AstroAg17 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

From a purely rational and scientific basis, a God-man did not die and rise from the dead for the sins of his people. Religion is used as motivation for concluding a lot of goofy stuff (from a naturalist perspective).

---

You've gone this route like 10 times and you get the same answer every time. Don't ask questions you know the answer to.

Here's an example from a fun thread. Read it if you've somehow forgotten what the obvious rebuttal to your claim is.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2835562/2#discussion

---

That's like asking sh*t not to stink.

Quote:

---

So, if God created the Earth with 'pre-manufactured' age and maturity with the expectation that we should reject all of the scientific and logic based evidence pointing toward an old Earth and biological evolution, what does that say about God? If your God expects you to value faith in religious claims over scientific evidence, then okay. Who am I to tell you which version of God to believe in? Just don't pretend that your faith does not ask you to reject reason and science.

---

Let me try asking this question another way

Using all of the scientific measuring devices at our disposal, what would we expect the age of all things detailed in the creation account to be if the measurements were taken on day 6? To help answer this question considering all of the things we would be measuring. Visible star light, mature trees, mature man, birds that are flying, sea creatures, fruit trees, etc.

All of the things would measure at diffent ages. Scientific measurements of an 'old earth' do not surprise me and one could say, should be expected given the details of a mature creation account. God is not asking me to reject login or science, however there are some philosophies of science that I think He clearly rejects.

Quote:

---

If starlight was created in transit, why on earth would a God have that starlight show the "past" in the sense that it shows stages of formation of places like our local region? Why not just show a homogenous universe? He may have told us that he created the world recently in 6 days, but he is literally showing us a different past. There's no need or benefit for things it took us thousands of years to be able to see to paint a picture other than the one in the Bible. That's not the creation of something mature, that's needless deception.

---

Science will always be inadequate in and of itselft to answer the "why" questions.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?

Being able to see the stars is a pretty gracious gift and i'm glad to be able to see things so far away. Given the size of God it's amazing that He would care about you and I as much as He does.

DirtDiver said:

---

Using all of the scientific measuring devices at our disposal, what would we expect the age of all things detailed in the creation account to be if the measurements were taken on day 6? To help answer this question considering all of the things we would be measuring. Visible star light, mature trees, mature man, birds that are flying, sea creatures, fruit trees, etc.

---

As addressed very early on, these are not comparable, and hence your whole line of argument is bunk. Living things have a life cycle necessary for their function. They are born, they mature, they age, they die. For the universe to be as it is magicking an adult animal into existing will instantly throw off any notion of age that's derived by *FUNCTION*. My very first example highlighted the absurdity of this concept and you never seemed to grasp it. There are parts of "maturity" necessary for function that will lead to an appearance of age, there are other things that provide appearance of age that are not necessary. I gave you the examples of tooth decay, bad joints, scars, ect. Putting these on adam or the animals would be absurd.


An earth or a moon is not something that grows, ages, and dies as a matter of function in our universe. Especially so if god is only going to keep us around for about 10k years or so. There is no functional reason why a moon would need to be potmarked with a billion years of impact strikes. That would be like making adam full of scars. There is no reason to bury fossils in the order predicted by evolution and simultaneously hide away the great flood. No reason for radiometric decay of different layers of rocks. No reason a polar ice cap to show layers of countless winters. None of these are requesite for function.

Quote:

---

All of the things would measure at diffent ages. Scientific measurements of an 'old earth' do not surprise me and one could say, should be expected given the details of a mature creation account. God is not asking me to reject login or science, however there are some philosophies of science that I think He clearly rejects.

---

You've rejected logic and science many times over. Just in this very thread your whole argument about fossils is predicated on abandoning any pretense at reason and any support of science.

DirtDiver said:

---

Let me try asking this question another way

Using all of the scientific measuring devices at our disposal, what would we expect the age of all things detailed in the creation account to be if the measurements were taken on day 6? To help answer this question considering all of the things we would be measuring. Visible star light, mature trees, mature man, birds that are flying, sea creatures, fruit trees, etc.

All of the things would measure at diffent ages. Scientific measurements of an 'old earth' do not surprise me and one could say, should be expected given the details of a mature creation account. God is not asking me to reject login or science, however there are some philosophies of science that I think He clearly rejects.

---

I would not argue that the creation of a pre-formed mature Earth is irrational given Genesis. I would argue that the whole theory is irrational given reason and science.

If you hold some variation of the belief that God created the Earth in 6 days some 6k-10k years ago, then sure - mature geology, trees, animals, and whatnot all sounds reasonable. 100 million year old animals, starlight, and evidence of a billion years of biological evolution makes zero sense.

The part in bold -

If it takes light 100,000 years to travel from a star to Earth, logic and reason tell us that light that reaches Earth has been traveling for 100,000 years. The suggestion that the light was manifested into existence 6,000 years ago en route to the Earth from said star is not a logical conclusion. It requires one to disregard reason in favor of a theory which is by definition beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic. It requires magic. It is not logical. There is no scientific evidence that light was manifested into existence 6,000 years ago. It is irrational.

