Jump to content


Does God's Word Speak Of Things Made To...


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#61 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:42 AM

I don't have time to answer right now, because I have to leave for school in a few minutes. But I will say just this. The only reason the earth "looks" older is because you insist on using uniformitarian principles, and leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

#62 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 May 2005 - 07:34 AM

I don't have time to answer right now, because I have to leave for school in a few minutes. But I will say just this. The only reason the earth "looks" older is because you insist on using uniformitarian principles, and leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

View Post


Agreed entirely. Care to demonstrate why uniformitarian principles as flawed? The decay rates have been tested to have been the same today as they were 100,000 years ago (1987 supernova). If I am not mistaken we have also been able to confirm it using historical information. Argon dating tells us that Vesuivius destroyed Pompeii around about 70-80AD. Historical records say the same.

I am entirely open to the possibility of supernatural intervention, can it be demonstrated to be true? How would we differentiate between two supernatural entities? Does supposing a supernatural entity allow us to make any useful predictions? If it does or if it can, then please show me the way.

#63 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 11 May 2005 - 08:13 AM

I don't have time to answer right now, because I have to leave for school in a few minutes. But I will say just this. The only reason the earth "looks" older is because you insist on using uniformitarian principles, and leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

View Post


If we include supernatural intervention then the Earth could be 3 seconds old, complete with life and false memories for all of that life. By using supernatural intervention you open the door for a deceiver God, a God who constructs a false history supported by mountains of false evidence. Again, would God give Adam scars for injuries he never suffered? If not, then why would God give Earth a history of meteor impacts that never occured and a history of radioactive decay that did not happen?

#64 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 02:14 PM

I'm interested in what you see as evidence for an old earth. Radiometric dating?

View Post



Consistency between unrelated methods of dating would, IMO, be one of the strong points to accept their validity. Can they all be wrong (and most importantly can the all be wrong in a different way)?

In the September 2001 issue of National Geographic, there is an excellent article on some of the dating methods in current use. To summarise:

Isotopic techniques:
a – Uranium to Lead (minerals), 1 million to 4.5 billion years.
b – Rubidium to Strontium (minerals), 60 Million to 4.5 billion years.
c – Potassium to Argon (minerals), 10000 to 3 billion years.
d – Uranium series disequilibrium (minerals, shell, bone, teeth, coral), 0 to 400,000 years.
e – Carbon 14 (minerals, shell, bone, teeth, water), 0 to 40,000 years.

Radiation Exposure techniques:
a – Fission Track (Minerals, natural glass), 500,000 to 1 billion years
b – Thermoluminescence (Minerals, natural glass), 0 to 500,000 years
c – Electron Spin Resonance (Minerals, tooth enamel, shell coral), 1,000 to 1 million years.

Other techniques:
a – Geomagnetic polarity timescale (minerals), 780,000 to 200 million years.
b – Amino Acid racemization (shells, other bicarbonates), 500 to 300,000 years.
c – Obsidian hydration (natural glass), 500 to 200,000 years.
d – Dendrochronology (tree rings), 0 to 12,000 years.
e – Lichenometry (lichens), 100 to 9,000 years.

#65 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 02:23 PM

The only reason the earth "looks" older is because you insist on using uniformitarian principles, and leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

View Post


I have to agree with Modulous , science by definition is the investigation of the natural world, (or at least the evidence remaining from some cause).

And remember it is the YEC that are proposing that scientific evidence supports the Biblical version of history, so lets just stick to the science (in this forum). There is a ‘YEC and Gods Word’ section for discussing the Biblical side of the argument.

#66 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 11 May 2005 - 04:46 PM

"Agreed entirely. Care to demonstrate why uniformitarian principles as flawed? The decay rates have been tested to have been the same today as they were 100,000 years ago (1987 supernova)."

What? Were you there 100,000 years ago and know that the decay rates are the same? Are you not assuming that the earth is that old to begin with?

