The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caritasregat said:
How? Why would God make the universe to look as if it had been in existence for several billion years? Itinerate1 had a good point. If we can’t use our reason to get to the truth (or even near to the truth) about the universe, then it is useless to argue, and we arrive at the issue which Skeptic pointed out.

The “trickster” concept which you want to dismiss without proof is this:
  1. God made rocks with fossils in them 6000 years ago.
  2. The fossils look as if they’ve been there for millions of years.
  3. The presence of fossils is a deception to human reason
  4. God has placed this deception (for no other apparent reason).
  5. Deception is contrary to God’s goodness.
    Therefore God contradicts himself
The implications of this are plentiful: God is not good, Earth is not 6000 years old, the intellects God gave us aren’t worth dirt, or God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Questions which must be answered before even beginning the “trickster” concept.

A. Normally fossils are a skeleton or leaf imprint, i.e., a remnant or trace of a living organism.
Is point 1. saying that God put living organisms in rocks?

B. What is the evidence that God made rocks 6,000 years ago? Let alone putting living or dead organisms in them.

C. How is human reason used to determine that something is a deception? Looks can be deceiving. Have you ever seen a mirage on the highway ahead of you? What or who is responsible for that deception if you wish to call it a deception?

D. What Divine Revelation in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is the motivation for making the universe look as if it had been in existence for several billion years?

E. What is the actual truth our “reason” is trying to get to?

Using the “trickster” argument against God in order to win points in the young earth debate is deceptively clever in its profanity.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 31
 
pismopal said:
If God is outside of “time” and I believe that He is…6000 or 6 trillion years would make no difference. The word of God is a guide to salvation and not a history or anthropology text book.🙂
Click to expand...
It makes a great deal of difference as you can see here.

First, if you accept the idea that the Bible is not a science text then it should not be treated as if it is.

Second, there is politics involved. More than a few individuals here wish to stamp out a few ideas they dislike. One has stated that “we” (whoever that is) will not vote for a YEC again.

Third, at least one poster here wants to the turn the father of all human beings into a myth in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed
 
Caritasregat said:
How? Why would God make the universe to look as if it had been in existence for several billion years? Itinerate1 had a good point. If we can’t use our reason to get to the truth (or even near to the truth) about the universe, then it is useless to argue, and we arrive at the issue which Skeptic pointed out.

The “trickster” concept which you want to dismiss without proof is this:
  1. God made rocks with fossils in them 6000 years ago.
  2. The fossils look as if they’ve been there for millions of years.
  3. The presence of fossils is a deception to human reason
  4. God has placed this deception (for no other apparent reason).
  5. Deception is contrary to God’s goodness.
    Therefore God contradicts himself
The implications of this are plentiful: God is not good, Earth is not 6000 years old, the intellects God gave us aren’t worth dirt, or God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Nice try. Give me the proof or evidence for the following:

Jesus rose, bodily, from the dead.

Gives sight to the blind.

Changes the water to wine.

Point out the tricks involved, please.

God can do this. Why? Because he has abilities that are beyond the understanding of science and our own understanding.

God bless,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
How long did it take to form this?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EQitk5rqT...SyU7bG7asY/s400/Palouse-River-Canyon-Hike.jpg
Click to expand...
Assuming the the URL is correct and it is a picture of the Palouse River Canyon then it is part of the scablands formed by the Lake Missoula Floods so it took up to 2,000 years to form between about 15,000 and 13,000 years ago.

To my inexperienced eye there are three levels shown on the opposite side (possibly four) so at least three of the floods passed through there. That would indicate a minimum of about 150 years to form since there was a flood about every 50 years.

How did I do?

rossum
 
rossum said:
Assuming the the URL is correct and it is a picture of the Palouse River Canyon then it is part of the scablands formed by the Lake Missoula Floods so it took up to 2,000 years to form between about 15,000 and 13,000 years ago.

To my inexperienced eye there are three levels shown on the opposite side (possibly four) so at least three of the floods passed through there. That would indicate a minimum of about 150 years to form since there was a flood about every 50 years.

How did I do?

rossum
Click to expand...
Close, but no cigar. The location is correct but this was formed in less than 2 days.

The point for the other poster is that uniformatarians fought this for 50 years or so but now accept it. They are coming to terms with catastrophism.

