Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

[7djengo7]

If God created Adam as a full-grown, adult male of say, 25 years of age,

Ten minutes after God created Adam, Adam was only ten minutes old, not 25 years; so obviously, in Adam, God did not create a 25-year-old man. And to whom would Adam have appeared, anyway, before God created Eve? And after Eve was created, how could Adam have appeared 25 years old to her, since she had never yet even seen a 25-year-old man?

 

[7djengo7]

Ten minutes after God created Adam, Adam was only ten minutes old, not 25 years; so obviously, in Adam, God did not create a 25-year-old man. And to whom would Adam have appeared, anyway, before God created Eve? And after Eve was created, how could Adam have appeared 25 years old to her, since she had never yet even seen a 25-year-old man?

And if we could somehow see Adam as he was ten minutes after God created him, perhaps we'd be tempted to say reflexively that he "appears," at ten minutes old, "to be 25 years old." But what would we really mean by that if not merely that to look upon him brings to our mind, by way of certain resemblance, the recollected image of some 25-year-old man/men whom we have seen?

 

[User Name]

Ten minutes after God created Adam, Adam was only ten minutes old, not 25 years; so obviously, in Adam, God did not create a 25-year-old man.

Right, but If you'd have seen Adam ten minutes after God created him, he would have appeared to be ~25 years old.

 

[7djengo7]

Right, but If you'd have seen Adam ten minutes after God created him, he would have appeared to be ~25 years old.

Only if by "appeared to be ~25 years old" you just mean looked similar to men you've seen who are ~25 years old.

 

[User Name]

Only if by "appeared to be ~25 years old" you just mean looked similar to men you've seen who are ~25 years old.

You'd have had no reason to assume, just by looking at Adam, that he was only 10 minutes old. But you would have had reason to assume, by looking at him, that he was ~25 years old.

 

[Right Divider]

You'd have had no reason to assume, just by looking at Adam, that he was only 10 minutes old. But you would have had reason to assume, by looking at him, that he was ~25 years old.

Not at that TIME where the first MAN was CREATED.

 

[7djengo7]

You'd have had no reason to assume, just by looking at Adam, that he was only 10 minutes old.

What are you talking about? I don't follow what you're saying there.

Here is what I had said:

Ten minutes after God created Adam, Adam was only ten minutes old, not 25 years

Do you not agree?

But you would have had reason to assume, by looking at him, that he was ~25 years old.

Could it ever be reasonable to think that someone is ~25 years old who is not ~25 years old? No, it could not. It is never reasonable to think wrongly/to believe falsehood.

But do tell us by what so-called "reason" you would be willing to say that a 10-minutes-old man is ~25 years old.

 

[Idolater]

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.

That's not bad.

I always just thought, to the accusation that God's being dishonest, that surely it's more dishonest for Him to tell us it only took Him six days, when it actually took Him billions of years? That's got to be more dishonest than Him "making it look like everything's older than it is?"

But that never works on people lol. They always think, "Nope, that still makes God a liar." So with your idea here, with the term "appearance of age" being logically analyzed, you actually avoid the charge entirely.

Not bad.

 

[7djengo7]

Only if by "appeared to be ~25 years old" you just mean looked similar to men you've seen who are ~25 years old.

And, @User Name, if you don't mean that by your phrase, "appeared to be ~25 years old," then what would you mean by it?

 

[7djengo7]

Bible-despising "science":

1. The universe is 13.7 billions of years old.
2. The universe looks like itself.
3. The universe looks 13.7 billions of years old.

 

[marke]

Bible-despising "science":

1. The universe is 13.7 billions of years old.
2. The universe looks like itself.
3. The universe looks 13.7 billions of years old.

As time marches on old human assumptions about proper dating methods are continually disproven by new scientific understandings. Men of understanding already know the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Others are beginning to catch up.

 

[justatruthseeker]

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

This supernova is located ~27,000 light years away from Earth, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 years for the light from this supernova to reach Earth. Try making any kind of scientific sense out of that with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe.

But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. Stars have very long lifespans. The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years. 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?

You mean in a universe increasing in acceleration in which God “stretched out the heavens “. You know, one where the expansion started faster than c and then magically slowed so that stars could form in a Big Bang universe…. And then magically started increasing in acceleration again…

Oh my bad…. I don’t mean to express doubt in your magical expanding, bending and accelerating nothing theory…. Oh wait, yes I do….

 

[justatruthseeker]

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.

Why go to that?

After all we live in a universe increasing in acceleration where we are traveling through space at fractions of c. So why ignore Relativity and the fact that as you go backwards into the past the decay rate would increase since decay rates slow during acceleration.

Even in your made up Big Bang story this expansion began faster than c, then slowed so stars could form then sped back up….

Sounds contrived to me. Why not just accept that the earth dates old because radiometric decay rates were exponentially faster in the past.

After all, the light from galaxies can’t be from 13 billion years ago if the universe is only 13 billion years old. That means the universe expanded faster than c because it took us 13 billion years to reach our current position. So either that light is older than 13 billion or much younger. That or we traveled at light speed to reach our current position with the arrival of 13 billion year old light… so in 13 billion years we traveled 13 billion light years????

 

[Right Divider]

I am example of an observant Jew who doesn't fit your Christian idea of who I should be. So what?

What do you "observe"? Start a thread about where you get the things that you "observe".