would God be the liar because our science has proven that any man who appears today to be 20 years old or so would have a liver the size of Adam's. A brain the size of Adam's. Lungs and heart the size of Adam's. That any man must have a mother and must have been weaned by either breast or bottle and had his diapers changed, etc. Who's the liar? The forensic scientist or God? God made Adam to appear as a fully grown and functioning adult and God made the creation to be fully functioning pretty much just as we see it today at the moment that it was created. All the stars were visible upon the earth. I don't care how fast we know light to travel today. God can override that law and it doesn't make Him a liar that when He steps back from overriding that law that we then want to claim that the universe must be x years old because of what we know about the speed of light.

Now, you don't have to 'exercise' yourself to answer me on this, just know that it is what I believe. The fact that we disallow miracles as the reason for the creation appearing near instantaneously just as it is, and rather want to hold the creation at all times and in all seasons to the natural properties of things that we know, then one will never allow that God did any of the miracles that He claims to have done.

Just as you have said. You don't know if the shadow cast by the sun moved back 10 steps. I do.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

The Stamp said:

Ask your pastors this question, Why do animals and plants living on these island not exist anywhere else on earth?
Could it be because they were isolated from the rest of the world and evolved?

Click to expand...

Evolved from what?

Speedwell said:

Not if God created me last Thursday with false memories of the '40s. Do you find that theologically acceptable? Obviously not, since you declare Last Thursdayism to be an invalid theory. But the reason science cannot support Last Thursdayist claims is that it is working from equally false evidence of an ancient past. So either God has planted false evidence of an ancient Earth or the doctrine of Last Thursdayism is wrong.

I feel the same way about 4004 BCism. There is convincing scientific evidence (which you deny or admit you don't understand) that the Earth is much older than that. So either God has planted false evidence of an ancient Earth or your interpretation of the relevant scripture is wrong.

Click to expand...

Hi speedwell,

No, God has not planted any evidence of an ancient past. It's merely what we believe to be the case based on our wisdom. God just created the earth. How man then divides it up and ponders and parses all the properties and things of the earth is all on man. God merely created the earth and heavens just as they are. He didn't plant any evidence other than what He has told us through His testimony.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

AV1611VET said:

I'm not a YEC myself, but I'll address this portion of your post.

What if God creates a load of raisin bread ex nihilo?

Click to expand...

What if God stood on His head and juggled three golf balls? Bring God and the loaf of raisin bread and we'll talk about it.

Nonsense is nonsense, even when the nonsense speaker throws God into the mix. And please don't tell me you don't get it.

miamited said:

God didn't leave any evidence. What you see as evidence is what science has told you is evidence that such and such must mean such and such. For example: If we can see a star that is a billion light years away, then that star must be at least a billion years old for us to see it. That's because we know today in the year 2017 that light travels at a reasonably fixed speed. The natural properties of light says that it travels at that speed. While such a theory is absolutely true as relates to any light that we see today, we have no evidence other than, 'all things have always acted as all things act that we see today'. Such an understanding leaves no room for the possibility that when God spoke the stars into existence that the light from every star was immediately, on the day that they were created, visible to the eye of man upon the earth.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly the kind of claim made by Last Thursdayism. Only the date is different. Mind you, I am not making fun of it--IMO it is the only reasonable basis to accept YECism. The difference between us is that I have theological reasons for rejecting the date.

miamited said:

Just as you have said. You don't know if the shadow cast by the sun moved back 10 steps. I do.

Click to expand...

And now you've decided to brand me a liar as well. That makes two of us you claim as liars; I'm in better company with Him than with you.

Archie the Preacher said:

And now you've decided to brand me a liar as well. That makes two of us you claim as liars; I'm in better company with Him than with you.

Click to expand...

Hi archie,

You seem to have a real problem with this idea of lying. All I said was that your testimony was that you didn't know whether or not the shadow of the sun moved back 10 steps, but that I did. How you work out that I'm calling you a liar is quite beyond me. All that says is that I know something that you don't, according to your own testimony.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted