Question for young earth creationists

[Delta]

I've been doing some research on Christianity lately, and there's one issue I absolutely cannot get past:

In today's world, nearly every reputable scientist who studies the origins of earth and life disbelieves the Genesis creation story. As a result, the vast majority of the world's population also disbelieves Genesis. Of course, these facts alone do not disprove Genesis. If an omnipotent God wanted to create a world that appears to be billions of years old, and where humans appear to be the descendants of apes, he could. We humans would be no match for the deception of an all powerful God.

What you must admit, however, is that your conception of God is deceiving the world's population. Since He is all-knowing, He of course foresaw that the world and life he was creating would appear very different to human scientists than indicated in the Genesis story he supposedly inspired. And since He is all-powerful, He could have made a world that appeared consistent with Genesis to human scientists, but he chose not to. This deception discredits the Bible, His own word, and causes many people around the world to believe the Bible is just false ancient mythology written by humans with no divine inspiration. That's a problem when people need to believe in the Biblical God in order to be saved.

But wait, doesn't it say in the Bible that God desires salvation for all? But clearly the deceptive world that appears to contradict Genesis is preventing people from believing, and thus from being saved. So why the deception? Christianity claims that God is using this world to find out who loves Him and who rejects Him; why would He hide that choice from people by deliberately giving them a mountain of evidence that He isn't even real?

 

[Sooth]

You are making truth claims and appealing to a standard of morality to judge right and wrong.

How do you get truth in your worldview?
Where does your standard morality come from?

That needs to be cleared up before answering.

 

[Dr. Howard]

I've been doing some research on Christianity lately, and there's one issue I absolutely cannot get past:

In today's world, nearly every reputable scientist who studies the origins of earth and life disbelieves the Genesis creation story. As a result, the vast majority of the world's population also disbelieves Genesis. Of course, these facts alone do not disprove Genesis. If an omnipotent God wanted to create a world that appears to be billions of years old, and where humans appear to be the descendants of apes, he could. We humans would be no match for the deception of an all powerful God.

What you must admit, however, is that your conception of God is deceiving the world's population. Since He is all-knowing, He of course foresaw that the world and life he was creating would appear very different to human scientists than indicated in the Genesis story he supposedly inspired. And since He is all-powerful, He could have made a world that appeared consistent with Genesis to human scientists, but he chose not to. This deception discredits the Bible, His own word, and causes many people around the world to believe the Bible is just false ancient mythology written by humans with no divine inspiration. That's a problem when people need to believe in the Biblical God in order to be saved.

But wait, doesn't it say in the Bible that God desires salvation for all? But clearly the deceptive world that appears to contradict Genesis is preventing people from believing, and thus from being saved. So why the deception? Christianity claims that God is using this world to find out who loves Him and who rejects Him; why would He hide that choice from people by deliberately giving them a mountain of evidence that He isn't even real?

Who is to say that God is deceiving us rather than Human's getting it wrong?

Radio carbon dating for example is only good on specimens up to 50 thousand years old and then has 1 standard deviation of error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability the THEORY that man evolved from apes is also a THEORY and all of this science is what....100-200 years old?

Humans are not infallible and neither are our 'truths' remember blood letting, alchemy, the earth being the center of the universe and flat earth? Those were all true at one point in human history.

Last, who even says that God needs to obey the laws of physics, time or space.

 

[Bolly]

For ostensibly being billions of years old, everything looks like it's in pretty good condition!

 

[Delta]

You are making truth claims and appealing to a standard of morality to judge right and wrong.

How do you get truth in your worldview?
Where does your standard morality come from?

That needs to be cleared up before answering.

I am doing neither of those things. My post does not presuppose any truth that's up for debate, nor does it declare how moral or immoral God's actions are. I'm simply asking why God would design the world this way (that includes the reasoning abilities he granted humans by the way), knowing that it would prevent salvation for many people.

Who is to say that God is deceiving us rather than Human's getting it wrong?

Radio carbon dating for example is only good on specimens up to 50 thousand years old and then has 1 standard deviation of error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability the THEORY that man evolved from apes is also a THEORY and all of this science is what....100-200 years old?

Humans are not infallible and neither are our 'truths' remember blood letting, alchemy, the earth being the center of the universe and flat earth? Those were all true at one point in human history.

Last, who even says that God needs to obey the laws of physics, time or space.

Humans getting it wrong IS God deceiving us. That's my whole point. God is all-knowing, right? So he knew that the way he designed the earth, coupled with the reasoning abilities he bestowed in humans, would lead to this outcome, right? And God is all-powerful, so he could have created a world (including the humans in it) where the scientific consensus confirms the truth of his existence, right?