PS: Did you do the work or did StA clue you in? 🙂

Here is another - formed in less than 2 days:

 
itinerant1 said:
Throughout the entire thread “The earth is only 6000 years old” there was not a single compelling argument in support of “creationism” or YEC. That fact in itself is revealing.

Thus, I must declare “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)” DOA. :cool:
Click to expand...
There is not one believable proof for descent from a common ancestor written on this thread. Evolution EVEN flunks a simple algebra test. Score another one for our original parents, ADAM AND EVE AND THE CHURCH FATHERS. Reference: Two scientists visit the library and study world population stats and population formula, by John Heffner, a math teacher in a Jr. college in TX * Conclusion: Darwin is rapidly falling off his man-made altar.

What would be average annual growth rate for us humans for each century? Library research shows two facts: (1) there is reliable data on world population (wp) for only a few centuries back. (2) During the ‘plague years’ the growth rate was only 0.318 globally, the other centuries were around 0.7 to 1.8 % globally. Today the growth rate for the USA is 1.7% and third world countries 4%. The actual annual growth rate is .456 for recorded history. Population formula is P = Po e (2.718 for base of natural logarithms) rt r = % growth like 0.00456 in calculator and t being time in years or visit references.

Cutting to the chase: Evolutionary scenario (1): Enter initial population as Po = 2 and growth rate 0.456% and the time being 500,000 years the population of the earth would equal 2.156 x 10 to the 990 power. That’s more people than atmos iln the universe.

Evolutionary scenario #2: Initial population 2 but reduce growth rate to 0.1% and enter 100,000 years the world population would be 5.38 x10 to the 43d power.

Evolutionary scenario #3: Ok so let’s use just 25,000 years we get 1.44 x10 to the11the power.

Biblical historical account: 8 people (post flood) enter growth rate of 0.456 % and 4500 years you get 6.5 x 109 which is the population of the earth right now based on the best census available.

Ok so now plug in your 1000 to 3000 individual pairs of breeding humans that always supposedly existed at one time and see what you get. There aren’t that many electrons iln the whole universe. I’ll go with the historical accuracy of the scripture and Adam and Eve before you will convince me or anyone else who has worked with this well accepted formula that descent form a common ancestor or a hominid is correct. [Refereence: Biology, by Raven and Johnson, p. 525 for the formula which a friend of mine checked out on a spread sheet and got the same above answers.]
I willl go in to the altar of God, The God of my gladness and joy. 😉
 
buffalo said:
If they are acting as a sort of clearinghouse (if you will) to independently review submitted empirical research I have no problem.
Click to expand...
  1. no one is submitting research to them
  2. they have claimed to have done their own research, which is the whole point here.
 
edwest2 said:
Second, there is politics involved. More than a few individuals here wish to stamp out a few ideas they dislike. One has stated that “we” (whoever that is) will not vote for a YEC again.
Click to expand...
That was I.

And it was a prediction for the “we” of the United States electorate in a majority. I am trying to put in perspective the relative acceptability, politically, of young-earth “science” in the modern world today. There are some creationist presidents of other countries around the world, but they are politically and religiously unpalatable to us for other reasons.
 
buffalo said:
Close, but no cigar. The location is correct but this was formed in less than 2 days.
Click to expand...
Reference please.
The point for the other poster is that uniformatarians fought this for 50 years or so but now accept it. They are coming to terms with catastrophism.
Click to expand...
We have been on good terms with catastrophism since Pompeii in 79 CE.
PS: Did you do the work or did StA clue you in? 🙂
Click to expand...
All my own work, which I showed.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Reference please.

We have been on good terms with catastrophism since Pompeii in 79 CE.

All my own work, which I showed.

rossum
Click to expand...
When you watch this pay attention to the claim of J Harlen Bretz and the fight he waged. FInally they realized he was right all along.

Mystery of the Megaflood

and one at Niagara Falls. A bend down the river formed in less than a few hours.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
buffalo said:
When you watch this pay attention to the claim of J Harlen Bretz and the fight he waged. FInally they realized he was right all along.

Mystery of the Megaflood
Click to expand...
That is a TV programme, not a scientific reference. I am asking for the reference giving the two day figure for that specific canyon.

