The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Mechanical Bliss]

the earth doesn't look old.

Then why does all available evidence point to an age of 4.6 billion years?

it looks like it was wiped out by a catastophic flood about 4400 years ago.

Then why are there features on earth that could not have formed during a flood and why is there not enough water on earth for such a flood to occur?


If you can provide supporting evidence that the earth is 6000 years old and supporting evidence that a global flood occurred 4400 years ago, you would be the first creationist on this forum to do so.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Why did God have to create Earth out of new material?

If the material is older, it means that it existed in the universe as older material.

What purpose would it serve to create an earth using old material that would give everyone the impression that the earth is old if it's actually 6000 years old?

When God creates a new heaven and a new Earth (assuming you believe those are true) will he have to wait 4 Billion years before we can occupy it?

Hypothetically, no, but I'm talking realistically about the planet that exists beneath or feet right now. You are also assuming that humans have been around for the entire history of the planet, but we know that's not true given what the evidence dictates.

We'd have to wait a few billion years though considering the earth lacked free oxygen that would be necessary for our respiration.

As for the fossil record, it has been posited that there is the distinct possibility that sudden and cataclysmic events caused these fossils to exist as they do.

It is not a distinct possibility. Catastrophism was disproved by 19th century geologists. The sedimentary rock record cannot be explained by catastrophic events alone.

I gave other examples as well, but some people here do seem to be saying that features that make the earth look old (including fossils) were planted. That means the fossils were not produced after the death of an organism. It means the organism never existed.

But it's hard to tell where the creationists stand on issues like this because they have not given a solid answer and keep dodging giving a straightforward answer. Some say that the earth was created mature, but they don't fully qualify what that means. It just is an ad hoc explanation for the fact that the evidence does not support a young earth.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What do memories have to do with it. Are you seriously comparing our calculation of the age of the matter on Earth to Earth 'memories'? It makes no sense as a comparison.

memories have everything to do with it. What do you think an "appearance of age" means? "Age" is more than a number...


How do you think scientists measure "age" of the universe anyway? By looking at "memories," if you will, clues and evidence of the past, of a history.... none of which ever happened because God made the whole thing up.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I love that quote.

I'm glad you like it, but I'm a little sad that you're the only one who made any comment regarding it.

The Creationists seem more interested in debating Hitler's parentage...

"Holy Evasion, Batman!"

 

[aeroz19]

I'm pretty much done with this conversation. You just can't talk to a Creationist. See post #317.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm pretty much done with this conversation. You just can't talk to a Creationist. See post #317.

This thread does have a "train wreck" quality to it, doesn't it though?

 

[Philosoft]

Quote chapter and verse, include context. I will refute...

You mean to say you've never seen those examples before? All that stuff's in Leviticus 11, you know, the part where Moses is explaining in some detail about clean and unclean.

 

[Philosoft]

I may return to 1 and 2 later; however on item 3 the 4 corners of the Earth is an idiomatic phrase, much like Feliz Navidad is Merry Christmas.

Huh? "Navidad" really does mean "Christmas." An idiom is a phrase whose meaning cannot be literally determined from the meanings of the individual words.

The Bible uses them for understanding in the venacular. For example:
King David was going to kill everyone in Nabol's house down to he who p***eth on the wall.

What is that supposed to mean?

Further the four corners refers to each direction one might travel. North, South, East, and West. Sure you can travel derivitave directions, but they still boil down to the 4 corners.

I think you just made this up. It's not a very good exegesis either way.

 

[nyjbarnes]

You mean to say you've never seen those examples before? All that stuff's in Leviticus 11, you know, the part where Moses is explaining in some detail about clean and unclean.

I am saying it's your arguement. You do the leg work to produce and substantiate it. I'll be the the one to make short work of it.

 

[nyjbarnes]

I think you just made this up. It's not a very good exegesis either way.

How is an atheist determining what is and is not good exegesis about what the Bible says and does not say as it relates to the interpretations?

 

[Jet Black]

I have found that that the testimonies of the YECists are in want of proof and evidence in science. I have found that they believe their interpretations of the Bible's account of Creation are unquestionable, and that, to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science, and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

I also find that their ability to understand the scientific material of the discussion is severly limited due to willful ignorance and the lack of interest, and also that their ability to follow the discussion and participate in the discussion in a logical manner is greatly lacking and is a hindrance to the discussion.

I therefore conclude that this discussion cannot progress further, because of the above.

However, continuing is irresistable...

I was looking at some of your early posts in this forum quite different!

 

[Philosoft]

I am saying it's your arguement. You do the leg work to produce and substantiate it. I'll be the the one to make short work of it.

Excuse me? Do I have to read your Bible for you too? Give me a break, man.

