God made the universe look old so it would look pretty

Started by Sophus, December 20, 2010, 08:50:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sophus

God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky. (Warning it's AnswersInGenesis. If ou prefer there's this Wikipedia link)

Every time I hear such an absurd excuse like this I think that surely it must weaken the faith of other Creationists. Saying "God Works in Mysterious Ways" actually seems vastly superior ridiculousness like this when it comes to convincing other Creationists. Do we have any ex-Creationists here that confirm this little theory of mine?  :D
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

McQ

Quote from: "Sophus"God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky. (Warning it's AnswersInGenesis. If ou prefer there's this Wikipedia link)

Every time I hear such an absurd excuse like this I think that surely it must weaken the faith of other Creationists. Saying "God Works in Mysterious Ways" actually seems vastly superior ridiculousness like this when it comes to convincing other Creationists. Do we have any ex-Creationists here that confirm this little theory of mine?  :D

This is actually The single piece of misinformation that caused me to take my journey away from faith. Or at least away from fundamentalist churches in the US. As a lifelong amateur astronomer, I taught lots of classes in general astronomy and while teaching a church group about the distances involved in space, I was taken to task by some dipshit at their church for telling them that the light from the Andromeda Galaxy left there over 2 million years ago. Long story.

A church I belonged to at the time got a new pastor who believed the Earth was 6000 years old, and he wanted me to teach the church youth the new theory of Creationism to them in Sunday school ( yeah, I was a youth Sunday school teacher).

Those things were my cue to get the fuck out of the church. When I realized that biblical apologists were liars and frauds in the name of their so-called god, I knew I'd never reconcile that with my beliefs.

But it was the whole age of the universe and how it was made to look old thing that was the claxon alarm for me.

I think that this not only weakens other more moderate creation arguments, but that it also dilutes them, causes confusion, and causes infighting among church denominations. Quite frankly, it's more harmful to (at least, in my opinion) American churches than it is to science. But the bigger problem is that it becomes tied to politics somehow, and then fucks everyone!
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

DJAkuma

Why doesn't it make any sense to me that a god who wants us to know about him and worship him would intentionally create everything in a way that's designed to deceive us? e.g. fossils planted to fool scientists, the speed of light being faster in the past, etc...

elliebean

Quote from: "DJAkuma"Why doesn't it make any sense to me that a god who wants us to know about him and worship him would intentionally create everything in a way that's designed to deceive us? e.g. fossils planted to fool scientists, the speed of light being faster in the past, etc...
Free will, dude.  :hide:
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

Baggy

I think once you accept one impossible thing and you are determined to believe it no matter what, you can be willing to believe a thousand other impossible things in order to support the first impossibility!

Dogma for example!

Dretlin

Quote from: "Sophus"God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky. (Warning it's AnswersInGenesis. If ou prefer there's this Wikipedia link)

Every time I hear such an absurd excuse like this I think that surely it must weaken the faith of other Creationists. Saying "God Works in Mysterious Ways" actually seems vastly superior ridiculousness like this when it comes to convincing other Creationists. Do we have any ex-Creationists here that confirm this little theory of mine?  :D

I am particularly offend by any notion that proclaims the universe was made solely for humans. It disturbs me if any satisfaction is obtained from rubbish like this.

Voter

Quote from: "Sophus"God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky.
What are you talking about? The linked article rejects that position.
Quote from: "An anonymous atheist poster here"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your wo

Sophus

Quote from: "Voter"
Quote from: "Sophus"God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky.
What are you talking about? The linked article rejects that position.
The article explains the position ("Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth...."). Answers in Genesis' own "explanation" is much more banal and not as comical.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Voter

In reading the article it was interesting to find that science has to invent weird stuff to explain cosmic distances.
Quote from: "An anonymous atheist poster here"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your wo

Sophus

Quote from: "Voter"In reading the article it was interesting to find that science has to invent weird stuff to explain cosmic distances.
lol Don't trust anything you read in Answers in Genesis. They're not known for their honesty.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Recusant

Quote from: "Voter"What are you talking about? The linked article rejects that position.

The AiG page which Sophus linked is not explicit on what age of the universe it supports.  However, it does seem to be supporting a "young creation":

QuoteFrom Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?:

When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.
In fact, the Answers in Genesis position as I understand it is one of Young Earth Creationism.

Quote from: "Voter"In reading the article it was interesting to find that science has to invent weird stuff to explain cosmic distances

Anything in particular which struck you?  Cosmology is an exciting field, and new developments have been appearing every year recently.  None of those developments has pointed to a supernatural explanation of the universe, unless somebody chooses to interpret them that way.  Why even bother though?  As the organization's name makes explicit, it is not looking to science, but the Bible for answers.  In their view, if science contradicts Genesis, then science is wrong.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Voter

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "Voter"What are you talking about? The linked article rejects that position.

The AiG page which Sophus linked is not explicit on what age of the universe it supports.  However, it does seem to be supporting a "young creation":

QuoteFrom Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?:

When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.
In fact, the Answers in Genesis position as I understand it is one of Young Earth Creationism.
Yes, it's certainly YEC, but that article rejected the specific explanation mentioned in the OP.

Quote from: "Voter"Anything in particular which struck you?
Yes, that the universe is too young even at 14 billion years according to Bib Bang theory, and so a period of huge expansion in a fraction of a second was invented by science to make the age work.
QuoteCosmology is an exciting field, and new developments have been appearing every year recently.  None of those developments has pointed to a supernatural explanation of the universe, unless somebody chooses to interpret them that way.  Why even bother though?  As the organization's name makes explicit, it is not looking to science, but the Bible for answers.  In their view, if science contradicts Genesis, then science is wrong.
Key point bolded. It's a matter of interpretation. One can interpret the existence of comets as evidence limiting the possible age of the solar system, or interpret them as evidence of the existence of the Oort cloud and passing stars of some sort. Same with the size/age of the universe and the speed of light.
Quote from: "An anonymous atheist poster here"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your wo

Sophus

QuoteKey point bolded. It's a matter of interpretation. One can interpret the existence of comets as evidence limiting the possible age of the solar system, or interpret them as evidence of the existence of the Oort cloud and passing stars of some sort. Same with the size/age of the universe and the speed of light.
It's interesting how religion believes in an absolute objective truth until it comes to science, then everything is conveniently relative. Facts are somehow not facts and all opinions are "equal".

And they call me a nihilist....
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Voter

Quote from: "Sophus"It's interesting how religion believes in an absolute objective truth until it comes to science, then everything is conveniently relative. Facts are somehow not facts and all opinions are "equal".
No they don't. Have you read the AIG article? It discusses the pros and cons of several positions before settling on one. They do not consider all opinions to be equally valid.
Quote from: "An anonymous atheist poster here"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your wo

Stevil

Hey there Voter

Which assumptions do you disagree with?
The Constancy of the Speed of Light
The Rigidity of Time
Synchronization
Naturalism
Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

I've read through the article and have concluded to myself that the author knows that they are misleading and confusing their audience.
The two most rediculous (to me) explainations are the idea that Speed of light is not constant and that guff in the section titled "Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument" which is a very, very silly section.