Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

[User Name]

Adam would appear to us to be "aged" and YET he was not... see the point yet?

Begging the question. Adam, being a fully grown adult when he was formed, would have an "appearance of age."

"Appearance of age" would be "apparent" and therefore measurable within some degree of proximity.

Now, if you agree--as you have already stated--that the universe was created with an "appearance of age," what approximate age do you think the universe appears to be, and why?

 

[Right Divider]

Begging the question.

You don't even know what that means.

Adam, being a fully grown adult when he was formed, would have an "appearance of age."

Yes, we agree.

"Appearance of age" would be "apparent" and therefore measurable within some degree of proximity.

Irrelevant.

Now, if you agree--as you have already stated--that the universe was created with an "appearance of age," what approximate age do you think the universe appears to be, and why?

My point... which you still cannot seems to grasp.... is that the "appearance of age" is NOT the true age.

The SAME was true for Adam.

 

[User Name]

My point... which you still cannot seems to grasp.... is that the "appearance of age" is NOT the true age.

Irrelevant.

My point... which you still cannot seems to grasp.... is that the physical sciences point to an "appearance of age" for the solar system and the universe.

 

[Right Divider]

Irrelevant.

:juggle:

My point... which you still cannot seems to grasp.... is that the physical sciences point to an "appearance of age" for the solar system and the universe.

:rotfl:

You're too dense to have an intelligent discussion with.

 

[User Name]

You're too dense to have an intelligent discussion with.

People have all sorts of religious beliefs about the age of the universe. The gurus of India have their own cosmology, which they base on divine revelation. And theirs differs from yours, which is based on divine revelation. Who is right? I'm sure some Hindus would like to superimpose their religious beliefs onto science, and force science to agree with their religious beliefs about the ages of the earth and the universe. But that's not how science is done.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way that someone who never heard of the Bible could examine the evidence gathered from the physical sciences and come away with the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old. There is absolutely no physical evidence for that. Sorry. The only reason why you believe that is because that's what you were taught by your religious leaders.

 

[User Name]

If you assume a 6,000 year old universe, then everything we understand about the physical sciences must necessarily be wrong. Everything from astronomy to physics to genetics to geology, and more, is utterly false. Rather than just cry about evolution, YECs should try to accomplish something significant in the physical sciences. That would actually be doing something good.

 

[Right Divider]

If you assume a 6,000 year old universe, then everything we understand about the physical sciences must necessarily be wrong. Everything from astronomy to physics to genetics to geology, and more, is utterly false. Rather than just cry about evolution, YECs should try to accomplish something significant in the physical sciences. That would actually be doing something good.

Continuing your denseness.

 

[Stripe]

If you assume a 6,000 year old universe, then everything we understand about the physical sciences must necessarily be wrong.

Nope.

YECs should try to accomplish something significant in the physical sciences.

More?

Is the work of Philip Paracelsus, Nicolas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, George Cuvier, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Matthew Maury, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, G. W. Carver and Walt Brown not enough for you?

:loser:

 

[User Name]

Nope.

Yep.

More?
Is the work of Philip Paracelsus, Nicolas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, George Cuvier, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Matthew Maury, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, G. W. Carver and Walt Brown not enough for you?

There's always room for more.

What's the matter, haven't got it in you?

:loser:

 

[User Name]

Respect is earned. Instead of whining about the big bad atheistic Darwinialistical evolutionalists, why not upstage them?

 

[Right Divider]

Respect is earned. Instead of whining about the big bad atheistic Darwinialistical evolutionalists, why not upstage them?

Another silly and childish comment. Thanks so much.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Below is an image of Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
.
​

Pretty cool!

This supernova is located ~27,000 light years away from Earth,

No argument there.

meaning that it takes at least 27,000 years for the light from this supernova to reach Earth.

Correction:

"meaning that it would, under normal circumstances, take light 27,000 years to travel from this supernova to reach earth."

Your statement stacks the deck against my position, by excluding any alternate explanation other than your own.

My rewording of it is neutral to both our positions.

Would you agree with my rewording of your comment?

Try making any kind of scientific sense out of that with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe.

