Proof of Creation?

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

If I'm going to calculate a probability, it might help to know the rules.

Unless you just made that up. Bit you wouldn't do that.

So, what are the rules?

I have no worry that you are ever going to calculate anything at all. You can't.

 

[lasthero]

I have no worry that you are ever going to calculate anything at all. You can't.

I can.

What are the rules?

 

[bhsmte]

I can.

What are the rules?

They must be top secret.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

They must be top secret.

OK. There are no rules. Now do the math.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

I can.

What are the rules?

OK there arte no rules at all. Now do the math. Your bluff has been called.

 

[Davian]

What are all the 'rules of mathmatical probability'?

From what I gather, when he pulled this out in the philosophy forum, you take a lot of large numbers, multiply them all together, and declare the theory of evolution to be "only a theory".

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

From what I gather, when he pulled this out in the philosophy forum, you take a lot of large numbers, multiply them all together, and declare the theory of evolution to be "only a theory".

I offer you the same. No rules. Just do the math. If you recall, you're the one who brought math into the discussion with your claim that Einstein's Theory was the answer to evolution. Then when I asked you to give me the same figure which I have asked for her, you went off claiming the mathematics of probabilities was not applicable to anything.

 

[Davian]

I offer you the same. No rules. Just do the math.

It would be up to you to show how your math applies to evolutionary biology. I do not have a horse in this race.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

It would be up to you to show how your math applies to evolutionary biology. I do not have a horse in this race.

Well, I didn't invite you into it did I?

I'm going to give some time to anyone who wants a shot at answering the question.

 

[Davian]

Well, I didn't invite you into it did I?

Is this not an open forum?

I'm going to give some time to anyone who wants a shot at answering the question.

Until you show how your math applies to evolutionary biology, I cannot see why they should bother.

 

[Euler]

Well, I didn't invite you into it did I?

I'm going to give some time to anyone who wants a shot at answering the question.

P=1

 

[EternalDragon]

Ah, the ol' fallback. The reason why creation "scientists" don't have peer-reviewed research to back up their claims and the reason why "mainstream scientists" do and the reason for widespread support is, ultimately, a very large conspiracy.

That is what this whole "scientists keeping their jobs" argument really is--a conspiracy theory.

Yes, as soon as we propose unfalsifiable possibilities to explain anything then really all discussion becomes somewhat moot.

All fossil transitional forms, all evidences of speciation, all genetic and morphological similarities could simply all be the result of God's divine fiat. Evidences of age through radiometric dating, ice core samples, paleomagnetism, and dendrochronology could all simply be by divine design to give the appearance of age instead of actual age. God could have, by design, placed photons in mid-transit such that the light from a distant star or celestial body reaches us without having to actually transversed the entire distance. God could have created dead stars that no longer exist but appear to have existed. All fossils show up in sedimentary layers resulting from a global flood arranged, intentionally, by God to give the appearance of evolution and age when there is non. And, fundamentally, it's entirely possible that God created the universe ten seconds ago, me in mid-typing, with memories of things which never happened.

And all of that could very "neatly" explain away every piece of evidence we have for all these things.

At that point, science aside, are you really comfortable with believing in this sort of god? Are you really comfortable believing in a trickster god who deceives, lies, and bends things so as to disguise them from us so that we will believe wrongly and think wrongly about the world around us? How do you reconcile such a god and such a creation with the Psalmist who says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies the works of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night reveals knowledge. Without uttering a sound or a word, their voice is never heard. Yet their voice goes out to all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." Or how about, "God is not human that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should change His mind."

Yet you'd insist on a lying trickster god who has arranged the heavens and the earth in such a way as to beguile and deceive us, neither revealing knowledge nor proclaiming God's handiwork but keeping us ignorant of the truth.

Perhaps you are able to be at peace with such a theology. I'm not.

The God that I come to worship, and encounter in the Christ who meets me in His Gospel and in His Sacraments is a truthful God, a loving God. A God that graciously has set me in a beautiful world of awe-inspiring beauty, in a great big cosmos that is utterly complex and continually remarkable. The God I meet in Holy Scripture is the good Creator God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of redemption, who condescends to meet us in the fragile form of Jesus, the Offspring of Mary.

As such I am incapable of reconciling That which I receive from the Gospel, the Creeds, the Scriptures, and the historic witness of the Church with a theology that would insist on a trickster god so utterly petty as to masquerade the creation behind layers of deceit and falsehood.

-CryptoLutheran

What layers of deceit and falsehood? Man's assumptions about the past?

God clearly describes how he created and Jesus upholds that description
as true, along with the world wide flood that created most of those fossils.
There is no trickery going on, on God's part.

Do you believe one part of scripture and not another? Or one thing
Jesus said and not another?

 

[EternalDragon]

That is not true and you know it. It is religious dogma which dictates to you that evolution should be rejected. The evidence did not convince you or the vast majority of your fellow creationists that evolution is wrong or that common ancestry is limited as you suggest.

I don't reject evolution. Natural selection and change within species
happens. It was designed that way.

And there is no evidence. Just some similarities and a whole lot of
assumptions.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

What I don't understand about the whole, God made things look old belief, is that, it does not explain the fact that not only do some things look old, but we find an ancient history, things that actually happened, that predates Man.

