My Problem with Creation Science

[JudgeRightly]

The fertile soil in the Garden of Eden, and dinosaur fossils, are both "dead things".

I fail to see the comparison between soil and fossils.

That's what fertile soil is made from,

Not necessarily.

and that's what it's believed or supposed that dinosaur fossils are made from too.

What, soil?

You're asserting that fossils (because it's not just dinos that are fossilized...) are made of soil?

I'm looking for the word 'fossil' in Scripture and can't find it.

This is moving the goalposts and a straw man.

In case you've forgotten what you asked for, go back to post #67.

So far as I know the Bible's silent on the matter of fossils. I did not get that answer.

It's not silent. You're just not listening.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anybody with a little knowledge and some fairly easy to obtain equipment can verify that starlight is billions of lightyears away.

Which is not in contention...?

So what's your point?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How can starlight from billions of lightyears away be seen by us on the earth if we've only been here for 10000 years or under?

By God stretching out the heavens.

Duh.

There hasn't been enough time.

Not enough time for God to stretch out the heavens?

I think you don't give God enough credit.

Which means that God created the universe in a mature state.

Which does not necessarily mean that the universe is old.

Like He did Adam and Eve.

And yet, they were still children.

And like the fertile soil of Eden.

Considering the soil of Eden is just dirt...

And like He did the earth, with fossils from dinosaurs that never lived.

Because you say so?

What does that have to do with this?

Everything, since it's a cosmological claim made by the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

Perhaps you should learn the creationist model instead of burying your head in secular (atheist) ideas.

One secular (atheist) who believes as I do that the whole world is under 10000 years old? I don't know of any but I'm curious to see who you're talking about.

Once again... READ YOUR BIBLE. God STRECTCHED the heavens during or shortly after creation.

What does that have to do with starlight coming from stars billions of lightyears away reaching us in under 10000 years?

Not necessarily.

That's quite different.

SUPPORT!!! You keep making this vacuous claim without ANY supporting argument.

Was the garden full of plants? Do plants grow in soil? Is there any reason to think that the soil in the garden was something other than fertile soil? Like that it was gravel, for instance? Or just beach sand?

So AGAIN you claim that God is a faker. Shame on you!

I'll take this up because you keep accusing me of it. There are two stories out there, one is that the universe was created in six days, and the other is that it's been around for more than six billion years. I believe the former, and not the latter.

I believe the expert cosmologists and evolutionists when they say that the story they're reading in the stars and in the rocks says that the universe is "billions of years" old, and that evolution generated all the living species we have today, mankind included. I believe this is what the story is, because I do not think they are lying, or are deluded or confused either. They have their theories and their instruments and their archeological digs. The evidence they point to is consistent with what they say that the story is.

I personally just find the story to be ludicrous. It requires believing that a very great number of extraordinarily unlikely and improbable events all occurred, almost one right after the other, to cause the world to be what it is today. i o w it's a patent fairy tale or fantasy story.

o t o h, the Genesis account says that God is real and that He made everything in six days.

Neither story is at first blush what anybody without bias would say is immediately credible, but since these are the only two options basically, and we're to choose which one seems best (no valid appeal to authority exists, so we're on our own), I find the God theory in Genesis to be more likely and probably than the story written in the stars and in the rocks.

In fact I find the idea that God is real to be far less of a stretch than the story that cosmologists and evolutionists are saying is written in nature.

So while the story written in nature is false, it's not as if God ever once said that we should learn about Him or His works from what we find in nature, whenever it might oppose what He says very plainly in human language in His Word. He did not make this difficult, He made it easy, and simple. Believe Him, when He says, in words, what He wants you to know. If what He says in nature conflicts with that, that's all very interesting and all, but it's not going to rise to the level of doubting His Word, or of making me think that He's lying or "fake". He made it plain what the truth is.

Really? If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand anything.

Ah.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So in sum, there is such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Only when appealing to God, which you are not.

"Supra."

I haven't.

Yes, you did.

Which was only an example of what I was talking about, which was the valid appeal to authority.

There is no valid appeal to authority except when appealing to God, which you are not doing.

I made my point, which is why you didn't contest it.

But you didn't respond to mine.

Of course. In fact I said so. I said they are wrong. So, yes, it's a possibility.

Good.

Great, thank you.

That letter doesn't claim the universe is <10000 years old, just that the big bang might not be the story written in the stars, as it were.

The point is that not all cosmologists, et al, believe that the universe is old.

 

[JudgeRightly]

RD: "Perhaps you should learn the creationist model instead of burying your head in secular (atheist) ideas."

One secular (atheist) who believes as I do that the whole world is under 10000 years old? I don't know of any but I'm curious to see who you're talking about.

What does that have to do with what RD said?

What does that have to do with starlight coming from stars billions of lightyears away reaching us in under 10000 years?

Everything.

See: https://rsr.org/stretch

Was the garden full of plants?

Yes.

Do plants grow in soil?

Yes.

Is there any reason to think that the soil in the garden was something other than fertile soil?

No.

Like that it was gravel, for instance? Or just beach sand?

No one has asserted that it was anything other than fertile soil, other than you, who asserts that it was also fossils, which are, by definition, dead things turned into rocks (to keep things simple).

You have yet to provide anything other than assertions as to why fossils are not, in fact, dead creatures.

I'll take this up because you keep accusing me of it. There are two stories out there, one is that the universe was created in six days, and the other is that it's been around for more than six billion years. I believe the former, and not the latter.

Then quit promoting the latter.

I believe the expert cosmologists and evolutionists when they say that the story they're reading in the stars and in the rocks says that the universe is "billions of years" old, and that evolution generated all the living species we have today, mankind included.

Which is in direct contradiction to the former, above. You can't have both, Idol.

I believe this is what the story is, because I do not think they are lying,

Naiive.

or are deluded or confused either.

Their sin has made them stupid.

They have their theories and their instruments and their archeological digs. The evidence they point to is consistent with what they say that the story is.

Except it's not, because the evidence only supports the former, above.

I personally just find the story to be ludicrous. It requires believing that a very great number of extraordinarily unlikely and improbable events all occurred, almost one right after the other, to cause the world to be what it is today.

So why believe it at all then?

i o w it's a patent fairy tale or fantasy story.

Then why believe it at all?

o t o h, the Genesis account says that God is real and that He made everything in six days.

That it does. And it is far more reasonable than the latter, above.

Neither story is at first blush what anybody without bias would say is immediately credible,

The former is credible, because that's what actually happened.

It is the bias against God that makes people assert that it is not credible.

but since these are the only two options basically, and we're to choose which one seems best (no valid appeal to authority exists, so we're on our own), I find the God theory in Genesis to be more likely and probably than the story written in the stars and in the rocks.

In fact I find the idea that God is real to be far less of a stretch than the story that cosmologists and evolutionists are saying is written in nature.

Thankfully, facts aren't based on feelings.

So while the story written in nature is false,

The "story written in nature" matches the one described in God's word, the former, above.

It does not match the latter, above.

it's not as if God ever once said that we should learn about Him or His works from what we find in nature, whenever it might oppose what He says very plainly in human language in His Word.

Reality doesn't oppose God. That you've been convinced that it might be otherwise is your problem.

He did not make this difficult, He made it easy, and simple. Believe Him, when He says, in words, what He wants you to know.

And don't take man's assertions and believe them in place of what God says.

If what He says in nature conflicts with that,

It doesn't.

that's all very interesting and all, but it's not going to rise to the level of doubting His Word, or of making me think that He's lying or "fake". He made it plain what the truth is.

Except that when you assert that reality contradicts the Bible, you are, by definition, doubting God.

 

[Right Divider]

What does that have to do with starlight coming from stars billions of lightyears away reaching us in under 10000 years?

Again I must say REALLY? It explains how stars can be billions of lightyears away and yet be under 10000 years old.

Was the garden full of plants? Do plants grow in soil? Is there any reason to think that the soil in the garden was something other than fertile soil? Like that it was gravel, for instance? Or just beach sand?

Fertile soil does NOT require dead remains (i.e., fossils). It simply requires the right nutrients. Do you think that God in incapable of creating fertile soil without dead bones?

I'll take this up because you keep accusing me of it. There are two stories out there, one is that the universe was created in six days, and the other is that it's been around for more than six billion years. I believe the former, and not the latter.

That's quite a mind you have there to be able to believe two contradictory things.

I believe the expert cosmologists and evolutionists when they say that the story they're reading in the stars and in the rocks says that the universe is "billions of years" old, and that evolution generated all the living species we have today, mankind included.

That is a bogus belief and anti-Bible.

I believe this is what the story is, because I do not think they are lying, or are deluded or confused either.

What you believe is not worth a dime.

They have their theories and their instruments and their archeological digs. The evidence they point to is consistent with what they say that the story is.

Nope.

I personally just find the story to be ludicrous. It requires believing that a very great number of extraordinarily unlikely and improbable events all occurred, almost one right after the other, to cause the world to be what it is today. i o w it's a patent fairy tale or fantasy story.

I don't know what you're talking about there.

o t o h, the Genesis account says that God is real and that He made everything in six days.

It sure does!

Neither story is at first blush what anybody without bias would say is immediately credible, but since these are the only two options basically, and we're to choose which one seems best (no valid appeal to authority exists, so we're on our own), I find the God theory in Genesis to be more likely and probably than the story written in the stars and in the rocks.

In fact I find the idea that God is real to be far less of a stretch than the story that cosmologists and evolutionists are saying is written in nature.

So while the story written in nature is false, it's not as if God ever once said that we should learn about Him or His works from what we find in nature, whenever it might oppose what He says very plainly in human language in His Word. He did not make this difficult, He made it easy, and simple. Believe Him, when He says, in words, what He wants you to know. If what He says in nature conflicts with that, that's all very interesting and all, but it's not going to rise to the level of doubting His Word, or of making me think that He's lying or "fake". He made it plain what the truth is.

You're confusing what evolutionists SAY about what nature shows and what it really does show.

You have claimed (many times without a shred of support) that God put dead bones in the ground as part of creation.

The story written in nature is true and Biblical.

 

[Stripe]

Just that we're all Christians, even though we disagree in our ecclesiology.

Sounds like a platitude. Is there some takeaway?

Not like how He made the fossils. And all the stars and galaxies. And the fertile soil that bedded the Garden of Eden.

You do know that soil can be fertile even after having all of the life boiled out of it, right?

I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate or try a different tack?

It's not important. I read your explanation of what you believe a bit more and my response doesn't really apply.

I will elaborate. I don't believe dinosaurs ever walked the earth, I believe that their fossils tell a story, a story in the rocks, and that that story is obviously a fairy tale that makes normal fairy tales seem downright realistic.

Why do you believe this?

Stripe, maybe you can clear things up for Idolater here:
What are the three things required to make fossils?
Were those three things present in the global flood?
Does the Hydroplate theory take those things into consideration?

There doesn't seem to be much point if Idolater is simply going to say that God made the fossils in situ. He's a smart fella. I reckon he knows the mainstream explanation for why we see fossils. The Darwinist explanation is more scientifically satisfying than his.

The best explanation for his posts in this thread that I can come up with is that he's trolling us.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The best explanation for his posts in this thread that I can come up with is that he's trolling us.

I sure hope not...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is there any reason to think that the soil in the garden was something other than fertile soil?

No.

This question you asked completely undermines your own position. There is no reason to think that the soil in the garden was anything other than fertile soil. So why insist that there were also fossils in the ground?

It's simply adding to scripture, reading something into scripture that just isn't there to begin with. Eisegesis, rather than exegesis.

