an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

A Question for Young Earth Creationists

Since Alan aka Rhology is seemingly unwilling or unable to answer this question, I’ll throw it open to the rest of you who think the Earth and Universe was created 6000 years ago in a week….

‘Why, when he knew it would cause people to believe that the universe was not created (so leading people away from him), would your god make things look older than they are?’

ADDENDUM: Comments locked, as the two Creationists posting are going round and round in circles.

ADDENDUM 2: Unlocked, behave yourselves.

Single Post Navigation

47 thoughts on “A Question for Young Earth Creationists

  1. Perhaps you might consider rephrasing your question? Because equating "the universe was not created 6,000 years ago" with "the universe was not created at all" is a gross error, and one that fails to account for progressive creationists, for example (Hugh Ross).

  2. i suggest you reread the question, it is specifically asking YEC'ers to answer.OEC'ers, as well as failing at science, also fail at understanding their Bible – the Hebrew in Genesis is very specific, using the word for 'day' that is ONLY used to refer to a literal 24 hour period.

  3. I know the question has young-earth creationists in view. And yet equating "the universe was not created 6,000 years ago" with "the universe was not created at all" is still a gross error. It is a non-sequitur fallacy to infer the latter from the former; e.g., one can believe that the universe was not created 6,000 years ago without having "to believe that the universe was not created," such as progressive creationists.

  4. "one can believe that the universe was not created 6,000 years ago without having "to believe that the universe was not created," such as progressive creationists."However, one cannot square Biblical creationism with an Old Earth, or even ID point of view. As I pointed out before, the creation story in Genesis is very specific that the event took 6 literal 24 hour days. I understand that you're trying to accept reality whilst clinging onto your Bronze Age myths, but the truth is you're doing no more than adopting a fatally flawed 'God of the Gaps' standpoint. You've already retreated a fair distance from what your holy book says, with no hope of being able to ever recapture the ground you've lost.

  5. Any YEC's out there want to answer the question?

  6. Any YEC's out there want to answer the question?You mean, besides the answers I already gave you? Fred Butler and Crude also answered you. How many is enough for you? Are you looking for some sort of quorum?

  7. "You mean, besides the answers I already gave you?"Simply claiming you've answered doesn't actually make it true, Alan. You tried to avoid answering on the podcast (eventually settling for a pathetic 'I don't know') and you've repeatedly avoided answering on your blog. People can read all this, Alan, people can SEE for themselves that you've not answered. So, going to have another go? Or are you, as I suspect, full of it? (and by 'it' I mean 'shit')

  8. People can read all thisYep, and listen to the podcast. I'm counting on it, in fact. My refusal to answer you again highlights the fact that you don't listen or read carefully. You're just interested in trying to stick it to Christians, and are either dishonest or have very poor reading comprehension.

  9. Answer the question, Alan, stop trying to avoid it.

  10. Alex,I am sure you will have heard of if not read Philip Gosse's "Omphalos", written in 1857 in an attempt to "untie the geological knot" and harmonise the findings of science with God's revelation.He argues that Adam was created as an adult man with hair, fingernails and indeed a navel, as if he had lived for say 30 years and had once been connected to a human mother. He also had language with an imaginative vocabulary as if he had learned as he grew – how else could he have named all the animals? A scientist observing Adam on the day that he was created would perceive that he had a history. It is hard, if not impossible to conceive of how could this be different.Similarly the whole creation was made with the appearance of age – tree rings, light from distant heavenly bodies, and all the other evidences that appear to our senses to give the universe the appearance of age. This was simply the way that God created the universe – as with Adam's appearance of a history it could not possibly be different. It is not to deceive but simply because that is the way it has to be!How can you argue with that?

  11. Credo, i actually laughed when i read your reply, as i was on the wikipedia page you cut and pasted from earlier today.It would appear that special pleading is all you've got, garnished with absurdity. I notice Alan STILL hasn't given a straight answer, dodging or posting links to the work of others in his attempts to avoid it!

  12. Alex,1. Do progressive creationists such as Hugh Ross have exegetical obstacles plaguing their view? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the non-sequitur fallacy I had indicated.2. Whether or not biblical creationism can be squared with an old earth depends a great deal on what "biblical creationism" means here.3. Your gratuitous invective against my view is hilarious—given that you have no idea what my view is. On what basis do you assert that I have "already retreated a fair distance" from what Scripture says? Did you erroneously infer that I am a progressive creationist from the fact that I mentioned that view?

  13. OK, are you an Old Earth Creationist?As for 'Biblical creation', I'd have thought that's perfectly clear – creation as laid out in Genesis, you know, the 6 day one, that you can then date from genealogies (that some claim aren't accurate, so much for 'inerrant'!). I notice you've not contested that the original Hebrew clearly uses language that indicates 6 literal 24 hour periods.The Omphalos hypothesis throws up all the problems I pointed out – why would your god do such a thing, especially considering he should have known, being omniscient and timeless, that doing so would lead people to not believe in him! Your Bible claims that your god does not tempt, but this very act would be tempting people to not believe in him by making it look like he didn't exist! Also you're faced with the problem of god lying – if he forms the beams of light en route to us from an exploded supernova THAT NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED then he is deliberately and purposelessly misleading us.So you'll excuse me if I think that's a rather crap answer.