For questions of biological evolution, geological evolution, formation of stars, solar systems, galaxies, the universe, etc. - the same logic applies. It is simply not logical to postulate that God 'magic'ed' the whole thing 6,000 years ago. It may be 100% truth of course, but there is zero scientific evidence that backs it up.

If your belief in a young Earth is a product of faith, then admit to that and at least be proud of it. Don't try to disguise the belief as having some grounding in reason and science. Its as though YEC-ers know that its all complete nonsense and so they try to camouflage it with psuedo-science and sciency sounding ideas so as to not have to admit that they value faith over reason.

RetiredAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I don't think you grasped the concept of the OP. I reject the label of "YEC". The "young" part is misleading.

---

What is it about God creating everything in 6 days that requires the earth to appear young? -- it doesn't. God could create the universe to look however old He wanted to.

How should the earth appear right after creation? -- Nobody knows. Impossible to answer.

---

Going back to your first post about it not mattering because everything is about Jesus Christ kinda jumps the shark doesn't it? I mean do people think God wasted Moses time in putting together the creation account? Since Jesus used that account (is it not understood that he created male and female from the very beginning), and dozens of other new testament tributes to the creation, saying it is of no consequence seems to be a dangerous, slippery slope.

Regarding this post, why is it impossible to know? It's right there in Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Isaiah, etc.

The earth was fully formed with trees, plants, animals, fish, fully formed. He made the stars , sun, moon to give light for the earth, so I can see that light traversing time to immediately be visible from earth.

If Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. aren't speaking to real events then who cares about Jesus? I mean if the savior can't even get his syntax correct on what the "very beginning" means then he can't be all that special.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If your belief in a young Earth is a product of faith, then admit to that and at least be proud of it. Don't try to disguise the belief as having some grounding in reason and science. Its as though YEC-ers know that its all complete nonsense and so they try to camouflage it with psuedo-science and sciency sounding ideas so as to not have to admit that they value faith over reason.

---

This really is the crux of the issue. Your position is a matter of faith. Just accept it and move along. You can't be some renaissance fundamentalist man that wants to use 'sciency' words and have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't work that way.

AstroAg17 said:

---

For the old earth Christians, how do you interpret that passage? God didn't make males or females in the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life.

---

I think it's interpreted in the sense that the 7 days of creation weren't literal days, but eons, and humans didn't come into existence until far, far after the creation of the universe, as the science suggests.

PC_Principal said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

For the old earth Christians, how do you interpret that passage? God didn't make males or females in the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life.

---

I think it's interpreted in the sense that the 7 days of creation weren't literal days, but eons, and humans didn't come into existence until far, far after the creation of the universe, as the science suggests.

---

So in other words more lies all over the Bible. Jesus - liar
Peter Liar, Moses in Exodus, Leviticus (of course Genesis) Liar, Job liar, David liar, Soloman liar.

That flood account stating that all of the earth was covered? Lies. Has to be because if it was a local flood then God promising Noah never to again flood the entire earth is another lie. The Yuang river flooded killing 1 million. Thousands of floods killing tons of people.

Like I said, slippery slope Christians are the main issue.

Eons of death leading from the ooze to the zoo's culminating to man versus man being created in the image of God, given free will resulting in sin and his physical plus spiritual death (again stated as so in too many passages to list).

Liars one and all. Oh, and this would necessarily include God himself since he had Paul state that "God is not the author of confusion". Obvioulsy to the enlightened all they see is confusion everywhere.

oldarmy1 said:

---

That flood account stating that all of the earth was covered? Lies. Has to be because if it was a local flood then God promising Noah never to again flood the entire earth is another lie. The Yuang river flooded killing 1 million. Thousands of floods killing tons of people.

---

Have you thought that maybe those that told the tale or wrote it down may have thought it was global because there was a flood as far as they and the people in that area could tell? The other option doesn't have to simply be intentional lying or deceit.

Macarthur said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

That flood account stating that all of the earth was covered? Lies. Has to be because if it was a local flood then God promising Noah never to again flood the entire earth is another lie. The Yuang river flooded killing 1 million. Thousands of floods killing tons of people.

---

Have you thought that maybe those that told the tale or wrote it down may have thought it was global because there was a flood as far as they and the people in that area could tell? The other option doesn't have to simply be intentional lying or deceit.

---

Herein lies the apex issue. God either inspired the writers, again as stated in too many passages to list, or you have a nice piece of literature called a bible that has nothing to offer except a moral code to the "evolved".

oldarmy1 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

That flood account stating that all of the earth was covered? Lies. Has to be because if it was a local flood then God promising Noah never to again flood the entire earth is another lie. The Yuang river flooded killing 1 million. Thousands of floods killing tons of people.