You should stop trying to straw many my position, and instead try to steel man it. I don't "assume a 6 thousand year old universe." I claim that the universe is 7-10 thousand years old. I then look at the evidence, which verifies my claim.

Here's the question you should have asked that I will reply to:

"How can your position, which claims that the universe is only 7-10 thousand years old, account for a supernova that is 27,000 light years away?"

And my reply:

My position includes believing in a supernatural Creator, who created the very light that comes from that supernova. And in addition to that, the Bible, which is also evidence to my position, also states that the supernatural Creator "stretched out the heavens." Now, while the Bible does not explain in detail how He did so, there is an attempt to find an explanation for it that is in line with the Bible and with physics. You can read about it here:

https://kgov.com/stretch-cosmology-starlight-and-time-problem

But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star.

On this we agree.

Stars have very long lifespans.

And?

The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years.

Again... And?

I agree that stars have long lifespans.

However, other than via calculations of fuel consumption, there is no way to determine the actual age of a star. Actual age, not apparent age.

So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?

Your question is based on a non-sequitur.

I grant that stars have long lifespans.

But it does not logically follow that therefore they have existed for more than 7-10 thousand years.

Again, see https://kgov.com/stretch-cosmology-starlight-and-time-problem.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Miraculous explanations aren't science.

Miracles are events that are not explainable by the laws of physics.

In a purely naturalistic materialist system, such events are impossible.

However, when you preclude that therefore any other system must be wrong because it has events that violate your system, that's called begging the question, which, as you know, is a logical fallacy.

When you assume that because your system precludes the existence of miracles, that therefore teaching that miracles happen "isn't science," you have begged the question of your own position, and haven't allowed for the possibility that you're wrong, which is what science is all about, finding out the truth.

In other words, your claim, "Miraculous explanations aren't science" is an anti-scientific statement.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How would the Creator create a huge universe with distance stars and light without some "appearance of age"?

You've fallen into his trap, RD...

Here's a rope to get out:

User Name , "appearance of age" is entirely subjective.

To an atheist, or to anyone who believes the earth is old, the universe "appears" old.

To me and YE Creationists, however, the universe "appears" young.

The question is not "how old does the universe 'appear' to be?", it's "how old IS the universe?"

When you assume that the universe must be as old as it appears to be, and you believe that the universe is much older than 7-10 thousand years, that's when confirmation bias attacks.

The reverse is true for us YECs as well, if we assume that the universe must be as young as it appears to be, and we believe that the universe is about 7-10 thousand years old, that's when confirmation bias attacks.

Which is why remaining objective when viewing the evidence is so important.

Assuming one's position to be true won't work for EITHER side.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The usual creationist dodge is that God created light on the way to the Earth to make it look as though the object was very old. In this case, God faked a supernova explosion of a star that never existed.

Which is a remarkably cynical ploy for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

There's a more imaginative and honest way around this reality:

Aardsma & the Virtual History Hypothesis
Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.” But not in real history. Read his explanation of virtual history below and see if you are convinced:

“The two ideas share some similarity, but differ at a basic level both philosophically and theologically. Creation with Appearance of Age gives the impression that God arbitrarily painted a facade of age over the creation — that He could have chosen to leave everything looking its ‘real’ created age (i.e., roughly 7000 years, by my best Bible chronology reckoning) if He had wanted to, but He chose instead to make things look much older. This immediately raises theological objections: ‘But why would God do such a thing? Isnʼt it fundamentally dishonest to make something look like it isnʼt? Isnʼt God being deceitful?’” (This is where the “heresy” mentioned above comes from.)

“The virtual history view never encounters this problem. It says that the people who are saying ‘creation with appearance of age’ donʼt understand properly what the word/idea ‘creation’ means. The virtual history view goes to the analogy of human creations to try to show what ‘creation’ means. It takes the creation of a story by a human author as (probably its best) analogy. It observes that in all such stories one always has a virtual history present—-grown characters wearing sewn garments and living in already built houses… right from page one of the story. What is implied from page one of the story is a cause-and-effect virtual history to the story, stretching back into the indefinite past. This virtual history in no way contradicts the actual date (in the story charactersʼ time) of creation of the story. (That ‘date’ we would fix at page one of the book, since that is when, in the story frame of reference, the story world comes into existence.) We find by such analogies that an ‘appearance of age’ is inherent in what ‘creation’ means.” (This is where the “redundancy” mentioned above comes from.)