Just one of the examples is the meteor craters on Earth, impacts that are huge, and when they struck, would have caused massive damage. But none of this happened in our time on Earth. If they began to happen, well we would not be having this discussion at all.

Starlight from far away stars is another. Also the fact that there are stars of various ages, some younger, others older, some even dying or dead. If God made everything look old, and the earth/universe is very young (no older then 10,000 yrs), then why do the stars show variety when it comes to age?

In other words, there is evidence of life/prehistory, things aging and dying, etc, along time ago, that can not simply be chalked up to, "God making everything look old".

It would be like saying, that not only did God make Adam with an adult body, but he also installed memories into Adam, of a false childhood, and also put scars and other things on his body, that normal people have as a result of their body actually experiencing many years.

God could do that of course, it is in his power, but I do not see him as deceiving us.

 

[lasthero]

What I don't understand about the whole, God made things look old belief, is that, it does not explain the fact that not only do some things look old, but we find an ancient history, things that actually happened, that predates Man.

Just one of the examples is the meteor craters on Earth, impacts that are huge, and when they struck, would have caused massive damage. But none of this happened in our time on Earth. If they began to happen, well we would not be having this discussion at all.

Starlight from far away stars is another. Also the fact that there are stars of various ages, some younger, others older, some even dying or dead. If God made everything look old, and the earth/universe is very young (no older then 10,000 yrs), then why do the stars show variety when it comes to age?

In other words, there is evidence of life/prehistory, things aging and dying, etc, along time ago, that can not simply be chalked up to, "God making everything look old".

It would be like saying, that not only did God make Adam with an adult body, but he also installed memories into Adam, of a false childhood, and also put scars and other things on his body, that normal people have as a result of their body actually experiencing many years.

God could do that of course, it is in his power, but I do not see him as deceiving us.

I bring this up pretty much every time I see the argument. It never really gets answered.

Personally, I'd just like an explanation for why, if God made the Earth old in order to support life, things that aren't from the Earth return old dates, too.

 

[lasthero]

I don't reject evolution. Natural selection and change within species
happens.

Change outside of species happens, too. Speciation, remember? We see new species all the time.

It was designed that way.

Nice bare assertion you got there. It would look better with some facts on it.

And there is no evidence. Just some similarities and a whole lot of
assumptions.

It's not just similarities, it's the pattern of similarities, and you do accept that evidence. You accept that dogs and wolves share ancestry, even though no one ever observed this split happen. It's not written down anywhere.

Do you know how we figured out that dogs descended from wolves? By comparing their similarities.

 

[stevevw]

What I don't understand about the whole, God made things look old belief, is that, it does not explain the fact that not only do some things look old, but we find an ancient history, things that actually happened, that predates Man.

Just one of the examples is the meteor craters on Earth, impacts that are huge, and when they struck, would have caused massive damage. But none of this happened in our time on Earth. If they began to happen, well we would not be having this discussion at all.

Starlight from far away stars is another. Also the fact that there are stars of various ages, some younger, others older, some even dying or dead. If God made everything look old, and the earth/universe is very young (no older then 10,000 yrs), then why do the stars show variety when it comes to age?

In other words, there is evidence of life/prehistory, things aging and dying, etc, along time ago, that can not simply be chalked up to, "God making everything look old".

It would be like saying, that not only did God make Adam with an adult body, but he also installed memories into Adam, of a false childhood, and also put scars and other things on his body, that normal people have as a result of their body actually experiencing many years.

God could do that of course, it is in his power, but I do not see him as deceiving us.

Maybe we are looking at time in our way and with God it is completely different. As the bible says a day to God can be 1000 years and 1000 years could be a day. I mean what does that mean, they cant be both the opposite ways at the same time. Or could they. Quantum physics causes us to think this way as well. How does a particle affect another instantaneously even if its on the other side of the universe. That suggest that it travels faster that the speed of light. Thats suggests time travel. How do particles act in two different states like waves and particles. How can they be in more than one place or have many possibilities of existence at the same time.

So who knows what time means to God. Who knows what time means at all. Maybe the earth did exist for millions of years in a day creation but the time went by differently. Maybe a million years can go by in a flash if God is the controller of time. To us we will think of it in minutes, hours, days and years going by so slow and the clock ticking along steadily. But if we can see that in the quantum world that time maybe something that can move forward and back maybe in other dimensions who knows how that works. Afterall God is the creator of the quantum world as well as the world we see. The thing is scientists suggests that everything started out from the quantum world and that this is the true state of things. What we see is just what we see and could be an illusion of what reality really is like..

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe we are looking at time in our way and with God it is completely different.

If no evidence will convince you of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, just say so and be done with it.

 

[Davian]

I offer you the same. No rules. Just do the math. If you recall, you're the one who brought math into the discussion with your claim that Einstein's Theory was the answer to evolution.

Provide a link to where I did this, or retract.

Then when I asked you to give me the same figure which I have asked for her, you went off claiming the mathematics of probabilities was not applicable to anything.

Provide a link to where I did this, or retract.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Provide a link to where I did this, or retract.

Provide a link to where I did this, or retract.

Or you'll do exactly what?