But he didn't. He CHOSE this. He CHOSE to create a world where his beloved children who remotely trust scientists will falsely conclude that he doesn't exist, and thus not be saved. Leading people to a false conclusion when you have the power to lead them to the right conclusion is deception. It couldn't fit the definition any better. So again, why would he design the world (including the humans in it) like that?

And by the way, the "THEORY" of evolution thing is a ridiculously chiche'd trope. Those who make that argument totally misunderstand what the word "theory" actually means in a scientific context.

 

[Solitaire]

The only way I can personally even begin to reconcile what I see and experience in this world versus the way things should be if there were an all-knowing, all-loving supreme being is that my definition of pretty much everything is fundamentally flawed because I am human and don't really understand anything at all. Definitions of morality, time, deception, love, entropy, suffering, evil, miracles - everything. This is the only way there can be some sort of god in my view. Because if I do understand the concepts of empathy, morality, ethics, etc, then this God you're talking about is allowing untold suffering, for what purpose? Let alone dinosaur bones.

I studied St. Augustine but it was three decades ago. I'm certain that he had responses to your questions, however, especially about deception. In any case, this topic has been thoroughly discussed in philosophical debates over the centuries. I don't know if anyone's come up with a concrete answer. It seems to me that every one of these sorts of debates winds up at the permanently locked door labeled "FAITH," no matter the opinion being spouted.

 

[KMK]

Arguments like this are 100% a way for people to suss out "what axioms do my peers subscribe to?" and 0% a path to objective metaphysical truth.

 

[Dr. Howard]

You are making truth claims and appealing to a standard of morality to judge right and wrong.

How do you get truth in your worldview?
Where does your standard morality come from?

That needs to be cleared up before answering.

I am doing neither of those things. My post does not presuppose any truth that's up for debate, nor does it declare how moral or immoral God's actions are. I'm simply asking why God would design the world this way (that includes the reasoning abilities he granted humans by the way), knowing that it would prevent salvation for many people.

Who is to say that God is deceiving us rather than Human's getting it wrong?

Radio carbon dating for example is only good on specimens up to 50 thousand years old and then has 1 standard deviation of error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability the THEORY that man evolved from apes is also a THEORY and all of this science is what....100-200 years old?

Humans are not infallible and neither are our 'truths' remember blood letting, alchemy, the earth being the center of the universe and flat earth? Those were all true at one point in human history.

Last, who even says that God needs to obey the laws of physics, time or space.

Humans getting it wrong IS God deceiving us. That's my whole point. God is all-knowing, right? So he knew that the way he designed the earth, coupled with the reasoning abilities he bestowed in humans, would lead to this outcome, right? And God is all-powerful, so he could have created a world (including the humans in it) where the scientific consensus confirms the truth of his existence, right?

But he didn't. He CHOSE this. He CHOSE to create a world where his beloved children who remotely trust scientists will falsely conclude that he doesn't exist, and thus not be saved. Leading people to a false conclusion when you have the power to lead them to the right conclusion is deception. It couldn't fit the definition any better. So again, why would he design the world (including the humans in it) like that?

And by the way, the "THEORY" of evolution thing is a ridiculously chiche'd trope. Those who make that argument totally misunderstand what the word "theory" actually means in a scientific context.

You make a good point, and something that changed my mind was when I read the bible and Jesus talked about why he taught in parables.

He did so because only those that that 'ears to hear and eyes to see' would actually figure out what it meant. He wanted people to have to work to find him and have faith, those that wanted to find him would find him, those that did not, would not.

God wants us to place our faith in him, not science and not proof but trust. Think about if you ask your friend to lend you $20 and he agrees. You don't then follow up and say "I demand a copy of your bank statement as proof that you have $20 to lend"...you trust him and have faith that he will deliver.

Remember, God is not a scientist or a mathematical equation. He also has reasons for doing things that we do not, and will not understand. I have faith in God and trust that he has a reason for not showing us a direct proof of his existence. He has answered my prayers, changed my life and not set 'gotcha' traps in my life. That is the foundation of my trust that he's also not deceiving humanity.

That is a very soft answer, especially when compared against defined scientific proof, but that is what God is.

Tailgunner will fire off specific biblical references if you prefer that kind of answer.

 

[BortimusPrime]

Why is it that we can't possibly know the inscrutable motivations of God when it comes to reconciling the logic of Him hiding fake dinosaur bones in the ground and selectively picking neutrons out of atoms to trick us into thinking the Earth is billions of years old, but then we absolutely know for sure beyond all possible doubt what God wants based on the bible?

Radioactive half-lives is obviously a giant cosmic practical joke, but telling bronze age Jews not to play with themselves? Now that's some serious revelation.

 

[Kid Twist]

The Bible isn't a forensic or scientific manual. Anyone looking at it that way doesn't understand God or the (formation of) "Bible" very well.