"Argon dating tells us that Vesuivius destroyed Pompeii around about 70-80AD. Historical records say the same."
Again, they may be accurate for recent times, whereas the decay rates haven't changed much for sure, but again, you assume that they stayed the same before then. And by the way, a few examples of K-Argon dating.
"One way to test this assumption is to measure the K-Ar age of several recent lava flows.3 The Sunset Crater lava flows (from an eruption around 1065 A.D.) have been dated at 210,000 to 230,000 years old. 4 Lava from the Mt. Rangitoto eruption which happened 300 years ago has been dated at 485,000 years old. 5 The Kaupelehu Flow (1800 - 1801 A.D.) has been dated several times, yielding 12 dates ranging from 140 million years to 2.96 billion years, with an average date of 1.41 billion years. 6

These references are nearly 30 years old, so you might think that radioactive dating has improved in recent years. It hasn't. Lava from a 1986 Mount St. Helens lava dome has just been dated at 2.8 +/- 0.6 million years old. 7"

and:

"Skull 1470 was discovered by Richard Leakey in 1967. This skull, very modern in appearance, was found in a layer of rock that was believed to be too old to contain a modern skull. Since evolutionists considered this to be important evidence that would tell them when apes evolved into men, they wanted to know exactly how old the skull was. Fortunately, the skull was found beneath a layer of volcanic ash which they believed could be accurately dated. Since Skull 1470 was found in rocks under this layer of ash, the skull must be slightly older than this layer of ash.

Samples of the layer of ash were sent off to the laboratory. Richard Leakey hoped the lab would confirm his estimate of 2.9 million years. (That would make him the discoverer of the oldest human fossil.) But the laboratory results gave dates ranging from 212 to 230 million years old. This was far to old to fit the theory of evolution, so the lab results were rejected.

Over the next ten years the rocks surrounding Skull 1470 were dated dozens of times, using various methods, giving widely varying results. For example, two specimens from the same layer were analyzed by the same people (Fitch and Miller) using the same technique during the same analysis. One specimen was dated at 0.52 to 2.64 million years old. The other was dated at 8.43 to 17.5 million years old."

TAKEN FROM: http://www.ridgenet..../sage/v1i5f.htm

"Consistency between unrelated methods of dating would, IMO, be one of the strong points to accept their validity. Can they all be wrong (and most importantly can the all be wrong in a different way)?"

Well, I wonder how consitant they really are. I typed the following up from "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris.

"The deeply buried Cardenas Basalts were first dated in 1972 by the K-Argon method. The isotopic array published was used to calculate an "age" of 853 plus of minues 15 million years, using recently revised values for the decay constants. A later study yielded "ages" of 820 plus or minues 20, and 800 plus or minues 20 million years. Further study profuced "ages" of 791 plus or minues 20, and 843 plus or minues 34 million years. Thus , the tange of dates, including uncertainties, would place the actual age somewhere between 771 and 877 million years. In each of these tests only a single isotope analysis of each rock was obtained. The results are referred to as "model" ages. Results from "model age studies are often recognized as discordant, not agreeing with other analyses obtained by using a different radioisotope method or note even agreeing with the results of the same test run on a different specimen of the same rock. Other times, the derived iosotope dates are discrepant, not agreeing with dates obtained by stratigraphic or fossil studies. Frequently, a date will simply be discarded if it doesn't fit, and never published at all."

Then there's a bunch of stuff on isochrons and how they proved the original assupmtions wrong, even though there were previously accepted, and then resumes with:

"More accurate determinations are thought to result from use of the rubidium-strontium method, which has become quite popular in recent years. Six specimens gathered from the same basalt strata yielded an isocron date of 1.07 plus or minues .07 BILLION years, much older than the K-Ar isochron of 715 million years, even though both of them plotted along straight lines. Obviously they can't both be correct. The geologic community has generally accepted the Rb-Sr isochron as correct, and discarded the younger K-Ar dates."

Now this is even better:

"Now let's apply the same suite of methods to the recent volcanic rocks on the Canyon's rim. Remember that these plateau basalts are extremely "fresh" looking and are lying on top of all other rocks in the Canyon, and erupted even AFTER the canyon was eroded. Perhaps witnessed by Native Americans, they are easily the most recent rock units in the Canyon. As mentioned before, one K-Ar model date stands at 10 THOUSAND years, with a K-Ar model date of an olivine mineral from the same rock dating at 117 plus or minues three MILLION years. (Some have proposed that this mineral was from an older "pod" which may have been incorporated into the later lava flow.) Other nearby specimens were dated by this method to be 3.67, 2.63, and 3.60 million years old. When dr. Austin conducted Rb-Sr studies on five specimens gathered from obviously recent )Quaternary) lava flows in the same area, he obtained an isochron "age" of 1.34 plus of mines .004 BILLION years! Obviously this isochron is "discordant" with the K-Ar dates and "discrepant" with the stratigraphic control, which places the entire suite of rocks at less than a few million years old, most likely in the low THOUSANDS of years. Furthermore, these lava flows couldn't possibly be older than the Cardenas basalts, even though both produced equally good isochron plots. The Rb-Sr isochron of the plateau basalts would be called a "fictitious osochron" with the osochron slope having no relationship to real time. Could the isochron derived for the stratigraphically lower Cardenas basalts (which was accepted as accurate) likewise be fictitious? And how does one know? How COULD you know? Problems with the plateau basalts are magnified when a technique employing the ratio of lead isotopes is used. Fifty-five specimens were analyzed from numerous lava flows thoughout the plateau. When the lead-lead results were plotted, they yielded and isochron "age" of 2.6 plus or minues .21 BILLION years! This is the oldest figure ever derived, yet it is for the youngest suite of rocks! These specimens came from numerous sources, but the plotted along a straight isochron line, attesting to their similar time of origin. This tren was reproduced by Dr. Austin. Surely, "fictitious isochrons" are real, but neither they nor the accepted isochrons seem to be giving the true age of the rocks in question."

There's a whole bunch more on Allende, datings of the earth, etc, but I think this is enough typing for me today. Lol. Enjoy! Actually, here are the dates for the age of Allende.

Pb-207/Pb-206= 4.5 Billion years
Pb-207/U-235= 5.57 Billion years
Pb-206/U-238= 8.82 Billion years
Pb-208-T-232= 10.4 Billion years
Sr-87/Sr-86= 4.48 billion years
K-Ar= 5.29 Billion years

Please note, most of these are older than the accepted AGE OF THE ENTIRE EARTH.

#67 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:46 PM

What? Were you there 100,000 years ago and know that the decay rates are the same? Are you not assuming that the earth is that old to begin with?

View Post


Just a couple of points -
Do you think science is limited to investigating things no older than ones own lifetime? Please state why you believe this.

You will note that in my post I have provided a variety of dating methods. Now as they use differing methods of dating age, and that they overlap, one can conclude that yes, the rate of ‘decay’ has remained constant/consistent of the age of the earth. If you still think there are problems with dating methods you will have to answer

Can they all be wrong (and most importantly can they all be wrong in a different way)?

Come up with an answer to that problem first.

