My Evidence Challenge

[razeontherock]

Ah. I wasn't familiar with that idea. So the ex-nihilo thing, that means the Earth was created to look old, and is both 6000 years old and 4.whatever billion years old at the same time?

Actually ex nihilo means created from nothing, instead of from pre-existent matter.

Seems like a cop-out to me.

I never understood why G-d would want to make new creation look old either. I think it's best basis is if you take Adam and Eve literally, surely they weren't created as newborns, but mature. Extending that logic is how you arrive at what is presented here.

 

[chilehed]

...If God wanted us to believe in creation, then why is there no evidence?...

Who says there's no evidence? From nothing, nothing comes, and there can be no infinite regression of causes from the past. Therefore, there was an uncaused cause, which created all other things. This is God.

The universe exists contingent on something else. It had a beginning, therefore it was created.

 

[keith99]

Ah. I wasn't familiar with that idea. So the ex-nihilo thing, that means the Earth was created to look old, and is both 6000 years old and 4.whatever billion years old at the same time? Seems like a cop-out to me.

Anyway, obviously I am completely missing the point of this thread. Tschüss.

Ex-nihilo has already been explained. The 6000 but all evicdence points to a few billion in inbedded age.

The seemingly absurd question 'Did Adam have a navel' becomes isgnificant in that context. I'll leave why as an excercise for the reader.

 

[Tiberius]

Again, I have to refer you to my Apple Challenge.

If there was physical evidence of the earth being created ex nihilo, then by definition, it wasn't ex nihilo.

At best, it would have been ex materia -- but even that doesn't require evidence.

But nowhere in your apple challenge do you state God's motivation for using such a method. That is what I am asking.

Who said the earth is young? it is 4.57 billion years old.

Are you following the conversation here?

I think he meant that whole created 6000 years ago, and he was just assuming you'd understand.

If X didn't generate any evidence, why would God go out of His way to falsify some?

I think the question is "If God used a method that didn't leave evidence, yet he wanted us to believe it, why didn't he use an alternative method that did leave evidence?"

Except - we're all here.

Except - the presence of us is not evidence of God.

or are you saying that our presence doesn't count as evidence? Remember, my OP is addressing AV's claim that there is no evidence that God created the world.

What if you and your perceptions were the only real thing except for your Creator?

Just me and my parents?

Actually ex nihilo means created from nothing, instead of from pre-existent matter.

Funnily enough, I can't find mention of that in the Bible. AV, where does it say God created stuff from nothing?

I never understood why G-d would want to make new creation look old either. I think it's best basis is if you take Adam and Eve literally, surely they weren't created as newborns, but mature. Extending that logic is how you arrive at what is presented here.

Would you say that a God who makes something brand new look old is deceptive?

Who says there's no evidence? From nothing, nothing comes, and there can be no infinite regression of causes from the past. Therefore, there was an uncaused cause, which created all other things. This is God.

The universe exists contingent on something else. It had a beginning, therefore it was created.

AV says there's no evidence.

And the first cause argument is not really a good one.

 

[MoonLancer]

Who said the earth is young? it is 4.57 billion years old.

If so then the earth also revolved around the sun 4.57 billion times. Take it or leave it. But don't claim your an OEC when you think the the earth has only revolved around the sun 6000 times.

 

[AV1611VET]

But nowhere in your apple challenge do you state God's motivation for using such a method. That is what I am asking.

Mentally place yourself at the scene of the event and you should be able to answer this easily.

In the beginning, there is nothing -- only God -- period.

Then God speaks, and the earth comes into existence -- from nothing.

The only other method is creatio ex materia, and creatio ex materia means that there wasn't nothing in the beginning.

This is what I mean when I tell people that I literally bring nothing into a discussion on the creation event.

 

[AV1611VET]

If so then the earth also revolved around the sun 4.57 billion times. Take it or leave it. But don't claim your an OEC when you think the the earth has only revolved around the sun 6000 times.

There was no sun when the earth was created.

