Taking questions on the Creation.

[MoonLancer]

You're taught two major mistakes:

1. Processes take longer than 6100 years.
2. Processes occur only by nature.

I suppose you have tested evidence to show and demonstrate these mistakes?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose you have tested evidence to show and demonstrate these mistakes?

I've got Something better than that:

​

 

[CoderHead]

I've got Something better than that:

​

You do realize that your trusted source contains talking snakes and donkeys, a flood that never happened, miracles that nobody can prove, and a promise of a glorious second-coming that is overdue by about 1,970 years, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that your trusted source contains talking snakes and donkeys, a flood that never happened, miracles that nobody can prove, and a promise of a glorious second-coming that is overdue by about 1,970 years, don't you?

Of course I do --- why do you think I take It on faith?

 

[CoderHead]

Of course I do --- why do you think I take It on faith?

And that's OK with you? I don't know what to say. If my deity of choice promised that he'd do something and 2,000 years passed without it happening, I'd be suspicious.

So, back on topic: do I understand what you're saying is that the Earth is 6,100 years old and any evidence we find of history or age that defies that 6,100 years has been designed into the Earth to make it appear that way?

 

[Thistlethorn]

And that's OK with you? I don't know what to say. If my deity of choice promised that he'd do something and 2,000 years passed without it happening, I'd be suspicious.

So, back on topic: do I understand what you're saying is that the Earth is 6,100 years old and any evidence we find of history or age that defies that 6,100 years has been designed into the Earth to make it appear that way?

As I understand AV1611VETs argument, he claims that God created the universe around 6000 years ago, but that the universe God created was 13.6 or so billion years old. Thus, he applies age as a trait instead of as the effect of the passing of time.

Of course, this doesn't explain why God would chose to cretate the universe in this fashion. It seems to be a fairly deceptive thing to do. I've heard of the "maturity" argument before, but I have never heard an adequate answer to the question of why a newly created and fully formed earth needs to be billions of years old. It just seems to take away all meaning from the word "age".

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, he applies age as a trait instead of as the effect of the passing of time.

Well-stated!

I couldn't have done better, myself.

Yes --- age is a trait of the universe --- not an effect.

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age?

Of course, this doesn't explain why God would chose to cretate the universe in this fashion.

QV the Anthropic Principle.

It seems to be a fairly deceptive thing to do.

Or the right thing to do.

 

[CoderHead]

Yes --- age is a trait of the universe --- not an effect.

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age?

Perhaps He can. But why would He? It's clear we humans don't have the capacity to understand the mind of God, so why would He toy with us like that? It's intentionally misleading and mean.

Another question is what purpose does it serve? If God created an Earth that looked 6,100 years old because it was 6,100 years old, wouldn't that testify more to His creation than if He made it appear older? What does that do, aside from spur division and dissent? Is God benevolent, or is He not?

Look at the debate we're having right now. Would this debate even be happening if God had created the Earth with all of the traits and history of its real age? No, we wouldn't. Does God delight in the confusion of the humans He claims to love?

Please, please, please help me understand!

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps He can. But why would He? It's clear we humans don't have the capacity to understand the mind of God, so why would He toy with us like that? It's intentionally misleading and mean.

Either that, or He did it for anthropic reasons.

Another question is what purpose does it serve? If God created an Earth that looked 6,100 years old because it was 6,100 years old, wouldn't that testify more to His creation than if He made it appear older? What does that do, aside from spur division and dissent? Is God benevolent, or is He not?

I have stated many times over the past three years that the universe looks old because the universe is old.

Look at the debate we're having right now. Would this debate even be happening if God had created the Earth with all of the traits and history of its real age?

No, we would not --- we would be discussing Omphalism --- and you guys would be accusing God of yet another form of deception.

 

[CoderHead]

Either that, or He did it for anthropic reasons.

So, He made the Earth appear deceptively old because it helps humans or lends more credibility to our existence here? I'm not sure I understand.

I have stated many times over the past three years that the universe looks old because the universe is old.

Not the universe; the Earth. I understand you're saying the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's not debate that, and just stick to the Earth. You're saying the Earth is 6,100 years old but it appears to be several billion years old. I'm asking why? What purpose does that serve? Why would a loving God intentionally mislead the people He loves? You can tell strictly from this discussion that it only breeds confusion and disbelief.

No, we would not --- we would be discussing Omphalism --- and you guys would be accusing God of yet another form of deception.

Don't you think it would be one step closer to reaching agreement? You say 6,100 and others say 4.6 billion. If we all knew definitively that the Earth were 6,100 years old then we could reconcile some of the Bible that escapes us and realize that there may be something to it. As it stands right now, we only have apologists to make assumptions and postulate how they think the Bible could be right. But they don't know, because they're not God. So who do we believe?