I'll take St. John Chrysostom over any youtube 21st century literalist, basically on any topic. And on this one, he made it clear in the 4th century that Genesis was never a literalist story. Anyone studying literature who is not even christian can understand this, which makes it even weirder.

 

[Dr. Howard]

Why is it that we can't possibly know the inscrutable motivations of God when it comes to reconciling the logic of Him hiding fake dinosaur bones in the ground and selectively picking neutrons out of atoms to trick us into thinking the Earth is billions of years old, but then we absolutely know for sure beyond all possible doubt what God wants based on the bible?

Radioactive half-lives is obviously a giant cosmic practical joke, but telling bronze age Jews not to play with themselves? Now that's some serious revelation.

Take a figure in your life that you trust, when they speak advice into your life do you look back 10 years later and think "why did they tell me about women, and not about gene splitting?"

If you do not trust God, or give him a standing of belevolence and justice nothing he does will ever make sense.

Going down any long line of questioning of why, why, why, why will never lead to more answers about God. Its more like ask, pray, listen, trust

If you believe that God is deceiving man, or giving man bad advice through the bible then you don't believe in God's premise of who he is. In reverse, if you believe that God is who he is, then you can move forward in trust without anxiety over not knowing why, this or why that about every atom that makes up every thing on earth.

 

[Sooth]

You are making truth claims and appealing to a standard of morality to judge right and wrong.

How do you get truth in your worldview?
Where does your standard morality come from?

That needs to be cleared up before answering.

I am doing neither of those things.

You did it just there.

My post does not presuppose any truth that's up for debate.

And again.

Is it absolutely true that your post does not presuppose any truth that's up for debate?

The point of debating is to arrive at the truth of a matter. You are making absolute truth claims such as "It is not true that I said that". I am asking you what your definition of truth is. If its something nonsensical like the flying spaghetti monster, or that truth is relative then it's a waste of time answering.

 

[Bolly]

But he didn't. He CHOSE this. He CHOSE to create a world where his beloved children who remotely trust scientists will falsely conclude that he doesn't exist, and thus not be saved. Leading people to a false conclusion when you have the power to lead them to the right conclusion is deception. It couldn't fit the definition any better. So again, why would he design the world (including the humans in it) like that?

Good questions. In your first post you mentioned this "What you must admit, however, is that your conception of God is deceiving the world's population." You mention the quote on quote reputable scientists who disbelieve the creation account thereby influencing most people to think like them and ultimately lead people away from salvation. Because if you can somehow disprove creation, you can debunk God. Yes most scientists jump on board with the evolution argument because it keeps the money flowing and also coincidentally aligns with their political worldview. There's still plenty of renowned scientists who believe in a young Earth. The man who created the MRI for example believes in a young earth. But thats another story.

But who is really being deceptive here. Was it God as you say? Or is it man? It definitely isn't God bro. Jeremiah 10:12 reads "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." And later in Romans 1 19-20 reads this "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

What Paul is saying coupled with what was written in Jeremiah about God's wisdom, to put it bluntly, is that it's pretty fricken obvious there's a God responsible for designing life. In fact so obvious, says Paul, that if you think otherwise you have no excuse other than your own pride. Not talking to you like that Delta, you know what I mean.

Above I made a crack comment about the earth looking like it's in good condition for ostensibly being billions of years old. And it's true. Dinosaur bones have been found with red blood cells in their tissue still. There's Biblical scripture that points towards animals we traditionally think of as dinosaurs walking with man. All trees only go back 4500-5000 years which fits the biblical timeline, even though scientists say they are capable of living longer. I could go on and and on, but for every theory about the earth being billions of years old, there's equal and opposite evidence to suggest it perfectly fits the biblical timeline.

Can some things appear older than they are. Sure. Look at the story of Adam. When God created Adam, he didn't put Adam in the garden as a little infant. If you were to have seen Adam created, based off what we know from Genesis, one would have seen God create a full grown man even though he was brand new on the earth. Adam was created to work and take care of the Garden, to rule over the earth, to bang Eve and multiply. All qualities that require maturity and age. So sure, perhaps some things can appear older, but again, the earth is in pretty good condition. If earth and life were billions of years old, we would find evidence for it, especially in trees.

In Isaiah 43:7 it says we were created for his glory. A true born again Christian knows why he's here. But as far as understanding creation, and how life came about to be the perfectly imperfect world it is, again in Isaiah we read "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." We born to live, work, mulitply and to seek God, because we are instinctually wired to do so based on how he created us so that we may ultimately accept his gift of eternal life to be with him once we die. Acts 17: 26-27 says " And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us". Psalm 14:2 reads "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God." God wants us to seek him, as we live, before it's to late.

In Genesis we don't know what God's original plan was for creation had Adam not listened to his wife.:s But as far God deceiving people and leading people away from salvation. That is totally false. It's God hating men peddling bullshit theories in the name of progress and manipulating the naivete in common men that lead people away from salvation. For God so loved the world....