---

Have you thought that maybe those that told the tale or wrote it down may have thought it was global because there was a flood as far as they and the people in that area could tell? The other option doesn't have to simply be intentional lying or deceit.

---

Herein lies the apex issue. God either inspired the writers, again as stated in too many passages to list, or you have a nice piece of literature called a bible that has nothing to offer except a moral code to the "evolved".

---

I think you've got your answer.

Quote:

---

If your belief in a young Earth is a product of faith, then admit to that and at least be proud of it. Don't try to disguise the belief as having some grounding in reason and science. Its as though YEC-ers know that its all complete nonsense and so they try to camouflage it with psuedo-science and sciency sounding ideas so as to not have to admit that they value faith over reason.

---

By carefully examining the Genesis account I read details of a mature creation in which diffent things would have appeared diffenent ages. I'm not providing evidence for a YEC. I'm providing evidence in this discussion that God was is not deceptive because He detailed a mature creation. When God made his promise to Abe a few chapters later He asked Abe to count the stars if He could. A simple observation is that God wanted humans to be able to see the stars. When God created the heavens and the earth every rule of science was broken because science did not exist at that time. There was nothing and God created a universe from nothing and there was something.

If I were to ask you what exactly happened at the big bang or why did it happen, what would your answer be? How much of your answer would be scientific speculation or faith based? I with no problems believe by faith that God created the Earth as He said He did, I don't have all of the answers to how or why as you don't either for the Big Bang. Observational science is testable, repeatable while all historical science must be believed.

Quote:

---

Observational science is testable, repeatable while all historical science must be believed.

---

Well put and so true. Paleontologists are master story tellers.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Observational science is testable, repeatable while all historical science must be believed.

---

Well put and so true. Paleontologists are master story tellers.

---

Don't get me started on the tall tales you hear from geologists.

It's pretty crazy. They tell it as if they were actually there. The Bible at least has eye witnesses to events.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

It's pretty crazy. They tell it as if they were actually there. The Bible at least has eye witnesses to events.

---

*Allegedly

Categorically. Science deals with probability, the Bible deals with truth.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Categorically. Science deals with probability, the Bible deals with truth.

---

Again, allegedly.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Categorically. Science deals with substantiated probability, the Bible deals with unsubstantiated truth.

---

Fify

substantiated probability. I'm going to remember that one.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Categorically. Science deals with probability, the Bible deals with truth.

---

How is that categorical?

One is taking rocks and bones and trying to recreate a story in your mind's eye. The other is telling it from first hand experience.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

One is taking rocks and bones and trying to recreate a story in your mind's eye. The other is telling it from first hand experience.

---

Except it's not. Or can't be proven at the very least.

But as noted time and again with no rebuttal from you, your defense fails. You have no explanation for things like buried fossils or radiometric data. There is no reason a mature earth would need to be 4 billion years old. None. It could be 4 minutes old with no issues.

I personally like the number 5 billion. Why wasn't it 5 billion years old God?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

One is taking rocks and bones and trying to recreate a story in your mind's eye. The other is telling it from first hand experience.

---

I'm not exactly a Biblical scholar but I'm pretty sure the author of Genesis was not there witnessing creation first hand and writing it down. At best it is hearsay.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I personally like the number 5 billion. Why wasn't it 5 billion years old God?

---

Good question. Why wasn't it?

Quote:

---

But as noted time and again with no rebuttal from you, your defense fails. You have no explanation for things like buried fossils or radiometric data. There is no reason a mature earth would need to be 4 billion years old. None. It could be 4 minutes old with no issues

---

We do have an explanation for fossils in Genesis called the flood. As far as there being a reson for radiometric dating reading 4 minutes or 4 billions years that's in line with everthing else in the creation account. There would be no reason for trees to appear 50 years old when they are 5 minutes old other than that's how the creator wanted to do it. Same with star light, same with age of man, same with birds and not eggs, trees and not seeds. In our time science is inadquate to answer the 'why'. See my prevous Henry Ford illustration.

Ugh. No. I already explained how it isn't the same for living things as it is for the earth. There is no life cycle required. There is no such thing as a baby earth or an elderly one. No such cycle of birth and death and reproduction.

Further, you over and over again ignore the simple fact that your fossils caused by a flood defense fails.

You are blindly asserting that which is discredited and continuously making the same rational errors without actually addressing the arguments.

The fossils do not appear as a flood would indicate, how do you explain that? Not one fossil appears in a place disproving evolution, how do you explain that? No evidence of a global flood exists, how do you explain that?

You are pretending at science and rationality not actually doing it.

This goes back to the requirements for Function. If the universe is billions of years old and starts with a big bang there is a birth and death necessity toward function. But if the universe is only going to exist a few thousand years its pointless. It's no different than a moon filled with meteor strikes that never occurred.

An adult human needs appear old to function. This serves no purpose but deception.