The sun didn't come into existence until 3 days later.

 

[Aryn9189]

There was no sun when the earth was created.

The sun didn't come into existence until 3 days later.

That's not the point. Three days doesn't mean much against 6000 years. The planet is either on its 6000th revolution, give or take a few hundred, or on its 4 billionth-ish revolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not the point. Three days doesn't mean much against 6000 years. The planet is either on its 6000th revolution, give or take a few hundred, or on its 4 billionth-ish revolution.

If the earth is 4.57 billion years old, and God created the universe in six allegorical days, then that means one day averages to 761,666,666.6666667
years.

This means that God would have created the earth on day one, then the sun 3,046,666,666.666667 years later.

 

[Aryn9189]

Okay, let me ask you: exactly what do you believe about Earth's origins? As you may have noticed, I'm new around here. I have been trying to keep up based on what you've said in the few threads where I've seen you, but I don't understand what you believe. Is the Earth young or old? Was it created in six real days or six allegorical days, or did it evolve? Please enlighten me so I know how to approach these discussions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, let me ask you: exactly what do you believe about Earth's origins? As you may have noticed, I'm new around here. I have been trying to keep up based on what you've said in the few threads where I've seen you, but I don't understand what you believe. Is the Earth young or old? Was it created in six real days or six allegorical days, or did it evolve? Please enlighten me so I know how to approach these discussions.

This is what I believe:

1. In the beginning, there was God -- nothing else: not time, not space, nothing.

2. Then God "spoke" and a pool of water appeared in the hollow of His hand.

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

At this point, the earth is 'without form and void' -- since it is just a pool of water in the palm of His hand.

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form, and void;

3. God then invokes the 4 forces of the universe: weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity ...

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

At this point, the earth, due to gravity, now forms into a ball of water that I like to call Terra Aqua:

... and from here, God then creates the rest of the earth as outlined in Genesis 1.

Here are quick answers to your specific questions:

1. The earth is both young and old: it is 6000 years young existentially; and it is 4.57 billion years old physically.

2. It was created in 6 real days.

 

[chilehed]

...AV says there's no evidence.

I'm not really sure what he's saying. Sometimes I wonder if he's been hanging out with Gene Ray.

And the first cause argument is not really a good one.

I know a lot of people say that, but I've never heard anyone give a coherent reason why.

 

[driewerf]

No, that's when Elijah ascended up in a flaming chariot -- I'm talking about Enoch in Genesis 5.

(Probably someone/an event most of these Internet scientists never even heard of.)

Of course I never heard of it. I stick to Genesis 1.

One should never go outside Genesis 1 -- for any reason .

Even if they get you into Genesis 2, the debate is over.

 

[driewerf]

Who said the earth is young? it is 4.57 billion years old.

Are you following the conversation here?

Bisshop Ussher, bisshop Wilberforce, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Erik Hovind, Andy Schlafly, Janet Volger, VenomfangX, Sarah Palin, ... Just to name a few.

 

[driewerf]

If the earth is 4.57 billion years old, and God created the universe in six allegorical days, then that means one day averages to 761,666,666.6666667
years.

This means that God would have created the earth on day one, then the sun 3,046,666,666.666667 years later.

Woulda -- coulda -- shoulda.

I'm sitting in a classroom at Evolution High.

I don't share you guys' zeal to explain evolution in terms of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Science doesn't deal in YES or NO -- science deals in woulda, coulda, shoulda, yadda-yak here-today-gone-tomorrow rhetoric and spin.

 

[Tiberius]

Mentally place yourself at the scene of the event and you should be able to answer this easily.

In the beginning, there is nothing -- only God -- period.

Then God speaks, and the earth comes into existence -- from nothing.

The only other method is creatio ex materia, and creatio ex materia means that there wasn't nothing in the beginning.

This is what I mean when I tell people that I literally bring nothing into a discussion on the creation event.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question.

Why didn't God use an alternative method of creating something from nothing that left evidence? I mean, he's God, he should be able to do that, right?