 

[Solitaire]

Okay, at the risk of getting myself involved in some bizarre "literal word of God" creationist argument - please tell me what trees have to do with this. What do you mean by "All trees only go back 4500-5000 years . . . " Have you never heard of fossilized leaves, roots, etc? You don't believe in carbon dating?

You know what, never mind. What I said above stands: it's all about faith, nothing more. 2K years ago, they did the best they could to understand their place on the planet. But to toss aside any scientific advancement at all? Please feel free to not bother posting that I'm a heathen that needs salvation.

 

[Bolly]

Please feel free to not bother posting that I'm a heathen that needs salvation.

Oldest living trees*. Maybe I wasn't clear.

But you're right I wont. Arguing with snarky children ain't worth it.

 

[Vladimir Gotti]

The young earth idea roughly stems from adding up the ages of all of the named descendants of Adam in Genesis, if I recall correctly. This is quite frankly a modern protestant invention. I will point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not specify that belief in young Earth creationism is a necessary component of salvation.

It really is amazing that atheists/secularists or whatever name is preferred by them these days have the exact same biblical interpretations as the most literal Christian fundamentalists. The Bible is a moral text, not a doctoral thesis on anthropology. Why not make an honest analysis of the morals contained within instead of hairsplitting over uninspired, intellectually lazy literalistic interpretations of a 2000 year old book?

 

[Lunostrelki]

The Bible is a collection of historical stories, spiritual and moral lessons, and witness accounts by a bunch of different people living in different eras in the Near East. It was written in an ancient language, doctored by the Roman authorities, translated a bunch of times, and necessarily subject to a million different interpretations.

How can that be a document that contains the one and only truth about God and divine existence? How many people lived in ancient Israel and the surrounding areas? What kind of civilization did they produce? What about the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Indians, and Persians? If you accept the Bible as the sole truth, you deny the achievements of all those other peoples, as well as the truths that their sages and ascetics arrived at. It's nothing but hubris.

In the last few hundred years, Christianity suffered blow after blow by scientists and atheists who turned its own literalist dogma against it and made it look stupid and ignorant in the eyes of the mainstream. Of course, the same thing happened with the leftists and SJWs in the 20th century who, after "killing God," adopted the same hubris, went on to slaughter more people than the Christians ever did. In the West, they are also bringing about the decline of their own civilizations with their church of progressivism.

I can understand why Roosh and others have taken to Orthodoxy Christianity. I don't know much about the church over in Russia or how genuine it is now that it's controlled by the FSB from top to bottom, but it seems to me that devout Russians always had more humility in the face of the Creator and didn't get so caught up in the temptations of secular forms. In this sense they seem almost closer to the eastern traditions, where faith was more of an organic part of society.

 

[Sargon2112]

Things to consider:
- a MAN by the name of Bishop Usher came up with the supposed year of Genisis based on the genealogy from the bible. You'll not find the dates in earlier versions because they are a rather late addition as deduced by a MAN.

- how do you know what period of time was meant by the word which was translated to "day"? Ancient Hebrew (old testament) had a very limited vocabulary compared to the Greek of the new testament, which had a rich vocabulary and was very precise. Most Hebrew words had many possible meanings & depended heavily on context, making translations thousands of years later error prone.

- the point of all that was to say that the error or possible missing information is MAN's error, not God's.

- lastly, I'm rather confident that God doesn't care if I think the earth has been here for 4 billion years or 6000 years or 2000 years, as long as my faith in Jesus Christ is intact & true.

Food for thought...

 

[TigerMandingo]

Recently, I started reading A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. I'm only a few chapters in, but I found it odd that as he was describing the origin of the universe he didn't even entertain the possibility of a Creator. He kept going on and on about how random and beautiful our Universe is, but it never occurred to him that it might be the work of a God.

The theory of the Big Bang sounds like a crock of shit to me...

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

Check out the “Creation Astronomy” site and DVDs. It’s creator joined NASA as a “science-minded atheist” and left a born-again Christian when he realized that none of the secular astronomical models actually account for the phenomena seen in space. NASA itself admits, at the highest levels, that its theories don’t actually explain everything and are constantly changing. They’re basically just guessing.

The magnetization of the planets and rate of decay point to a much younger universe than the “13 billion years old” theory. They still have no idea how the moon even got there in the first place, and theories change constantly as each one gets disproven.

At the end of the day, there’s no objective evidence for a young-Earth creationist theory. But there’s also no objective evidence for the “astronomical evolution” theories that dominate secular debate.

The DVDs on that site are worth watching just to demonstrate how little is actually known or understood, which for me at least opens up the possibility that everything we’ve been told about the universe and its age are wrong.