wrote:
In sci.physics Murf wrote:

Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a ****, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

If you posit an infinitely powerful god, he could blink the stars,
light, and dinosaur bones into existence at any time with any
characteristics he chooses.

You do not let them posit the existance of any god. Require them to
establish the existence of a god first and then one with the specific
characteristics needed for creation as they claim it occurred. Do not
permit circular arguments of the god-creation-world-god kind.

So no, there is no possible argument other than such a being doesn't
exist or this god wouldn't do that, so you are back to belief.

Hang out on talk.origins. It is rather easy to deal with them. It is
also a good place to see what happens when you depart from the same
rules you would apply when questioning any claim in any real science.

--
Should all countries imitate Israel and have
jews-only neighborhoods?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3266