I personally choose to believe what is tangible, observable, and testable. If that changes in the future due to new information, I'm fine with that. If eventually all of our observations lead us back to God, then I'll deal with that when the time comes. The time, however, has not yet come and I doubt that it will in my lifetime.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, He made the Earth appear deceptively old because it helps humans or lends more credibility to our existence here? I'm not sure I understand.

For not understanding, you seem to be acting like you do.

If you truly don't understand, why then are you calling it deception?

I don't understand trigonometry, but I sure don't call it 'deception'.

Personally I think you do understand, and you just made a faux pas --- but that's just my opinion.

Not the universe; the Earth. I understand you're saying the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's not debate that, and just stick to the Earth.

Now I'm beginning to suspect you're just here to pull my chain.

The earth is 4.57 billiion years old --- in my opinion.

You're saying the Earth is 6,100 years old but it appears to be several billion years old. I'm asking why? What purpose does that serve? Why would a loving God intentionally mislead the people He loves? You can tell strictly from this discussion that it only breeds confusion and disbelief.

For the third time --- He did it for anthropic reasons.

Don't you think it would be one step closer to reaching agreement?

No.

You say 6,100 and others say 4.6 billion.

I actually say 'both' --- (but you know that, don't you)?

Those who stick to 6100 years-only are called YEC.
Those who stick to 4.57 billion years-only are called OEC.

I'm neither --- I'm Embedded Age --- combining both YEC and OEC into one coherent explanation.

 

[CoderHead]

For not understanding, you seem to be acting like you do.

I'm taking that as a compliment. Because as confused as I am right now, if I can manage to make it seem like I know what you're talking about, I must be doing something right.

If you truly don't understand, why then are you calling it deception?

I call it deception because you're saying that God created a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth 6,100 years ago. Right?

If that's the case, then it seems deceptive to make us believe by empirical evidence that the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago in order to test our faith that He actually created it 6,100 years ago. Why not be upfront about it? What I'm saying is that if you're right, it seems malicious to have played a trick like that...as evidenced by our endless debates, like this one.

Personally I think you do understand, and you just made a faux pas --- but that's just my opinion.

I understand the words that you're typing. I just don't understand how you reconcile them. I see what you're saying, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Now I'm beginning to suspect you're just here to pull my chain.

Not at all. I'm trying to figure out how you put all of this together. I'm past the point of, "oh, you're just a religious nutjob" and well into, "I wonder how the heck he comes up with this and whether or not he can explain it well enough to be understood."

The earth is 4.57 billiion years old --- in my opinion.For the third time --- He did it for anthropic reasons.

Please assume I have no clue what you're talking about an explain "anthropic reasons." I truly don't understand what you mean.

I'm neither --- I'm Embedded Age --- combining both YEC and OEC into one coherent explanation.

Coherent to you, maybe. I'm still struggling to catch up to where you are. Is the core of what you're saying that when God created the Earth 6,100 years ago, he created it 4.6 billion years old? If so, my brain is overloading right now. That just doesn't compute.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Calling upon the anthropic principle in this case seems less like a genuine attempt at explanation, and more like a serious case of intellectual laziness.

What you are saying when you claim "anthropic reasons" in this discussion is that God had to create and old world in order for humans to inhabit it. However, you don't say why. What about age itself is necessary for human - or any other - life? I can go right ahead and answer that question myself: Nothing. Age is not a trait. Age is an effect. It's a measure of how the span of time affects an object, and nothing else.

So, we can conclude from this that God had no anthropic reason for creating a world with the appearance of age - because that is all it could have been.

 

[AV1611VET]

Coherent to you, maybe. I'm still struggling to catch up to where you are. Is the core of what you're saying that when God created the Earth 6,100 years ago, he created it 4.6 billion years old? If so, my brain is overloading right now. That just doesn't compute.

Have a good day, sir ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling upon the anthropic principle in this case seems less like a genuine attempt at explanation, and more like a serious case of intellectual laziness.

You have a good day too ---

 

[CoderHead]

/thread ?

 

[SuperPhil]

/thread ?

Just because you can't figure out anything?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, I assume /thread.

When it gets to the point in which a creationist can no longer support a position based on facts, no other option than to retreat.

Defeating creationism is rather simple once you can get past the fact that their entire argument relies entirely upon special pleading.

I always say that creationists should stick to the "goddidit" mantra. As soon as they leave the reservation...

 

[gaara4158]

You're taught two major mistakes:

1. Processes take longer than 6100 years.
2. Processes occur only by nature.

You have a good day, sir. You're no better than David Enjay.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You have a good day, sir. You're no better than David Enjay.

No doubt.

Science fiction at its best. Fanciful explanations to rationalize their worldview so they can sleep at night. Asimov would be proud.