What's wrong with evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Science can well find evidence of a creator. That's not so much a problem. The problem is identifying the creator. Science alone could never provide you with a name or identity of a creator. So BVZ wasn't dodging your question at all. He gave a full and complete answer.

BVZ is the creator in this scenario.

It doesn't matter now though, I started a poll on it.

Should be interesting all the stuff I'm gonna get.

 

[BVZ]

BVZ is the creator in this scenario.

It doesn't matter now though, I started a poll on it.

Should be interesting all the stuff I'm gonna get.

If I was the creator, and I created the rose before the sun, I would expect scientists in the future to conclude whatever they are able to based on the evidence I leave them.

Theres one thing you seem to be struggling with.

Science has a single goal, and that is to create theories that make accurate predictions. Lets say the scientists of the future build a thoery based on the evidence they have that predicts that the rose was created AFTER the sun. This prediction (according to the scenario) is of course inacurate. However, the same theory allows them to build scyscrapers and design advanced electronics. The theory makes enough accurate predictions to be used as the tool that it is. The theory is not perfect, but no tool ever is.

Evolution is the same. According to the theory of evolution, life evolved slowly over time through intermediate steps. This is supported by the evidence. The theory makes accurate predictions that has been used to cure disease, breed flowers, design pesticides, breed cattle etc. Furthermore, evolution is being used to design electronics, builings, aircraft etc using genetic algorythms, which is based on evolution thoery.

So, as the creator, I would expect the scientists of the future to come to whatever conclusion they can based on whatever evidence I decide to leave them to find. Furthermore, I would expect them to create theories that work, in the same way that I would expect them to create tools that work. (Like hammers and chisels and other tools.)

 

[theFijian]

If i was creator and created the universe 6000 years ago I would make sure every thing looked 6k years old. If I made everything look like it was billions of years old that would just be confusing for my creatures.

 

[AV1611VET]

If i was creator and created the universe 6000 years ago I would make sure every thing looked 6k years old. If I made everything look like it was billions of years old that would just be confusing for my creatures.

Right --- where you been the last 2000 posts?

When most people thought I was a YEC, they accused God of deception --- making the universe "appear old".

Now that you know I think it's 13.7 billion, you think it should "appear" 6000.

Either way God loses, doesn't He?

There is no difference in the age of this universe, and the apparent age --- both are the same.

 

[Chalnoth]

AV1611VET, he's saying the exact same thing. He's saying that if he were to create a universe, he wouldn't deceive those who inhabit the universe. Which is a statement that nobody can logically believe that the god of the Bible created the universe 6000 years ago, because it would make no sense whatsoever to deceive his followers so.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, he's saying the exact same thing. He's saying that if he were to create a universe, he wouldn't deceive those who inhabit the universe. Which is a statement that nobody can logically believe that the god of the Bible created the universe 6000 years ago, because it would make no sense whatsoever to deceive his followers so.

Where does "deception" come in? The earth He created is just as old as it looks. I don't get it. You guys are the ones who are trying to separate apparent age from exact age, not I.

Had God placed Adam and Eve on a 6000-year-old Earth, so as not to supposedly deceive them, then they, in my opinion, wouldn't have been able to survive.

 

[shernren]

Where does "deception" come in? The earth He created is just as old as it looks? I don't get it. You guys are the ones who are trying to separate apparent age from exact age, not I.

Had God placed Adam and Eve on a 6000-year-old Earth, so as not to supposedly deceive them, then they, in my opinion, wouldn't have been able to survive.

Now that's just plain silly. If God is omnipotent, can't He create a universe which can both sustain life and look 6,000 years old?
Can't He create a form of intelligent life which can survive in a universe that looks 6,000 years old?
A god who can't is really quite limited both in creativity and capability.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't He create a form of intelligent life which can survive in a universe that looks 6,000 years old?

Yes --- they're called angels.

 

[theFijian]

Right --- where you been the last 2000 posts?