  14. Alan, I just read the thread you linked to.Wow.You're actually insane.

  15. Alex,1. I believe the universe is old and that it is God's creation, so I suppose in a sense I am an old-earth creationist. But I dislike the term because it usually brings to the mind a particular interpretation of Genesis 1; either the gap theory (e.g., an indefinite time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) or the day-age theory (e.g., that the term for day in Genesis 1 is an indefinite period), both of which I reject.2. If "biblical creationism" is equivalent to young-earth creationism (that the universe was created in a week 6,000 years ago), then I agree that perforce it cannot be squared with an old earth. There is a very long list of reasons—biblical, theological, logical, and scientific—to reject young-earth creationism.3. I agree that the Hebrew word 'yom' in Genesis 1 clearly indicates a 24-hour period.4. There are numerous reasons to reject the Omphalos theory, many of which you are highlighting. It is indeed "a crap answer."

  16. Ryft, I appreciate your honesty (would that Alan was so quick with straight answers and honesty!), it seems we have several things in common when it comes to this discussion.So, with that in mind, do you agree that the Bible is flat out wrong in its account of Creation?

  17. No, I do not agree that Scripture "is flat out wrong in its account of creation." What Scripture reveals about creation is infallible and inerrant. The young-earth creationist being wrong is not equivalent to Scripture being wrong.

  18. Alex,I am interested to know which Wikipedia page you think I "cut and pasted" from, because I can assure you that I did no such thing!!I also note that rather than accept the notion of apparent age you just repeat your assertion that God is trying to deceive us. NO – it is NOT deceit – when God creates a mature man he appears to have a history. When God creates a mature universe it appear to have a history. There is no deceit involved it is just the way it has to be.

  19. Er…..So the Bible makes a literal claim about the origins of the Universe, you claim that the Universe is old (something that directly contradicts the Bible), yet the Bible is inerrant??Crikey, the cognitive dissonance must be crippling for you.

  20. "I am interested to know which Wikipedia page you think I "cut and pasted" from, because I can assure you that I did no such thing"It must be a coincidence then that your wording "hair, fingernails and indeed a navel" matches the order that Wikipedia presents "Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels" – perhaps you both copied from the same source?Either way, the argument is absurd."There is no deceit involved it is just the way it has to be." Why? Why is it 'just the way it has to be'?

  21. Alex,The universe being old "directly contradicts the Bible" only if the young-earth creationist interpretation is correct. Are you suggesting it is?

  22. "The universe being old "directly contradicts the Bible" only if the young-earth creationist interpretation is correct. Are you suggesting it is?"Do you claim that the Bible DOESN'T give genealogies from Adam onwards, and that it DOESN'T claim the Earth was created in a literal 6 day period, with Adam created on the 6th day?Because, if the Bible is literally true, there is no other interpretation that is honest to the words OTHER than YEC

  23. Alex,Oh dear – you failed to give me a URL or even a search term for that Wikipedia page so I still can't investigate your assertion that I "cut and pasted". Perhaps we did use the same source – Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse. No Copying though!I can't see why you can't grasp the concept of God creating a mature universe with the appearance of age. It has to be so. If you were God creating a mature man how could you do it without the appearance of age? How could you create a mature universe without the appearance of age? That is why it is just the way is has to be!Explain to me how you think God could have made it differently?

  24. "Explain to me how you think God could have made it differently?"Reread the original post.Your god didn't make it at all, btw, cos no gods have ever existed.

  25. "Oh dear – you failed to give me a URL or even a search term for that Wikipedia page so I still can't investigate your assertion that I "cut and pasted"."I'd assumed you knew how to use Google, I'm sorry that I over-estimated your ability (I should have known, considering you relish your absurdity to the point where you even boast about it in your username)

  26. Alex,Yes, Scripture lists genealogies from Adam onwards, but what does that have to do with the age of the universe? Young-earth creationists interpret Genesis 1 as an account of material creation ex nihilo such that the universe was just over five older than Adam (and thus we can approximate that age through chronogenealogical calculation). But you are not a young-earth creationist and neither am I, so why are you responding as if their interpretation is correct? It is not, Alex.

  27. Alex,I note that you choose to belittle me rather than address my questions.That is regrettable, and no way to convince me that you have a reasonable answer to my challenges.

  28. Credo, you actually consider your absurdly retarded questions as something you want me to answer?? Seriously?? I'd just assumed you were kidding….No, I'm not going to even humour your stupidity.Ryft – do you claim that the genealogies and the creation account are incorrect? If not, how can you claim the Earth to be old?

  29. Alex,I claim that the genealogies and creation account are correct; Scripture is inerrant and infallible. I claim that young-earth creationist interpretations of Genesis 1 are incorrect, as are the old-earth creationist interpretations previously indicated. Again, this or that interpretation of a passage being wrong does not equate to the passage being wrong. You are persistently making wildly invalid inferences, sir.