#68 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 07:13 PM

"One way to test this assumption is to measure the K-Ar age of several recent lava flows.3 The Sunset Crater lava flows (from an eruption around 1065 A.D.) have been dated at 210,000 to 230,000 years old. 4 Lava from the Mt. Rangitoto eruption which happened 300 years ago has been dated at 485,000 years old. 5 The Kaupelehu Flow (1800 - 1801 A.D.) has been dated several times, yielding 12 dates ranging from 140 million years to 2.96 billion years, with an average date of 1.41 billion years. 6

These references are nearly 30 years old, so you might think that radioactive dating has improved in recent years. It hasn't. Lava from a 1986 Mount St. Helens lava dome has just been dated at 2.8 +/- 0.6 million years old. 7"

View Post


The Argon dating claim of inaccuracy is refuted by knowledge of the real method of dating (e.g. ensuring that one obtains a representative sample) and that there are two types of Argon dating (conveniently missing from creationist sources) see this article Argon Dating

#69 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 May 2005 - 08:48 PM

"Agreed entirely. Care to demonstrate why uniformitarian principles as flawed? The decay rates have been tested to have been the same today as they were 100,000 years ago (1987 supernova)."

What? Were you there 100,000 years ago and know that the decay rates are the same? Are you not assuming that the earth is that old to begin with?

View Post



We know it occurred 100,000 light years away (approx figures).

"Argon dating tells us that Vesuivius destroyed Pompeii around about 70-80AD. Historical records say the same."
Again, they may be accurate for recent times, whereas the decay rates haven't changed much for sure, but again, you assume that they stayed the same before then.


2,000 years ago is not recent according to your model, that is one third of the age of the earth! Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?




And by the way, a few examples of K-Argon dating.


You have demonstrated that K-Argon testing can give erroneous dates on occasion. If you would like to discuss any one in particular then do so. You have yet to demonstrate that it, and other dating methods, consistently gives erroneous results. And just for fun, here is a nice little link about excess argon in volcanic rock

#70 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 11 May 2005 - 09:58 PM

"We know it occurred 100,000 light years away (approx figures). "
Hmm, and how do you know this? Parallax trig? That's a real small triangle. So small in fact that you couldn't measure it. You'd probably have trouble measuring 100 light years with Parallax trig. Just curious how you know that it occured that far away. I don't doubt that if was that far away, I just don't think you can really know as close as you say you can.

"Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?"
What? That made no sense. First you say "only" 4,000 years, and then say it's too long, please clarify what it is that you mean.

"You have yet to demonstrate that it, and other dating methods, consistently gives erroneous results."
What? How do you know every result isn't erroneous? Because the one's left over after others have been discarded fit the old earth theory?

Just two quick things. I glanced at your website, and wondered about this:
"Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon."

What? Read that and use some common sense. They're saying that since they used OTHER dating methods on it, they discovered that it's too YOUNG to date? How about they just date it, and their shouldn't hardly be any decay to Argon.

And so I don't have to type it out, here's a few thoughts on the starlight stuff. The time differential between the center of the universe is interesting.

http://www.gotquesti...star-light.html

#71 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 12 May 2005 - 05:44 AM

"We know it occurred 100,000 light years away (approx figures). "
Hmm, and how do you know this? Parallax trig? That's a real small triangle. So small in fact that you couldn't measure it. You'd probably have trouble measuring 100 light years with Parallax trig. Just curious how you know that it occured that far away. I don't doubt that if was that far away, I just don't think you can really know as close as you say you can.

View Post


Straightforward trig was used. Have a read about it

"Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?"
What? That made no sense. First you say "only" 4,000 years, and then say it's too long, please clarify what it is that you mean.


You believe the earth is 6,000 years old, give or take, right? You also believe that decay rates for recent events can give acceptable dates. A recent date by your reckoning is 2,000 years ago. Therefore in the last 2,000 years the decay rate has been the same according to your reckoning. 6,000 - 2,000 = 4,000. You claim that radioactive decay somehow varied significantly in that 4,000 year gap, am I right?



"You have yet to demonstrate that it, and other dating methods, consistently gives erroneous results."
What? How do you know every result isn't erroneous? Because the one's left over after others have been discarded fit the old earth theory?


In science we look at trends and we discard outliers as being the result of error. We do not accept the outliers and regard the trends as being the result of error. The trend points to an old earth...radiodating isn't perfect and can yield erroneous results. Most of the time this occurs through perfectly understood processes. These processes are not common. You have to show that the majority of radiodating is imperfect, not the minority.



What? Read that and use some common sense. They're saying that since they used OTHER dating methods on it, they discovered that it's too YOUNG to date? How about they just date it, and their shouldn't hardly be any decay to Argon.


Radiodating gives strange results at extremes. Either if the half life is much longer than the actual age or if the half life is much shorter. That is to say, I cannot date a 3 week old formation using something with a half-life of 3 billion years. There are probabilities involved that would render the result meaningless.

#72 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 12 May 2005 - 08:55 AM

crystaleaglesprings,

Instead of dragging this topic away from the OP it would be more appropriate if you moved your radiometric dating posts to the Problems With Radiometric Dating, It isn't as good as you may think thread. This thread has been lamenting with little input from creationists. I think your posts would be perfect for that thread. I am not an admin, only an interested poster like yourself so don't take my advice as an order. Happy posting.

Method

#73 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 May 2005 - 01:49 PM

re supernova 1987A

"We know it occurred 100,000 light years away (approx figures). "
Hmm, and how do you know this? Parallax trig? That's a real small triangle. So small in fact that you couldn't measure it. You'd probably have trouble measuring 100 light years with Parallax trig. Just curious how you know that it occured that far away. I don't doubt that if was that far away, I just don't think you can really know as close as you say you can.

http://www.gotquesti...star-light.html

View Post


I should also point out that supernova 1987A belongs to the Large Magellanic Cloud (a dwarf galaxy gravitationally tied to the milky way), thus any measurements made for any star in that Large Magellanic Cloud will give an approximate distance for the supernova 1987A. There are several ‘yardsticks’ employed to measure stellar distances, and where they overlap, are in agreement.

#74 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 14 May 2005 - 08:58 AM

The only reason the earth "looks" older is because you insist on using uniformitarian principles, and leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention.


If God could deceive us by "writing" records of past events into the earth, why couldn't He do the same in the Bible?

#75 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2005 - 02:44 PM

If God could deceive us by "writing" records of past events into the earth, why couldn't He do the same in the Bible?

View Post


Theoretically, I suppose he could, one could also take the POV that, "could man be deceived by the devil, to the point of putting an error in the bible"? There is no limit if one is to speculate along these lines.

#76 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 16 May 2005 - 10:39 AM

Just two quick things. I glanced at your website, and wondered about this:
"Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon."

What? Read that and use some common sense. They're saying that since they used OTHER dating methods on it, they discovered that it's too YOUNG to date? How about they just date it, and their shouldn't hardly be any decay to Argon.


Xenoliths are older rock embedded in younger rock. These can include feldspars and gypsums. These were present in the rock that Morris dated. Therefore, what he dated was the average age between the older, embedded rock and the new rock in which it was embedded. Samples without these xenoliths do not contain enough argon to be dated, especially when using the instruments at Geochron labs where the samples were sent. In fact, Geochron even told Morris that their equipment was not sensitive enought to date anything younger than 2 million years.

The question is why Morris would use an obviously contaminated sample to cast aspersions on dating done with uncontaminated samples. If Morris were honest he would have dated uncontaminated samples, but then that would give him the results he wanted. The same group also did the same thing when they dated the basalts in the Grand Canyon, using rocks that were obviously contaminated by xenoliths. They even list how they were "careful to remove xenoliths" which is all but impossible to do.

#77 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2005 - 12:30 PM

If God could deceive us by "writing" records of past events into the earth, why couldn't He do the same in the Bible?

View Post


And if your a christian, why would you make that assertion? Or do you agree that with that assertion that God is also powerless? Because to say God cannot do something would mean that you know more about His abilities than the rest of us. Care to tell us how you know that?

#78 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:13 PM

And if your a christian, why would you make that assertion? Or do you agree that with that assertion that God is also powerless? Because to say God cannot do something would mean that you know more about His abilities than the rest of us. Care to tell us how you know that?

