Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

YEC response to "Last Thursdayism"

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here, I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then? If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here, I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then? If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

...Faith?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 6:45:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:50:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here, I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then? If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

...Faith?

Lol, I was hoping for a bit of a more comprehensive answer. I remember medic giving me an answer along these lines a while back....wonder if he still posts here.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:01:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:45:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:50:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here, I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then? If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

...Faith?

Lol, I was hoping for a bit of a more comprehensive answer. I remember medic giving me an answer along these lines a while back....wonder if he still posts here.

He post in the science forum for sure. You might consider posting this thread in there.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 11:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 6:45:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:50:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here, I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then? If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

...Faith?

Lol, I was hoping for a bit of a more comprehensive answer. I remember medic giving me an answer along these lines a while back....wonder if he still posts here.

Isnt that what it comes down to, though? They have faith that the bible is true and therefore the bible that states that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and not only 1-7 days old, is correct.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 10:50:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not a YECist, but if I were, this is how I would respond.

According to common sense realism, we should believe that things are pretty much the way they appear to be unless we have good reason to think otherwise.

Since we all have memories that appear to be of a past that actually happened and that extend beyond last Thursday, and since there is no reason to deny the past extends beyond last Thursday, we should assume we've been around longer than since last Thursday.

And if all we had to go on was the speed of light, the known distance of observable stars, etc., then we'd be reasonable in assuming the universe is very old. However, we have good reason to think otherwise. According to the Word of God, the earth is only about 6000 years old. So there are only two options--either the Bible is not the word of God after all, or else the universe only appears to be old, but is actually young. Since we already know from the Bible that God sometimes creates things with the appearance of age (e.g. Adam and Eve), then being created with the appearance of age is a phenomenon we can appeal to to explain why the earth is younger than it appears. So it's more reasonable to believe the earth is 6000 years old than to believe it's billions of years old.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 11:47:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 10:50:21 AM, philochristos wrote:
I'm not a YECist, but if I were, this is how I would respond.

According to common sense realism, we should believe that things are pretty much the way they appear to be unless we have good reason to think otherwise.

Since we all have memories that appear to be of a past that actually happened and that extend beyond last Thursday, and since there is no reason to deny the past extends beyond last Thursday, we should assume we've been around longer than since last Thursday.

And if all we had to go on was the speed of light, the known distance of observable stars, etc., then we'd be reasonable in assuming the universe is very old. However, we have good reason to think otherwise. According to the Word of God, the earth is only about 6000 years old. So there are only two options--either the Bible is not the word of God after all, or else the universe only appears to be old, but is actually young. Since we already know from the Bible that God sometimes creates things with the appearance of age (e.g. Adam and Eve), then being created with the appearance of age is a phenomenon we can appeal to to explain why the earth is younger than it appears. So it's more reasonable to believe the earth is 6000 years old than to believe it's billions of years old.

I think your reasoning is valid and so we should proclaim that the world is iindeed only 6000 years old. Therefore, everything we say and do must remain consistent with that truth.

Neutral and his fellow wankers were right after all!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:20:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here,

I don't believe that God created anything that appears to be billions of years old. It is interpretation that brings in the billions of years.

I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then?

God COULD have created the world last Thursday, just like He COULD have used evolution, but it isn't about what He COULD have done. He tells us in the bible what He DID, and evolutionism or last Thursdayism are not part of that. So yes, there is a principled reason to deny those things.

If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

You started this part off with a big error. " If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age", is a projection of the believers in deep time, and begs the question...How would you know what a 4.5 billion year old earth looks like, as opposed to a 6-10 k year old earth?? I'm not phrasing the question that way to be rude, but instead to ask a perfectly valid question. Point being that nothing appears billions of years old unless one projects the beliefs of evolutionists into the equation.

I don't believe what your statement implies, that God is attempting to deceive us with the age of the earth. This last thursdayism thing is akin to the deceiver God argument that so many atheists like, but they are nonsensical arguments, since all one has to do is read the bible, and the deception goes away. If you choose to ignore Genesis, or deny it as a historical event, then you have willingly deceived yourself.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:20:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here,

I don't believe that God created anything that appears to be billions of years old. It is interpretation that brings in the billions of years.

