@eladar saidIt’s more of an exercise in supposition than a thought experiment. So you did not offer Adam as evidence of the creator then?
I suppose it is difficult for you to participate in a thought experiment. I defined the assumptions in this example in the original post...
Supposing that the Earth was created by God as described in Genesis, how old would the Earth appear?
This means that we assume the Genesis account is true. If it is true, then...
Maybe you understand it now. Maybe you cannot understant. I do not underestimate your lack of intelligence.
I suppose by your standards the whole of the bible could be seen as a thought experiment.
But really you are trying to cram the square shaped reality of the physical universe into the round whole of ‘Creation’.
It’s not working by the way.
@kevcvs57 saidWhere did I say that I offer Adam as evidence of the creator?
It’s more of an exercise in supposition than a thought experiment. So you did not offer Adam as evidence of the creator then?
I suppose by your standards the whole of the bible could be seen as a thought experiment.
But really you are trying to cram the square shaped reality of the physical universe into the round whole of ‘Creation’.
It’s not working by the way.
@kevcvs57 saidWhere did I say Adam represents evidence of God?
“ If God exists, then he is perfect. Do you think God would be incapable of creating a consistant Universe?
Adam is the example for anyone with eyes. ”
Or be clearer about what you claim Adam to be evidence of.
I said "if God exists", not that Adam provides evidence of God.
Once again, where did I say Adam represents evidence of God?
The answer is .... Never. Of course I doubt you are intellectually honest enough to admit it.
The "If God exists" statement is clear enough.
Now if I wrote "God exists", then you would have a point. I did not, so you do not.
The point I was making is the point of this thread.
If God created the Universe, it cannot be dated using physical means since the creation itself could have been created with age in place, as was Adam. Everything that we see as evolution over a very long period of time, be it the earth or the Universe itself, could have simply be placed there at the moment of creation.
3 edits
@eladar saidThe problem with this line of thought is that there is information contained within the earth and the rest of the universe that shows age far older than the creationist model.
I suppose it is difficult for you to participate in a thought experiment. I defined the assumptions in this example in the original post...
Supposing that the Earth was created by God as described in Genesis, how old would the Earth appear?
For example, let's say you wanted to claim a building was created five minutes ago, but the building is run-down, rusty and dilapidated. A simple investigation of the building would refute your claim that the building was created five minutes ago, based on the evidence.
If the building was created by God five minutes ago, it would stand to reason the building wouldn't show signs of aging. That's what the earth is like. There are signs in the earth that wouldn't exist if the earth was only 6,000 years old. For example, the radio-active decay of rocks would indicate something different if it was created a mere 6,000 years ago; much like a rusty, worn-down building wouldn't be that way if it was just created 5 minutes ago.
Creationism would mean that God, for some dumb reason, created the earth to look old; like creating an old building instead of a new one. This is just one of may reasons why creationism fails and why the 6,000 year creationist model doesn't work.
@vivify saidSo you are saying that it would be impossible for God to intentionally put information into the ceation that He created?
The problem with this line of thought is that there is information contained within the earth and the rest of the universe that shows age far older than the creationist model.
For example, let's say you wanted to claim a building was created five minutes ago, but the building is run-down, rusty and dilapidated. A simple investigation of the building would refute your cla ...[text shortened]... just one of may reasons why creationism fails and why the 6,000 year creationist model doesn't work.
4 edits
@eladar saidNo; I'm saying there's information in the planet that wouldn't be logical to include if it was only 6,000 years old. Imagine if Adam was created today, but God added grey hair, wrinkles, varicose veins and yellow teeth; what sense would that make? Wouldn't it be stupid to create Adam to look that way?
So you are saying that it would be impossible for God to intentionally put information into the ceation that He created?
It's the same with the earth: there are details and information that make the earth look FAR older than 6,000 years. The creationist model for earth would be like God creating Adam to look 102 years old.
@vivify saidSo you are saying that God is limited to your logic. Got it.
No; I'm saying there's information that wouldn't be logical to include. Imagine if Adam was created today, but God added grey hair, wrinkles, varicose veins and yellow teeth; what sense would that make? Wouldn't it be stupid to create Adam to look that way?
It's the same with the earth: there are unnecessary details and information that make the earth look FAR older t ...[text shortened]... 6,000 years. The creationist model for Earth would be like God creating Adam to look 102 years old.
2 edits
@eladar saidNice cop out.
So you are saying that God is limited to your logic. Got it.
Your god could've created the earth to look 6,000 old if he wanted to, right? So what's stopping him? Can you answer that?
Why not just make the speed of light faster so that light from distant stars only take 6,000 years to reach us instead of billions of years? Why not make the rate of radio-active decay different so that rocks are dated at 6,000 years instead of billions?
Face it: creationism is just plain false.
1 edit
@vivify saidNot a cop out, just calling a spade a spade.
Nice cop out.
Your god could've created the earth to look 6,000 old if he wanted to, right? So what's stopping him? Can you answer that?
Why not just make the speed of light faster so that light from distant stars only take 6,000 years to reach us instead of billions of years? Why not make the rate of radio-active decay different so that rocks are dated at 6,000 years instead of billions?
Face it: creationism is just plain false.
You make assumptions and demand your assumptions be believed.
I am telling you the truth. The truth is that God is not limited to your opinion based on your point of view on how things should work.
After all, we know that Adam was a result of a sperm and egg according to the Bible.
Yes, that was sarcasm, sarcasm that demonstrates exactly how your assumptions do not apply to creation, should it be true.
@eladar saidBack at you.
I cannot help it if you are so blinded by your beliefs you cannot understand a different perspective. You have simply demonstrated yourself to be a closed minded true believer.
That's ok.
I went round and round about this numerous times with RJHinds, another "true believer" in your mold. A YEC (Young Earth Creationist). I told him many times that he doesn't give God enough credit since he believed that God could not take as much time as he wanted, that God could not start the physical processes and then let the clockwork mechanism he built finish the work of cosmology and evolution.
All you guys insist that God had no other tools at his disposal than a bit of hand-waving. You say "He could have made it look old." But it is still just the "poof" of a magic wand, yeah? Why couldn't he have made the process last billions of years? You guys never give God enough credit.
7 edits
@eladar saidYou don't seem to get it.
Not a cop out, just calling a spade a spade.
You make assumptions and demand your assumptions be believed.
I am telling you the truth. The truth is that God is not limited to your opinion based on your point of view on how things should work.
After all, we know that Adam was a result of a sperm and egg according to the Bible.
Yes, that was sarcasm, sarcasm that demonstrates exactly how your assumptions do not apply to creation, should it be true.
Even if we assume Genesis is true and that creationism true, there are still features of earth and the universe that make no sense, if creationism is true.
Answer this question and don't dodge it: if you dodge and don't give a direct answer, you've lost this one.
Question: would it make sense to create Adam to look like a geriatric who appears to be 102 years old, with creaky bones, blotchy skin and arthritis? Yes or no? If no, does it make any sense to make the earth look billions of years old instead of 6,000 years?
@suzianne saidBack at you?
Back at you.
I went round and round about this numerous times with RJHinds, another "true believer" in your mold. A YEC (Young Earth Creationist). I told him many times that he doesn't give God enough credit since he believed that God could not take as much time as he wanted, that God could not start the physical processes and then let the clockwork mechanism he built f ...[text shortened]... dn't he have made the process last billions of years? You guys never give God enough credit.
What claim am I making in this thread that is back at you?