“But this ‘appearance of age’ is not an add-on and is not arbitrary. Try to imagine writing a story which does not have an ‘appearance of age’. After you have completed that exercise, try to imagine writing a fiction story which has a false ‘appearance of age’. I find that it is intrinsically impossible to create such stories. I.e., you cannot have a ‘creation with an appearance of age’ if you mean by that anything other than a creation with its inherent virtual history. To ask for a creation with a false appearance of age (which includes the case of a creation having no appearance of age), is to ask for the impossible/ridiculous.” (This is where the ‘absurdity’ mentioned above comes from.)

“We are living in a ‘story’ God created. God is both author and reader of this story (e.g., ‘For in Him we both live and move and have our being.’ Acts 17:28.) (Note how this works. A story-world has no existence in the book; its existence is in the mind of the author and readers.) Page one opens about 7000 years ago our time, (the only time frame we have access to). This ‘story’ has a virtual history stretching back billions of years. We find this to be the case by computing the time it would take light to travel from remote galaxies we see in the sky, or by computing the time it would take radioactive elements, such as uranium dug from the earth in natural ores, to decay as much as they have. These great ages in no way negate the fact that page one opens 7000 years ago. Nor does our virtual history, with all its dinosaurs etc. negate the fact that we are created."
https://edwardtbabinski.us/scrivenings/2014/young-cosmos-creationists-with-higher.html

It sounds loony, but it has the obvious virtue of not assuming a dishonest creator, which is what "appearance of age" requires.

Nice straw man. Try addressing our actual position next time. See above.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Creationists do a fine job of sitting on the sidelines and throwing mud at the scientific establishment.

If it sticks, maybe the scientific establishment needs to clean itself up...

Trying to protect your views from criticism is a classical darwinist move.

But shouldn't they should try to do something constructive for a change?

Are you asserting that Creationists are not constructive?

Try expanding the boundaries of scientific knowledge, rather than shrinking it.

Do you assert that Creationists have not expanded the boundaries of scientific knowledge?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course the scientific establishment is well aware of the problems in cosmology. In fact, YECs wouldn't even know anything about the problems in cosmology if the atheistic darwinialistical evolutionalists hadn't told us all about it.

As RD explained above:

The problems that ADEs and naturalistic materialist scientists face are non-existent in the YEC view of cosmology. Are there things that need to be solved? Of course.

But the foundations of YEC cosmology aren't being shaken to the core with every new cosmological discovery as they are in ADE's and NM's cosmologies.

Was reading an article just the other day where some major prediction had been shown to be improbable.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm trying to agree with you, but you don't seem to want to let me. The answer is obvious: The Creator DID create the universe with distant stars and light with "appearance of age." Specifically, He created the solar system with the appearance of ~4.5 billion years of age, and he created the universe with the appearance of ~13.8 billion years of age.



I just answered the question. How do you respond?

Again, appearance of your preferred age does not imply actual age.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My point... which you still cannot seems to grasp.... is that the physical sciences point to an "appearance of age" for the solar system and the universe.

Is this an attempt at an appeal to authority?

The "physical sciences" don't point to anything.

Some scientists point to an "appearance of old age" for the solar system and the universe.

Other scientists point to an "appearance of young age" for the solar system and the universe.

Which group is correct?

Let the evidence speak for itself to answer that question.

On your side, you have some evidence that has been interpreted to support your views, while ignoring other evidence that does not support your views.

On our side, we have literally all of the evidence, and it says the universe is young.

 

[User Name]

"meaning that it would, under normal circumstances, take light 27,000 years to travel from this supernova to reach earth."

Your statement stacks the deck against my position, by excluding any alternate explanation other than your own.

I'm going to need you to prove, scientifically, "any alternate explanation."