I can well believe that an individual flood took two days, but there was more than one flood. Glacial Lake Missoula filled and emptied about 40 times over 2,000 years. By the look of that valley there was more than one flood involved – look at the terraces on the opposite side. I am looking for a scientific paper with specific reference to that particular valley. The majority of the scablands were eroded by more than one of the floods, and that particular canyon appears to be a case in point.

rossum
 
rossum said:
That is a TV programme, not a scientific reference. I am asking for the reference giving the two day figure for that specific canyon.

I can well believe that an individual flood took two days, but there was more than one flood. Glacial Lake Missoula filled and emptied about 40 times over 2,000 years. By the look of that valley there was more than one flood involved – look at the terraces on the opposite side. I am looking for a scientific paper with specific reference to that particular valley. The majority of the scablands were eroded by more than one of the floods, and that particular canyon appears to be a case in point.

rossum
Click to expand...
It is really worth watching. And I will remember - it’s only a program the next time they air a proevo program on PBS.🙂
 
grannymh said:
Questions which must be answered before even beginning the “trickster” concept.

A. Normally fossils are a skeleton or leaf imprint, i.e., a remnant or trace of a living organism.
Is point 1. saying that God put living organisms in rocks?

B. What is the evidence that God made rocks 6,000 years ago? Let alone putting living or dead organisms in them.

C. How is human reason used to determine that something is a deception? Looks can be deceiving. Have you ever seen a mirage on the highway ahead of you? What or who is responsible for that deception if you wish to call it a deception?

D. What Divine Revelation in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is the motivation for making the universe look as if it had been in existence for several billion years?

E. What is the actual truth our “reason” is trying to get to?

Using the “trickster” argument against God in order to win points in the young earth debate is deceptively clever in its profanity.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 31
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re understanding my point or the argument from deception.
The argument I laid out is against the YEC viewpoint.

First, to answer your questions:
YECs assume 1 to be true.
God doesn’t have any motivation (according to Catholic Doctrine) to make the earth look older than it is. Our reason naturally directs itself toward God (although I think it was either St. Paul or St. Anselm who said that only “with much time and with the admixture of many errors”) but reason is perfected through revelation. Faith and reason work like two wings flying us to God.

Secondly, the argument I presented is not at all profane. I was showing that if you assume the first numbered statements as true, then it doesn’t make any sense. The argument shows that (as the opening post of this thread suggested) it is absurd to say that “God created the earth 6000 years ago because the Bible says, but science is wrong because God could have made the earth in a way which is deceptive to the human intellect.”

Please note that when I write something out or ask a question, I don’t necessarily concede with that statement, I’m just making a point.
 
buffalo said:
When you watch this pay attention to the claim of J Harlen Bretz and the fight he waged. FInally they realized he was right all along.

Mystery of the Megaflood

and one at Niagara Falls. A bend down the river formed in less than a few hours.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/USA/S...copterTrip/EntireAreaFromNorthOfWhirlpool.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks for the Megaflood link; I know about it but don’t think I have this link. Also a beauty of a photo of Niagara River on wide screen. There is a dispute over whether it was 12,000 years ago or 5000 years ago when the Niagara Riever bend formed. There was also a terrific flood down the Hudson that may have happened about the same time; that was on the History channel. Al Gore might have blamed the rapid melt down back then on man if he had been around.
😉
 
edwest2 said:
Nice try. Give me the proof or evidence for the following:

Jesus rose, bodily, from the dead.

Gives sight to the blind.

Changes the water to wine.

Point out the tricks involved, please.

God can do this. Why? Because he has abilities that are beyond the understanding of science and our own understanding.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Miracles have nothing to do that argument.
Notice how those miracles have helped Christians believe: They are not tricks if we count them as true.
Do fossils help us believe in God? No. They’re just there.
A. If we count fossils as actual evidence that the earth is billions of years old, then YEC doesn’t make sense.
B. If we count fossils as just being put there 6000 years ago as YEC states, then God is messing around with us.

My point is this: God doesn’t just mess around with us. So only A makes sense.
 
When I tell people about Jesus Christ, what proof can I offer?

No, what we have here is a God who can do nothing unless humans can prove it scientifically, as I’ve tried to point out.

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top