Calling all YECs

[TimCallahan]

This is a last-ditch effort to get an honest answer from any young earth creationist concerning scientific evidence of the age of the earth. On another thread, titled, "Age of the Earth questions you may have for a Bible literalist," I have repeatedly asked AvalonXQ to answer two reasonable questions. Since I can't get him to answer, I'm throwing this open to any and all YECs:

1) Since YECs often use the "appearance of age" theory to disqualify evidence of an old earth, such as the time it takes light from stars to reach our planet, is there anything that you would accept as a verifiable / falsifiable test for the age of the earth, and should it show the earth to be far older than a few thousand years, would you accept an old earth?

2) What verifiable / falsifiable evidence would you propose as proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old?

 

[sadhatter]

This is a last-ditch effort to get an honest answer from any young earth creationist concerning scientific evidence of the age of the earth. On another thread, titled, "Age of the Earth questions you may have for a Bible literalist," I have repeatedly asked AvalonXQ to answer two reasonable questions. Since I can't get him to answer, I'm throwing this open to any and all YECs:

1) Since YECs often use the "appearance of age" theory to disqualify evidence of an old earth, such as the time it takes light from stars to reach our planet, is there anything that you would accept as a verifiable / falsifiable test for the age of the earth, and should it show the earth to be far older than a few thousand years, would you accept an old earth?

2) What verifiable / falsifiable evidence would you propose as proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old?

As a point to number 1, i was thinking of this yesterday.

Oil takes much more than 10 thousand years to produce ( the most conservative of leading scientific theories is hundreds of thousands of years), seeing as there has been oil for as long as we can find it. This would be evidence of an older earth, in addition to numerous other methods.

 

[Madalch]

As a point to number 1, i was thinking of this yesterday.

Oil takes much more than 10 thousand years to produce ( the most conservative of leading scientific theories is hundreds of thousands of years), seeing as there has been oil for as long as we can find it. This would be evidence of an older earth, in addition to numerous other methods.

Not in the mind of a YEC, as God clearly put the oil there for us to drill for and use.

 

[sadhatter]

Not in the mind of a YEC, as God clearly put the oil there for us to drill for and use.

See that is where i find the logic fails. Okay god made the oil for us to use. But he also made it take hundreds of thousands of years to make, (at least.). So by that simple logic either

A) the Yec's are wrong.

B) God purposely created oil with characteristics that would lead people to believe the world is older than it is. God is god after all, if he wanted to he could have made oil take a thousand years to be oil, and that would not have provided false evidence that the earth is older than 10 thousand years.

Making a universe that appears to be ' middle aged' when it is not, is deceit or incompetence , either of which are in complete contradiction to the christian depiction of god.

 

[RobRoy]

Making a universe that appears to be ' middle aged' when it is not, is deceit or incompetence , either of which are in complete contradiction to the christian depiction of god.

Unless it's a test.

 

[sadhatter]

Unless it's a test.

If it is a test, the only thing different is we can rule out incompetence , so we know then he is lying and not just dull.

If it is a test then god purposely put evidence here in order to test us. I could care less if god wants to ' test' us , it is still lying. And i can find at the drop of a hat a half dozen bible quotes that are quite clear god is incapable of lying.

So if it is a test, we have confirmed that god is lying to us, and invalidated a large part of christian theology.

 

[Madalch]

See that is where i find the logic fails. Okay god made the oil for us to use. But he also made it take hundreds of thousands of years to make, (at least.). So by that simple logic either

A) the Yec's are wrong.

B) God purposely created oil with characteristics that would lead people to believe the world is older than it is. God is god after all, if he wanted to he could have made oil take a thousand years to be oil, and that would not have provided false evidence that the earth is older than 10 thousand years.

Making a universe that appears to be ' middle aged' when it is not, is deceit or incompetence , either of which are in complete contradiction to the christian depiction of god.

Or if God set the parameters of the universe so that organic matter would turn into oil over a few thousand years instead of hundreds of thousands, then those same organic molecules would not have been sufficiently stable for life to exist.

 

[RobRoy]

If it is a test, the only thing different is we can rule out incompetence , so we know then he is lying and not just dull.

If it is a test then god purposely put evidence here in order to test us. I could care less if god wants to ' test' us , it is still lying. And i can find at the drop of a hat a half dozen bible quotes that are quite clear god is incapable of lying.

So if it is a test, we have confirmed that god is lying to us, and invalidated a large part of christian theology.

No, we have not confirmed that God has lied to us, since, according to a YEC, He's already given us the answer in his User's Manual. So it remains a test, without any lying. The answer, according to a YEC, is already there.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This is a last-ditch effort to get an honest answer from any young earth creationist concerning scientific evidence of the age of the earth.