View Post


What gives those who believe in a literal Genesis the upperhand when they proclaim that God HAD TO create the world in 6 days? What do they know that the rest of us don't? Is God powerless to create a world over billions of years and use allegory as a teaching tool in Genesis?

The God I knew during my 22 formative years in the Church would not have created evidence of something in His Creation unless it was real. The evidence in his Creation, in my opinion, speaks to a very ancient earth. To deny the evidence in the Creation is to deny the Creator, or at least this is what I was taught by a mentor of mine at the time. We both had a common interest in nature and the sciences and he really helped me to understand why the sciences were not a threat to my religious faith. My mentor's ideas were not popular within the congregation so it was our "little secret". When I did leave the faith it had nothing to do with the findings in science. However, I did see others struggle and unneccesarily so (again, IMHO).

The creation of a world with apparent age, and an apparent history, just doesn't jive with a God whose Word is understood through logic and reasoning. One creedo that I often hear in these debates is "God wrote two books: The Bible and The Rocks; it is important that we not ignore one and exalt the other."

These are strictly my opinions and thoughts on the issue and should not be taken as something that should be foisted on christians or members here.

#79 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2005 - 02:03 PM

It is good you vent your fustration about why you have doubts about God. But, what is more truthful about what God is, or how He created? What we see, or what is written?

For if we believe only what we see, then we doubt what is written. And if we doubt what is written, then we doubt who inspired it. We cannot keep faith where faith is denied.

Having faith is believeing something you cannot see, but you are told is there. No faith is believeing only what you see because all has to be seeable, even though what you see is not always what it seems to be.

#80 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 16 May 2005 - 03:15 PM

It is good you vent your fustration about why you have doubts about God.


Just to clarify, I never doubted the existence of God because of scientific findings, including an old earth and evolution. My non-belief is completely separate from these issues.

But, what is more truthful about what God is, or how He created? What we see, or what is written?


We have to see in order to understand what is written. This is the same problem that the Inquisition faced when questioning Galileo. Should one rely strictly on an interpretation of the Bible or look to the Creation for evidence as well? In the case of the Sun's position in the solar system the physical evidence won out and the interpretation of the Bible changed. I personally don't understand why the age of the Earth and the how of Creation is immune to this.

For if we believe only what we see, then we doubt what is written. And if we doubt what is written, then we doubt who inspired it. We cannot keep faith where faith is denied.


What of faith in the evidence God left in the Creation? Don't you have faith in that? If we doubt the Creation, do we then have to doubt the Creator? If, as the OP suggests, we have to rely on the "faking" of evidence to support the Word, then how can we trust the Word? The belief that I had while I was a believer is that the Creation and the Word go hand in hand, one giving insight to the other. My faith was stronger for it. For others it is a stumbling block.

Having faith is believeing something you cannot see, but you are told is there. No faith is believeing only what you see because all has to be seeable, even though what you see is not always what it seems to be.

View Post


Religious faith isn't something I participate in anymore. Just a personal insight, I quit going to church because I realized it was something I did to make my family happy, not something I believed in anymore. I am not equating Santa Claus and God, but the analogy applies. It just felt like something I grew out of. I do have faith in other things, such as friends and the goodness of humankind, but I am also prepared to be let down at times.

What I see in the paradox of a "faked history" seems to be the anti-thesis of the God I grew up learning about. As science it is unfalsifiable, of that I think we can all agree. So it fails on two accounts, both my personal opinions of how the Judeo-Christian God is portrayed in the Bible and the scientific value of the hypothesis. I fully understand your opinions as well, as they were prevalent in the community I grew up in. However, there were some who agreed with my assessment as well.

Often times I see the YEC vs OEC and TE vs Creationist as a christian debate. Both sides are present in almost every congregation. I realize that nothing I say will change church doctrine, but I do hope that you understand where I am coming from.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users