I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then?

God COULD have created the world last Thursday, just like He COULD have used evolution, but it isn't about what He COULD have done. He tells us in the bible what He DID, and evolutionism or last Thursdayism are not part of that. So yes, there is a principled reason to deny those things.

No, people makes claims what God/s did or did not do.

You wouldn't accept that we should believe God did something just because it says so in the quran, or book of Mormon or in an email, like wise apply the same standard to the bible/genesis.


If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

You started this part off with a big error. " If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age", is a projection of the believers in deep time, and begs the question...How would you know what a 4.5 billion year old earth looks like, as opposed to a 6-10 k year old earth?? I'm not phrasing the question that way to be rude, but instead to ask a perfectly valid question. Point being that nothing appears billions of years old unless one projects the beliefs of evolutionists into the equation.

I don't believe what your statement implies, that God is attempting to deceive us with the age of the earth. This last thursdayism thing is akin to the deceiver God argument that so many atheists like, but they are nonsensical arguments, since all one has to do is read the bible, and the deception goes away. If you choose to ignore Genesis, or deny it as a historical event, then you have willingly deceived yourself.

So because something is stated in genesis, we should just believe it as true regardless of any objections raised ?

You wouldn't accept that argument for the quran, you should not accept it for the bible.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The earth was created before the sun and the stars. If you disbelieve that you are deceiving yourself....bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:20:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:07:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

This doesn't go out to all YEC, only to a particular subset of them who make use of the "appearance of age" response to when objectors claim evidence of various phenomena - fossils, the age of the earth, light from distant stars, etc - to argue against YEC. Fair enough, you can claim that God created the universe some 6000 - 10000 years ago, but with the appearance of being billion years old. (This is usually supplemented with cases appealing to Jesus turning water into wine, and creating adam and eve as appearing to be adults when they hadn't gone through the normal, physical maturation process.) You can do that, I guess. That raises issues I won't get into here,

I don't believe that God created anything that appears to be billions of years old. It is interpretation that brings in the billions of years.


So what is your explanation for the phenomena I mentioned? That it looking that old is due to interpretation? Well sure, all data has to be interpreted. The problem fo ryou is that that interpretation of the data is much better than the YEC interpretation for the data.

I just want to know is there a principled reason to deny "Last Thursdayism" - the thesis that everything was created last thursday with the appearance of age - then?

God COULD have created the world last Thursday, just like He COULD have used evolution, but it isn't about what He COULD have done. He tells us in the bible what He DID, and evolutionism or last Thursdayism are not part of that. So yes, there is a principled reason to deny those things.


That's entirely disputable.

If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age, what principloed reason does a YEC have for denying that God has a reason for creating the world that looks vastly older than its age of being created last thursday, or 5 minutes ago? Just curious.

You started this part off with a big error. " If you already believe God has a reason for creating the world to look older than it's 6 - 10 k years when it actually is that age", is a projection of the believers in deep time,

No, it's not a projection. It's what YECs say ALL THE TIME.

and begs the question...How would you know what a 4.5 billion year old earth looks like, as opposed to a 6-10 k year old earth??

A 4.5 bilion year old earth would look much like the one we have here. One that was 6 - 10 k years old wouldn't have light from so distant of stars being visible, nor would the varioud dating methods be able to trace back so far; fossils wouldn't be so deep in the strata and all that...

I'm not phrasing the question that way to be rude, but instead to ask a perfectly valid question. Point being that nothing appears billions of years old unless one projects the beliefs of evolutionists into the equation.


And nothing appears thousands of years old unless one projects the beliefs of YECs into the equation. You're not saying anything profound; all perception is colored and is theory laden.* It's about which interpretation makes better sense.

*http://plato.stanford.edu...

I don't believe what your statement implies, that God is attempting to deceive us with the age of the earth.

Then how do you explain the data?

This last thursdayism thing is akin to the deceiver God argument that so many atheists like, but they are nonsensical arguments, since all one has to do is read the bible, and the deception goes away.

But of course if God had good reason to decieve about the apperance of age, he might have good reasont to decieve in the bible.

If you choose to ignore Genesis, or deny it as a historical event, then you have willingly deceived yourself.

lol ok.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!