  30. Alex,Clearly you cannot answer my challenge, nor even deign to supply me with the title of the Wikipedia page you accused me of plagiarizing, and choose to insult me instead.Is it really that hard?

  31. Ryft, please explain to me how the Bible can be inerrant yet simultaneously wrong. Tell me what other interpretation you would draw from the Creation account and the genealogies.Credo, go to http://www.google.com, type in 'omphalos wiki' – Jesus fucking Christ, are you being deliberately stupid?

  32. Credo, as for your challenge….WHAT CHALLENGE?? I asked at the beginning of the thread why would you god do something that he knew would deceive people – all you've done is say that he did, cite Omphalos and then say 'why wouldn't he?' – something I answered IN THE FUCKING QUESTION.You're either being deliberately trollish, or are an actual simpleton.

  33. Alex,"Please explain to me how the Bible can be inerrant yet simultaneously wrong," you said. It can't. That is a contradiction.Please explain to me how the Bible is wrong in its creation account.

  34. Alex,You asked for answers to your question:'Why, when he knew it would cause people to believe that the universe was not created (so leading people away from him), would your god make things look older than they are?'I gave you an answer, with an explanation.All you have done is to respond with insults and belittlement. All I want you to do is to explain to me why I am wrong. Your complete inability to even attempt a sensible argument makes me wonder it you actually have one!With the greatest respect,Credo

  35. "Please explain to me how the Bible is wrong in its creation account."It claims that the Earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days, and that Adam was created on day 6. The Bible claims that Adam was 930 when he died, and gives detailed genealogies that can be then linked all the way through to Jesus – these genealogies (unless missing many many hundreds of generations) give a rough period from the 'birth' of Adam to the present day of around 6000 years. How would you interpret it differently?

  36. Credo, when you come up with a coherent argument, rather than one that was criticised almost as soon as it was suggested over 150 years ago, and hasn't gained any more genuine support since then, I'll be happy to engage with you. Until then….nope, not playing whatever game you think you're playing.

  37. Alex,In the context of Genesis 1, what does it mean that the earth was "created"? If you are claiming that this was a material activity, please provide the supporting exegesis.

  38. Alex,What do you find incoherant about the Gosse argument?As a harmonisation of science and scripture it is completely coherent and unanswerable – as you have demonstrated by your complete failure to address it, and your resort to childish insults.

  39. OK, Credo, I claim that the Universe was created 4 seconds before you read this, by super powerful, yet evolved beings who are from another dimension, and they gave everything the appearance of age, as well as making sure our memories of the 'lives' we before 4 seconds ago were harmonious and consistent. Just for a laugh they chucked in religion.Prove me wrong.

  40. "In the context of Genesis 1, what does it mean that the earth was "created"? If you are claiming that this was a material activity, please provide the supporting exegesis."Are you claiming the text of Genesis DOESN'T say that the Earth and all that's in it was created in 6 24 hour days? If so please support this claim with evidence from Genesis

  41. Alex,It was your claim, sir, that the universe being old "directly contradicts the Bible"—which, you admit, follows only if the young-earth creationist interpretation is correct about creation in Genesis 1 being an ex nihilo material activity. Otherwise your claim no long holds. To support your claim, please provide the supporting exegesis that this was a material activity. (Note: I do not shoulder a burden when you make a claim.)

  42. Alex, You said: "I claim that the Universe was created 4 seconds before you read this, by super powerful, yet evolved beings who are from another dimension, and they gave everything the appearance of age…"You cannot be serious??Oh wait… You're not are you?And of course I cannot prove that you are wrong. But you can come up with any number of such childish "Last Thursdayism" notions. None can be proved wrong.But you still don't answer the question as to how God could create an adult man without the "appearance of age" – and by extension how he could create a universe without the appearance of age?

  43. "And of course I cannot prove that you are wrong. But you can come up with any number of such childish "Last Thursdayism" notions. None can be proved wrong." I wasn't trying to prove anything, merely showing how ludicrous you claims are, as you're effectively making a claim for Last Thursday-ism (albeit a Thursday 6000 years ago)."But you still don't answer the question as to how God could create an adult man without the "appearance of age"" That wasn't the question I asked, I was talking about *everything* – of course a man has to look like an adult to look like an adult! In what world do you think that's a *good* point? Let's look at something that DOESN'T need to demonstrate certain traits to be fully functioning, please tell me, why would a tree need to look old internally to function (as it's trees that led to us getting here)I'm *this* close to starting to delete any subsequent comments from you, as you've yet to bring anything of ANY interest to the table. Ask yourself this, Credo (blogger member who only joined this month), have you presented a single argument that's caused me to immediately become a Christian? If not, why are you even continuing when it's clear I'm neither convinced or impressed by your assertions.

  44. Ryft, I'm through with you as well, you're just as bad as Alan for avoiding direct questions.

  45. Who says "things look older than they are"? Perhaps they look their age but we date them incorrectly. What if they are a much younger age than we believe them to be?

  46. Er….we get their age by testing for certain things, and we can date things relatively accurately. If they were young we would see that they were, and work from there.Seriously, did you read that back to yourself before you hit 'post comment'?

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: