|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Question About Deception | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In reading through the topics from the last few years over the last month or so and I've come across several debates where YECs and other creationists have used arguements such as.....
quote: So I have a question, if God is willing to decieve mankind about the age of the Earth, where then does the deception actually lie? How do you know that modern science isn't more or less correct about the age of the Universe, the age of Earth, and the origin of life and the Bible was meant as the deception? He could've very well have had the Bible written in the hopes that many of it's stories would be rejected as accurate portrayals of history one day. What illusion is in the age of the earth? I feel that there is good evidence to support both a young earth and old earth hypothesis. In fact, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research give lengthy reasons for why they believe the earth is young, while Reasons to Believe gives lengthy reasons for why the age of the earth is very old. I guess I'd have to ask, what deception is there in that the earth is either young or old? Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old? I have to first ask this question in order to go into anything else. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
How stupid is the premise here. I mean it's not God's fault if men create myths of their own choosing, setting up assumptions and rules by which they consider data, refusing a priori some explanations and only accepting others. If men are deceived, they are deceiving themselves. Exactly. Speculation has led to a priori, ruling some things out of bounds before it even gives it a chnace to make an honest inquiry. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I think it's a false analogy. A better analogy would be a tree that grows to a one-foot diameter in one day - complete with rings that give the appearance of many years' growth. Then, after that one day, the tree would grow at a rate of one ring per year. I can tell you this much, Dendrochronology fits a Young-earth model better than it does anything else. In fact, the oldest known tree is a bristlecone pine in California. Lovingly referred to as, "Methuselah," for obvious reasons, its almost 5,000 years old, which is concurrent with the postdiluvian era where seeds were beginning to regerminate the earth after the Deluge. Ancient Bristlecone Pine Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Addition “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
is off topic. However your argument is not based on dendrochronology - it's contradicted by dendrochronology. Think about it. Or start a ew topic if you can't work out why.t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Ifen writes: I checked him out....a bit pantheistic at times, but obviously a humble man full of wisdom.
Have you read anything Ramana had to say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I don't argue for a young earth, but some do and they present physical arguments. Imo, the Bible does not indicate that the days of creation are 24 hour periods, but at the same time, if that was the case, the earth could still be very ancient and the 24 hour "day" idea be true. Though you and I seem to be on par for the most part, I disagree with this one instance. The geophysical effects of the earth's rotation would have concievably spun much faster in the past because the Earth loses its kinetic energy at a fairly constant rate that we've been able to quantify due to all forms of friction acting upon it, which is perfectly compatible with the 2nd Law. In fact, the US Naval Observatory has to add leap seconds continually just to keep the timekeeper accurate. We know the earth is slowing down, which means there wasn't a 24 hour day in the past, but much shorter, maybe as much as 21 hours. Extrapolating backwards at the same rate, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, it would have spun so fast so as to make it inhabitable due to the Coriolis Effect. If the earth didn't slow at the same rate as it measurably is currently, then old-agers have to figure out why that is. That's the physical reason to help support a young-earth model. The Scriptural evidence can be found in Genesis. Moses stated, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the third day. -Genesis 1:1-13 Genesis 1 follows in this vein for all of the days. God gives him the distinction that it was day, then it was night, thus culminating in one day. So, the question is, why did he make such a distinction if it actually meant long epochs of geologic time? I'm not a YEC or an OEC. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I have not made a 100% determination on where I stand. But in these two instances I feel that the Young-earth model is best supported. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: I can tell you this much, Dendrochronology fits a Young-earth model better than it does anything else. You can argue that point in this thread. The point I was making was that an arbitrary change in tree-ring growth rate would be deceptive. We see growth rings appearing two per year. If God had created full-grown trees with multiple rings, already in place, that would suggest to us that the tree was much older - i.e. it would be a deception. My broader point was in relation to Buzsaw's analogy of a one-day-growing corn plant. I pointed out that dating a corn plant would not be that easy (though others mentioned ways of doing it), so I thought tree-rings were a better analogy. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4697 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
This is not pantheism. It does not mean that the sum total of all beings added together makes up God but that God manifests as all beings without ever ceasing to be the universal Unmanifested Self. The nearest analogy (though all analogies are incomplete) is a dream, since all the dream creatures are manifestations of your mind, having no existence outside you, while you continue as you were, complete and unchanged, before, during and after the dream. Actually there never has been a doctrine of pantheism. The best definition of the term would probably be: "A Western misinterpretation of Eastern doctrines". Arthur Osborne Be Still, It Is The Wind That Sings pg 52 Osborne was a Westerner and a disciple of Ramana and this is from one of his books. The book is available free in pdf format on the the internet. It does differ doctrinally in some key areas with Christian dogma as I understand it. There are Hindu dualists also who deny Advaita and teach either Davaita or a modified non dualism as they feel themselves to have a separate reality so dualism vs. non-dualism is not strictly divided East and West by any means. I appreciate your willingness to see value outside your chosen tradition. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In fact, the US Naval Observatory has to add leap seconds continually just to keep the timekeeper accurate. We know the earth is slowing down, which means there wasn't a 24 hour day in the past, but much shorter, maybe as much as 21 hours. Extrapolating backwards at the same rate, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, it would have spun so fast so as to make it inhabitable due to the Coriolis Effect. If the earth didn't slow at the same rate as it measurably is currently, then old-agers have to figure out why that is. We know that the Earth's rotation is only slowing by .005 seconds per year. Adding that up over 4.5 billion years, that's nowhere near fast enough to spin everybody off the planet or whatever nonsense. It's just a 14-hour day. Moreover, the rate at which the Earth is slowing today is faster than the rate at which it slowed in the past, due to harmonic reasonance with the Earth's oceans. We can verify this model, as well. Fossil corals preserve daily records of growth. From these fossils, we know that Earth's day was 22 hours long about 370 million years ago, which is entirely consistent with the model. It's entirely inconsistent with the scenario you've describe above. 5000 years ago, the Earth's day would have been only 25 seconds shorter - not a whole three hours as you assert.
CE011: Earth's rotation slowing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Starlight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry, I was just skimming this topic for the relationship to my {perceptions of reality} topic and came across this:
What illusion is in the age of the earth? I feel that there is good evidence to support both a young earth and old earth hypothesis. In fact, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research give lengthy reasons for why they believe the earth is young, while Reasons to Believe gives lengthy reasons for why the age of the earth is very old. There is a common misconception that having evidence for a concept is sufficient to give it some credence. Let's consider the "Flat Earth" concept: the evidence of our eyes and our feeling of solidy on a (predominately) stable earth that is not perceptably moving (except in california) is that the earth is fixed and that the sun and stars rotate overhead. We still talk of sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset and the rise and setting of stars and planets. But the "Flat Earth" is not a concept that most people give much credence to -- why? Because there is sufficient accessible evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun -- evidence that invalidates the "Flat Earth" concept that cannot be refuted (only denied). Having evidence FOR the "Flat Earth" concept is not sufficient to give it credence because of evidence that invalidates it. For a concept to have credence not only must there be evidence for it, there cannot be evidence that invalidates it. The evidence for an OLD earth invalidates the concept of a YOUNG earth and needs to be refuted (not denied) for a YOUNG earth model to have any credence. The evidence for a YOUNG earth does not invalidate the concept of an OLD earth, because the question is not what the minimum age of things you can find is, but what the maximum age of things you can find is. It is easy to find things that are younger than the maximum age, just as it is easy to find certain specific situations where dating methods can have problems. These do not refute the evidence of old age.
Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old? I have to first ask this question in order to go into anything else. My determination of the evidence of a minimum age of the earth that vastly exceeds a YOUNG earth model is at:http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)< !--UE--> It is not just the evidence itself but the correlations between the different forms of evidence that all come to the same dates in spite of being based on entirely different mechanisms. For this to be possible AND have a YOUNG earth there would indeed need to be massive deception in the creation of all this evidence as well as all the other evidence that shows a consistent old age of the earth. There would have to be sufficient deception that one would be as justified in believing in a flat earth as in believing in a young earth. Enjoy. ps
Message 33 I can tell you this much, Dendrochronology fits a Young-earth model better than it does anything else. In fact, the oldest known tree is a bristlecone pine in California. Lovingly referred to as, "Methuselah," for obvious reasons, its almost 5,000 years old, which is concurrent with the postdiluvian era where seeds were beginning to regerminate the earth after the Deluge. That's where I start. LOL. pss -- there's more?
Message 36 We know the earth is slowing down, which means there wasn't a 24 hour day in the past, but much shorter, maybe as much as 21 hours. Correct. See the part on Talking Coral Heads in my thread linked above.
Extrapolating backwards at the same rate, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, it would have spun so fast so as to make it inhabitable due to the Coriolis Effect. False. (and I think you mean uninhabitable). Of course this also would have made the earth fly apart and self-destruct if it were true.
If the earth didn't slow at the same rate as it measurably is currently, then old-agers have to figure out why that is. It's not a linear relationship. There is research on it that shows you what the correct calculations involve -- from basic astrophysics (without needing relativity)
I'm not a YEC or an OEC. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I have not made a 100% determination on where I stand. But in these two instances I feel that the Young-earth model is best supported. Good. Study the evidence. Edited by RAZD, : added end Edited by RAZD, : added second ps ... oh my. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How stupid is the premise here. I mean it's not God's fault if men create myths of their own choosing, setting up assumptions and rules by which they consider data, refusing a priori some explanations and only accepting others. If men are deceived, they are deceiving themselves. God's not here to babysit every dumb idea man has and say, now now, it's not really like that, ... Exactly. LOL. Something we agree on? Enjoy the irony eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What illusion is in the age of the earth? I feel that there is good evidence to support both a young earth and old earth hypothesis. In fact, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research give lengthy reasons for why they believe the earth is young, while Reasons to Believe gives lengthy reasons for why the age of the earth is very old. I guess I'd have to ask, what deception is there in that the earth is either young or old? Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old? I have to first ask this question in order to go into anything else.
The 'evidence' of a young earth is based on scientific ignorance and self deception. Yes, we can just look around us, and see that the earth is much older than 6-12,000 years. Just look at the layers of sandstone that get deposited one season at a time, and we can eliminate the 'young earth'. Look at the layers of yearly snowfall in glaciers, and we can eliminate that as a hypthosis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5540 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
randman writes: What do you mean by the age appearing after something was initially created? are you proposing some kind of fast forward process? doesn't it make more sense to take the appearance of age in face value as an indication of true age?
Maybe the appearance of age, or actually even the age itself, appeared after it was initially created?
randman writes: What is to prevent things changing again then? Today jesus is our saviour. Tomorrow due to an unexpected change in the programming, he never even existed and we never heard of him either. Your logic is set on shiftsand, it would seem...
Think of it like a computer program that generates a story, but if something changes in the programming, the story changes from beginning to end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Perhaps another way to look at this is to assert that God is not so much deceptive as humanity is paranoid.
Does God owe it to humanity to have made everything in a way that humans can understand? Do humans owe God the courtesy of being logically consistant within our comprehension? I suspect that God foreknew our misgivings long before we had the words to express them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024