When most people thought I was a YEC, they accused God of deception --- making the universe "appear old".

Now that you know I think it's 13.7 billion, you think it should "appear" 6000.

Either way God loses, doesn't He?

There is no difference in the age of this universe, and the apparent age --- both are the same.

yessir, if i created the universe 6k years ago it woul look 6k years old. Anyone who thought i created with with 'apparent age' of billions of years would be dumb. if the universe looks billions of years old it would be because i created it billions of years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

yessir, if i created the universe 6k years ago it woul look 6k years old.

Yup --- then we'd all be arguing on here why the Earth looks 6000 years, when in fact, it's 4.5 billion.

We could call it --- Next Thursdayism.

 

[Elduran]

Right --- where you been the last 2000 posts?

When most people thought I was a YEC, they accused God of deception --- making the universe "appear old".

Now that you know I think it's 13.7 billion, you think it should "appear" 6000.

Either way God loses, doesn't He?

There is no difference in the age of this universe, and the apparent age --- both are the same.

You ARE a YEC. Saying you think that your god created the earth 6000 years ago makes you a YEC regardless of how much embedded age you say the earth had when it was created.

As such, you believe that an omnipotent being created the world 6000 years ago but deliberately made it look older, as it wouldn't actually be older due to its recent creation. This is at best pretty short sighted of an omnipotent being who then goes on to tell his people a creation story that doesn't fit the evidence and at worst it is outright malicious deception.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where does "deception" come in? The earth He created is just as old as it looks. I don't get it. You guys are the ones who are trying to separate apparent age from exact age, not I.

When we can see galaxies billions of light years away the age of the universe is quite apparent. When we can date rocks to billions of years through constant radioactive decay then those rocks are billions of years old. When we can date the first angiosperms (which roses are) to well after the appearance of many other lifeforms that need sunlight, such as fish who can't swim through ice, then the rose came well after the Sun.

Had God placed Adam and Eve on a 6000-year-old Earth, so as not to supposedly deceive them, then they, in my opinion, wouldn't have been able to survive.

Did Adam and Eve need galaxies billions of light years away in order to survive? Did they need specific ratios of radioactive elements in rocks in order to survive?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes --- they're called angels.

Angels arent alive, they're ethereal

 

[USincognito]

You ARE a YEC. Saying you think that your god created the earth 6000 years ago makes you a YEC regardless of how much embedded age you say the earth had when it was created.

Don't forget the fatal flaw of Omphalos isn't just the embedded age, it's the embedded history.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Don't forget the fatal flaw of Omphalos isn't just the embedded age, it's the embedded history.

Not to mention the potential for eternal banishment to the great litterbox in the sky! Or is that last Thursdayism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Angels arent alive, they're ethereal

The Bible doesn't support the first half of your sentence, and as for the second half, the Bible calls them 'spiritual' --- although I have no problem with the word 'etheral', either --- or any word --- so long as it doesn't conflict the the KJV.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Bible doesn't support the first half of your sentence

all life is cellular... Angels, as ethereal (spiritual) don't have cells. Hence, are not alive. QED

Wikipedia's 2 seconds of cell theory...
The three main parts of the Cell theory are:

1. All organisms are made up of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
3. All cells are essentially the same in chemical composition.

The cell theory was originally developed by Theodor Schwann, and fully accepted by the work of Louis Pasteur, specifically his work regarding microbes. Cells are a basic unit of Bioligy

 

[EnemyPartyII]

so long as it doesn't conflict the the KJV.

Doesn't the KJV say that pi=3...?

 

[AV1611VET]

all life is cellular...

Is God alive?

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't the KJV say that pi=3...?

Indeed it [correctly] does:

[bible]1 Kings 7:23[/bible]

Broadly speaking:

• pi = 3
• pi = 3.0
• pi = 3.1

All three of the above statements are correct. What would be wrong, is if I said:

• pi = 3.2