 

[Philosoft]

How is an atheist determining what is and is not good exegesis about what the Bible says and does not say as it relates to the interpretations?

Well, it sounds like a bad exegesis to me; I don't think I've ever seen it before in scholarly context. The obvious countermove is to show me that it is a good exegesis, rather than hide behind the flimsy ad hominem that I have no basis to raise such a question in the first place.

 

[Freodin]

Oh, now that one is easy: The same book I got the deluding spirits reference is the same book that I got the six days reference.

Maybe I read it wrong. Lemme check.......<pages turning>...nope. God created man 'And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.' And from the other reference: 'the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets'

And might it not be possible that your literal interpretation of one or both of these quotes is incorrect?

Consider: it is the same book that people need to interprete to get rid of contradictions in the literal reading.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How is an atheist determining what is and is not good exegesis about what the Bible says and does not say as it relates to the interpretations?

Because Ad Hoc is poor exegesis.

 

[daddio]

I am willing to try answer that question straight on. First settle one point. The origin of the universe....

If the universe all started from a singularity which exploded outwards (as suggested by the evidence showing the stars being in motion) then all matter and energy had to reach escape velocity from the singularity or gravitational pull would have collapsed it all back upon itself.. Since we can see that even the postulated "Black Hole' created by the matter of even one collapsed star can "bend" light, ask yourself this simple question.

How fast would light have to be moving to reach escape velocity from the center of all the matter in the universe? Answer... Nominally I would say it is fair to say that it would have to be traveling faster than it's current relativistic speed. According to Einsteins theorem (commonly accepted as proved) anything traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards in time relative to the point of origin. That would mean that the light we see from the stars farthest away from us, would be (relative to our time frame) much older not by reason of traviling billions of years but by reason of relative time travel.

On the other hand if God created the universe and "Flung the stars into the sky" as the Bible says then since a God of order created the very laws by which the universe He created now runs it would still work in the same manner. "Big Bang" or no.

 

[Tachocline]

I am willing to try answer that question straight on. First settle one point. The origin of the universe....

If the universe all started from a singularity which exploded outwards (as suggested by the evidence showing the stars being in motion) then all matter and energy had to reach escape velocity from the singularity or gravitational pull would have collapsed it all back upon itself..

No it wouldn't. Nice try but wrong.

According to Einsteins theorem (commonly accepted as proved) anything traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards in time relative to the point of origin. That would mean that the light we see from the stars farthest away from us, would be (relative to our time frame) much older not by reason of traviling billions of years but by reason of relative time travel.

No proper time elapses on a null geodesic that a photon travels on. Sorry.

On the other hand if God created the universe and "Flung the stars into the sky" as the Bible says then since a God of order created the very laws by which the universe He created now runs it would still work in the same manner. "Big Bang" or no.

LOL, you use (wrongly) science above and now you blithely postulate the supernatural.

 

[Arikay]

The problem is you aren't fully understanding the big bang. It wasn't a singularity like a black hole. The big bang is an expansion of spacetime itself.

Here is a site that explains it,
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

I am willing to try answer that question straight on. First settle one point. The origin of the universe....

If the universe all started from a singularity which exploded outwards (as suggested by the evidence showing the stars being in motion) then all matter and energy had to reach escape velocity from the singularity or gravitational pull would have collapsed it all back upon itself.. Since we can see that even the postulated "Black Hole' created by the matter of even one collapsed star can "bend" light, ask yourself this simple question.

How fast would light have to be moving to reach escape velocity from the center of all the matter in the universe? Answer... Nominally I would say it is fair to say that it would have to be traveling faster than it's current relativistic speed. According to Einsteins theorem (commonly accepted as proved) anything traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards in time relative to the point of origin. That would mean that the light we see from the stars farthest away from us, would be (relative to our time frame) much older not by reason of traviling billions of years but by reason of relative time travel.

On the other hand if God created the universe and "Flung the stars into the sky" as the Bible says then since a God of order created the very laws by which the universe He created now runs it would still work in the same manner. "Big Bang" or no.

 

[w81minit]

Huh? "Navidad" really does mean "Christmas." An idiom is a phrase whose meaning cannot be literally determined from the meanings of the individual words.
What is that supposed to mean?
I think you just made this up. It's not a very good exegesis either way.

Navidad is 'nativity'
The land of one's nativity is where they were born. Feliz (happy) Navidad (nativity) it refers to Christ's ativity and therefore Merry (not Happy) Christmas (not Nativity)

 

[Lonnie]

I have found that they(evolutionists) believe eachothers account of Evolution as unquestionable, and that,to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science, and even the science from over a hundred years ago.