And another question: Why is it that this evidence that was cleaned up (as you've mentioned in other threads), why is it that when this evidence was removed, the Earth looked to be billions of years old? Why that particular age? I would have thought that after the removal of all evidence, the earth would have been undatable. Why does this lack of evidence look like an age of several billion years?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, you didn't answer my question.

I never do; and after more than 5 years here, I don't plan to start, either.

Why didn't God use an alternative method of creating something from nothing that left evidence?

Occam's Razor comes to mind; and for the record, take my Apple Challenge and tell me what specific evidence should be left behind.

I mean, he's God, he should be able to do that, right?

That's right, and He doesn't cater to atheists and scientists.

And another question: Why is it that this evidence that was cleaned up (as you've mentioned in other threads), why is it that when this evidence was removed, the Earth looked to be billions of years old?

Are you talking about the Flood now? if so, the earth was 4.57 billion years old before the Flood, and it's 4.57 billion years old after the Flood as well.

Why that particular age?

I don't know; but I'm sure He has His reasons.

I would have thought that after the removal of all evidence, the earth would have been undatable.

Are we back to the creation week now? if so, there was no evidence to remove, as no evidence was generated.

 

[Tiberius]

I never do; and after more than 5 years here, I don't plan to start, either.

One could very easily think that you don't answer my questions because you dpon't have any answers to provide.

Occam's Razor comes to mind; and for the record, take my Apple Challenge and tell me what specific evidence should be left behind.

Well, for a start, I would say that an object that was just created ex nihilo has no reason to appear to be older. This is the crux of what I am asking you, AV. You see, I'm not claiming that an object created ex nihilo should leave evidence behind as to how old it is. WHat I am saying is that i find it odd that an object created ex nihilo would have evidence that it is much much older. That's what i'm asking, AV. Why does the Earth appear to be billions of years old? I know you said embedded age, but why does it have embedded age at all? And why that number of years? Why not just have it appear to be 6000 years or so old, so it matches the actual time it has been in existence? Why does the earth appear so much older?

That's right, and He doesn't cater to atheists and scientists.

That's not what I asked. I asked, "Why did God use a method that left no evidence behind?"

Are you talking about the Flood now? if so, the earth was 4.57 billion years old before the Flood, and it's 4.57 billion years old after the Flood as well.

Ah yeah, I remembered wrong. You claim God cleaned up the evidence for the flood. Why he did this, you;ve never explained.

I don't know; but I'm sure He has His reasons.

In other words, "God works in mysterious ways," which is creationistese for, "It makes no sense, but I believe it anyway."

Are we back to the creation week now? if so, there was no evidence to remove, as no evidence was generated.

Why not? This is what I have been asking you. Why did God intentionally use a method which left no evidence discoverable by investigation if he wanted so much for people to believe? Sure, you say he gave us the Bible so we would know, but why not have evidence in reality as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, for a start, I would say that an object that was just created ex nihilo has no reason to appear to be older.

Really?

Suppose He creates a loaf of raisin bread on your counter top, ex nihilo?

Since raisins are grapes dried in the sun, was He being deceptive?

In other words, "God works in mysterious ways," which is creationistese for, "It makes no sense, but I believe it anyway."

In other words, "I don't know" -- as I said before.

It's comments like this that I disdain answering questions with, "I don't know."

I'd rather make something up, than answer with, "I don't know."

This gets back to a point I've made before:

You guys won't ask questions about what is in the Bible, you'll ask questions that you know aren't covered in Scripture, just to elicit an "I don't know from us."

You claim God cleaned up the evidence for the flood. Why he did this, you;ve never explained.

Look, "newbie", I've got well over two million posts.

Do you really want to stick with this accusation and make yourself look bad? or would you rather I give you a list of QVs and make you look bad, myself?

 

[Aryn9189]

So ALL of your knowledge comes from the Bible? Is that where you got the idea of embedded age? I never remember reading anything about that in Genesis.