 

[Stripe]

@Idolater -- You subscribe to a global flood, right?

 

[Trump Gurl]

This page, Page 6 of this thread:

A fine example of arguing over meaningless nonsense that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My Lord, you people are proving my point and are too blind to actually see it.

 

[Clete]

Nope. Whenever you argue for an idea while naming as your source an authentic expert in that domain, who also claims what you are claiming, and that expert teaches what is uniformly taught by all the other authentic experts in that domain, that is a valid appeal to authority.

The important thing to note, which makes this particular fallacy difficult to spot, is that the types of claims that you can establish through the valid appeal to authority is limited to what all of that domain's authentic experts uniformly agree upon, which means you're limited to establishing noncontroversial claims, you cannot validly appeal to authority when that domain's experts do not all agree among themselves about that claim.

Now, among PhD cosmologists, you would probably find uniformity in their teaching that the universe is "billions of years" old, but even though it would satisfy the condition for a valid appeal to authority to name one of them as a source for arguing that the universe is that old, it wouldn't prove your point, because, as @Trump Gurl above said, either the universe was made in six days or it wasn't, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate either one to the exclusion of the other, the evidence is consistent with both theories. If it is true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is "billions of years" old, then they are all guilty of presuming that they are right, that the universe was not created in six days, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

I don't understand how you can get something like this so wrong and mix it together with stuff that you get so correct that effectively refutes what you got wrong. You start by totally getting the appeal to authority fallacy wrong and then go on to explain a terrific reason why an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

The difference between a valid appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority argument is the difference between presenting evidence in support of your position vs. merely making a claim. If you are making an argument and use expert testimony to support the argument then that is not fallacious but making the claim that something is true because some expert (or group of experts) says so is totally fallacious.

Truth is not about expert opinion any more than its about personal or popular opinion (expert opinion is just a particular form of popular opinion). When debating, one's opinions are irrelevant, the opinions of some favorite expert is also irrelevant and so is the collective opinion of a whole group of experts. It simple does not matter how many people take your side of the issue. What's pertinent is evidence and rational argumentation, not the collection of people who agree with your position. Thus, the citation of some scientific study would not be an appeal to authority because that study essentially is an argument based on evidence which can then be responded to by your debate opponent but dropping a name that ends with Ph.D. is fallacious because there is no actual argument being made and the same is true if, instead of a specific name, you drop the name of some group, no matter how big. The bottom line is that if there is no actual argument being made then you are committing the appeal to authority fallacy.

There is an exception to this. When the subject being debated is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion then collecting expert opinions (or any other sort of collective opinion) is an entirely valid argument. So, for example, if one was debating the validity of "scientific consensus" then it would nearly impossible for either side to even commit the appeal to authority fallacy because the term "scientific consensus" is just a high syllable density way of saying "the collective opinion of a lot of scientists" and the appeal to authority fallacy has to do with making truth claims, not stating opinions.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This page, Page 6 of this thread:

A fine example of arguing over meaningless nonsense that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My Lord, you people are proving my point and are too blind to actually see it.

So you felt that adding your useless post would help?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This page, Page 6 of this thread:

A fine example of arguing over meaningless nonsense

The Bible is meaningless nonsense?

Because we are attempting to discuss what the Bible says.

that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is the teachings of Christ, not just the words in red.

My Lord, you people are proving my point and are too blind to actually see it.

:yawn:

 

[Trump Gurl]

This page, Page 6 of this thread:

A fine example of arguing over meaningless nonsense that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My Lord, you people are proving my point and are too blind to actually see it.

The truth of my post is self-evident.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The truth of my post is self-evident.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

But in this case, it is so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But in this case, it is so.

Because you say so? Sorry, that's not how it works.

Defend your position using logic, reason, and evidence. Otherwise your posts amount to so much hot air.

 

[Trump Gurl]

I'll let you have the last word since I can see it is so very important to you.