And if you get such answers, then what?

 

[sadhatter]

Or if God set the parameters of the universe so that organic matter would turn into oil over a few thousand years instead of hundreds of thousands, then those same organic molecules would not have been sufficiently stable for life to exist.

But, he's god. He created that rule, he could have just changed it. Made it a non issue. One cannot claim an omnipotent god, then go on to claim that he is restricted by rules of science.

 

[sadhatter]

No, we have not confirmed that God has lied to us, since, according to a YEC, He's already given us the answer in his User's Manual. So it remains a test, without any lying. The answer, according to a YEC, is already there.

That dosn't make sense though ( not that anything they say does) i can give you an answer to a math problem. 4+4 = 8 for example.

Now if knowing this i tell you 4+4 = 10, i am still lying to you. Even if i am just testing you to find out if you believe/know the answer.

 

[Madalch]

But, he's god. He created that rule, he could have just changed it. Made it a non issue. One cannot claim an omnipotent god, then go on to claim that he is restricted by rules of science.

He creates the rules, but he can't make them self-contradictory. Even YECs don't consider him that omnipotent.

 

[RobRoy]

That dosn't make sense though ( not that anything they say does) i can give you an answer to a math problem. 4+4 = 8 for example.

Now if knowing this i tell you 4+4 = 10, i am still lying to you. Even if i am just testing you to find out if you believe/know the answer.

Just trying to work this out through the discussion, but I was thinking more along the lines of a multiple-choice test. So your teacher (God) gives you the study guide (Bible) and then hands you the test to see if you pass (believe Him). So then you have the question: 4 + 4 =

a - 10
b - 12
c - 8
d - 6

Your teacher hasn't lied to you by giving you this exam. He's testing how well you've studied the material, and how you can apply what the material is saying to the situation.

 

[dio]

So your teacher (God) gives you the study guide (Bible) and then hands you the test to see if you pass (believe Him).

He also scatters all over the place evidence that contradicts the "study guide".

So he wants us to abandon reason and just believe. Is that the test? And you "pass" by playing dumb?

 

[RobRoy]

He also scatters all over the place evidence that contradicts the "study guide".

But He also "scatters" evidence that agrees with the study guide. So what's a YEC to do?

Move on to your next point:

So he wants us to abandon reason and just believe. Is that the test? And you "pass" by playing dumb?

No. A YEC would not consider it "playing dumb", they would consider it a leap of faith. To look at the evidence and the Bible, and then pass the test by believing in spite of contrary evidence exactly (or at least mostly) what the Bible claims.

 

[dio]

But He also "scatters" evidence that agrees with the study guide.

You mean in the context of the OP? Or in general?
What non-biblical evidence is there for a young earth?

 

[Sideroxylon]

And if you get such answers, then what?

We can wonder at the display of mental gymnastics.

 

[Trent Wray]

Lets say God did just pop everything into existence 6500 years ago.

Lets say god never meant it for the purpose of deception, should we begin to examine it and find evidence that the universe is trillions of years old, even older than McDonalds.

Okay. The next step would be to prove where this god is NOW. All other speculations are merely that, yes? "Maybe it's a test. Maybe he's limited by laws and rules. Maybe maybe" etc and so forth.

So what if the world is 5 days old or 5000? So what if there was an unmoved mover, etc and so forth? What is the practical use of this knowledge NOW?

 

[RobRoy]

You mean in the context of the OP? Or in general?
What non-biblical evidence is there for a young earth?

Sorry. I was speaking in general. My particular argument is a bit off the OP, as I was answering sadhatter's assertion that there were only two conclusions to be drawn. The "test" concept is a third. There maybe others, but I'm hard-pressed to arrive at any.

YEC isn't really my forte, but as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any non-Biblical (extra-Biblical?) evidence for a young earth.

 

[Rougarou]

1) Since YECs often use the "appearance of age" theory to disqualify evidence of an old earth, such as the time it takes light from stars to reach our planet, is there anything that you would accept as a verifiable / falsifiable test for the age of the earth, and should it show the earth to be far older than a few thousand years, would you accept an old earth?

Asking the "What would you accept as evidence?" question assumes the person being asked knows what might convince them, or that they're even willing to be convinced. (Of course, outing someone who is not willing to be convinced is often the whole point of asking.) But whenever I hear the question, I think "What have you got? If I knew what evidence would convince me, I'd probably already have the evidence and be convinced."

To turn the tables as an example, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If not, what evidence would convince you that it was a factual historical event that only the son of God could experience? (Edit: By experience, I mean the experience of being resurrected. Others could, of course, experience the event as observers.)

He also scatters all over the place evidence that contradicts the "study guide".

What, in particular, did you have in mind?