A created-with-backstory argument for creationism?

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

Proofs are for math and logic, not science. Science deals with evidence, which I should note is the word I used. (something I've noted multiple times throughout the last few years) There is a significant amount of evidence for the universe being older than five minutes - since I'm pretty sure you know a good deal of it already I won't bother going over it. Since that's the way the evidence points and there is no contradictory evidence, that's what I find logical to believe. I'm not saying that it's impossible for the universe to be five minutes old, I just find there to be absolutely no reason to believe that. If you find evidence that indicates that to be true, let everyone know and they can re-evaluate their positions.

[John Dibble]

Didn't jmfcst sort of use this reasoning?

Yes and no. He just rejected any evidence that outright contradicted the Bible's account of creation and was openly skeptical of evolution, but he wasn't a young Earth creationist either and accepted that the creation account could have taken longer than a literal six days given that the Bible says a day is a thousand years to God or something along those lines. He did a lot of mental gymnastics, and it's hard to accurately state what his position actually was on the matter - I'm not sure it was even coherent to him.

[John Dibble]

1. Who are you to say what "has a place in the church"? Are you the arbiter for all Christianity?

He's jmfcst if you haven't figured it out yet, Beet. So the answer to the question is yes, though he'll never admit it openly.