Ok, then here are my questions.

1. Why would God say in the scripture that the world is 10,000 years old if God deliberately tried to make it seem much older?

2. Why would God create the universe to have the appearance of age in the first place? Is that not just deception? Does God deceive?

3. If the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old then is it true that you reject whatever scientific evidence the creationists present because that would mean that God in incompetent?

How exactly would you suggest it would be possible to create a fully functioning world if it didn't have some appearance of age? There would be no sedimentary rocks. There would be no full grown trees and plants. Adam would have to be created as an infant. The appearance of age is the logical result of the act of creation of a functioning universe. To turn the question around, do you insist a Creator is disqualified from creating stars visible to man, but who's light would otherwise not be visible for millions of years?

<2. Why would God create the universe to have the appearance of age in the first place? Is that not just deception? Does God deceive?>

I think it is a logical consequence of Creation. The simplest example is Adam. Unless God created Adam as a day old infant, God was forced to create SOMETHING with the appearance of greater age than in fact it posessed. And if He created something, why not everything? I accept a difference of opinion on this, but I am really puzzled why this issue merits such concern. As for God deceiving, that would depend on what you mean by deceiving. That would be more of a theological discussion though.

<3. If the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old then is it true that you reject whatever scientific evidence the creationists present because that would mean that God in incompetent?>

You'd have to restate this one for me to answer. I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. In particular, this part "If the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old" confuses me. Are you positing that as a hypothetical, or are you meaning it in the sense "<Since> the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old"? Or something else?

<4. Isn't it true that your only reason for believing in a 10,000 year old universe is the scripture? >

2. Why would God create the universe to have the appearance of age in the first place? Is that not just deception? Does God deceive?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> How exactly would you suggest it would be possible to create a fully functioning world if it didn't have some appearance of age?>

Obviously that is not what I asked. I did not question whether God made the universe with age, but whether God made it to appear as if it were much older than it really is.

<<<<<TCE>>>> 3. If the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old then is it true that you reject whatever scientific evidence the creationists present because that would mean that God in incompetent?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> You'd have to restate this one for me to answer. I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. In particular, this part "If the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old" confuses me. Are you positing that as a hypothetical, or are you meaning it in the sense "<Since> the scientific evidence tells us that the universe is billions of years old"? Or something else?>

What I'm saying is that the scientific evidence shows that the universe is billions of years old. If 10,000 years ago God made the universe to appear to be billions of years old rather than just 10,000 years old, then to present evidence that shows that the universe is 10,000 years old is to present evidence that God is incompetent.

<<<<<TCE>>>> 4. Isn't it true that your only reason for believing in a 10,000 year old universe is the scripture?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> No.>

Do tell.>

Check out the link I posted above to <OCF>:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...

If you are willing to accept this, and deny what physics tells us about decaying nucleii of radiactive materials and how they give an age to carboniferous materials buried deep in the Earth's crust, and what radio-astronomy tells us of the age of the Universe, then there is no reason to deny this simple statement:

<<<God created everything the day I was born.>> Every biological or mineral element, all physical processes, all buried fossils, all "man-made" historical records, all existing humans, complete with memories of their lives up to that moment--everything, and the various energy forms, latent and emitted, too.>

That statement, in my book, has the same legitimacy as 10,000 yr old universe.

The debate has been about one specific human literal interpretation of Genesis. There are some Christians who seem to think that that the entire credibility of the Bible rests on this specific interpretation.

The problem is that this interpretation doesn't agree with the vast majority of scientific opinion.

Consequently, those who support this specific interpretation feel the need to go on the attack against scientists, and accuse them of deliberately distorting science to be contrary to this interpretation. Some of them contrive their own ad-hoc ideas about science specifically to agree with their interpretation.

These ideas get spread, mostly by people who don't understand the science (and really don't evey try to understand it).

They don't take into consideration that there may be other ways to interpret Genesis that don't require them to oppose science. They also don't take into consideration that if they are wrong (and I'm pretty sure they are), then they are guilty of bearing false witness (see the 9th commandment).

Hey! You are horning in on YouRangism, and denying the Holy Book of YouRang! >:-(

Reference --> OhioChessFan chessforum

I am skeptical about many things scientists claim to "know." As Stephen J. Gould so often pointed out in his monthly column, today's science can become tomorrow's quaint superstition. For my part, I do not "know" that starlight reaches us over a distance of x-million miles, "proving" that the universe is y-billion years old. Nor do I know for how long Adam and Eve remained in the Garden of Eden. Maybe Adam didn't reckon his age from the moment of his creation, but from the day of his expulsion from Eden.

I admit that there are problems with "Creation Science." We creationists have found many ways to make ourselves look foolish. But conventional scientists--and much, much worse, popularizers of science--are more than able to compete with us in that regard!

But we insist that God's Creation, because it is His, and reflects its Creator, is rational, orderly, and at least to some degree knowable. Therefore the various sciences are something that we can and ought to pursue.

There's nothing wrong or impious about asking exactly how old the earth is, why there are no dinosaurs anymore, why the continents look like they might have once been joined together, etc. We will very often come up with answers that we're sure are right, but eventually turn out to be wrong. I believe Darwinism was one such answer.

<I am skeptical about many things scientists claim to "know." As Stephen J. Gould so often pointed out in his monthly column, today's science can become tomorrow's quaint superstition.>

One of the fundamental things to understand about science is that it's not really about "knowing" anything for certain. It's about developing an understanding of nature that best fits what we observe, to the best of our ability. It's practically certain that our observations are incomplete, and that our best theories are approximations, and that future observations will force us to trash some of our theories.

But one should take this as a reason to discredit science or scientists.

Just sitting here at my desk, I can't help but see things that point to the marvels of science. Large panes of glass, plastic, a phone, a computer monitor, a painted wall, my watch, a jet flying in the distance, etc, etc. Of course, all this is but a tiny spec of the amazing progress we owe to science, and yet take for granted every day.

Surely, this suggests that science, as a whole, is doing something right. In fact, I don't know of any other human pursuit that has been as successful.

<For my part, I do not "know" that starlight reaches us over a distance of x-million miles, "proving" that the universe is y-billion years old.>

It's okay to not "know" this. But IMO, it's not okay to criticize scientists who arrive at that conclusion based on applying reason to what the observe. It's not okay to criticize scientists who reject other ideas that disagree with their observations. It's folly to criticize scientists for practicing science.

<I admit that there are problems with "Creation Science." We creationists have found many ways to make ourselves look foolish. But conventional scientists--and much, much worse, popularizers of science--are more than able to compete with us in that regard!>

No argument there. But historically, religion has an unfortunate track record of opposing great thinkers of science. You would think that today's religious opponents of science would at least be a little humbled by that...

<There's nothing wrong or impious about asking exactly how old the earth is, why there are no dinosaurs anymore, why the continents look like they might have once been joined together, etc.>

Of course not! That's what science does, and I think their success shows that they do a commendable job.

<We will very often come up with answers that we're sure are right, but eventually turn out to be wrong. I believe Darwinism was one such answer.>

Yes, but why do you think Darwin's answer will be discredited? Are your reasons scientific, or religious? Many people think Darwin is wrong for faith-based reasons. Fine, but then they should not be critical of scientists who, of course, can not and should not incorporate any religious faith into their work.

<But if God did not do it who did?> Why the assumption that 'someone' made it?