71 replies to this topic

[MamaElephant]

I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

The "old"  comes from us deciding for ourselves what constitites age.

I hear the argument so often... that I think we need a thread just for that.

[Mike Summers]

I hear the argument so often... that I think we need a thread just for that.

Yes I know.

That's why a good understandin of communication and how a person takes to himself the knowlege of good & evil is important. This question shows what happens when a person leans to his own understanding. If God in His word does not tell us how old the earth is then we had probably best ask Him? If He does not answer right away then I guess our lesson is patience or it's a non issue to Him.

[AFJ]

I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth.  I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age.  It sounds deceptive.

So do geologists, and they believe that fossils are millions of years old. Do you believe that? If so, then you believe death occurred before Adam.

But on an creation of an "aged" earth, God created soil which now is formed from decaying vegetation. So does that make the first soil have an "aged" appearance? The idea of "aged" comes from the evolution camp.

If we look at the expanding universe and see things happening, like nebulas, which are supposed to be star nurseries, what causes us to see that as "aged?" Isn't it the teaching that stars form from that? Yet that's only an hypothesis, no one has seen that, nor ever will. So the idea of "aged" there is based on a belief.

Nuclear decay--does that give an appearance of age? Do we know what forces happened at creation and during the flood? Do we know if all the daughter product in a rock is actually daughter product, or was it there at the beginning. How do you distinguish lead that was in the rock at the beginning from lead that used to be thorium. You can't--lead is lead.

Do we understand everything about the nature of nuclear decay? Radio halos show a radiation of what? Yes there are particles which leave the nucleus, but what else is going on? Do we understand everthing about photons or particles? We've built huge appurati trying to find the hypothetical higgs boson.

My point is we are trying to understand things that we can't see, and of which we probably have no idea of the true nature. We only see the effects.

[Geode]

I hear the argument so often... that I think we need a thread just for that.

Why don't you start such a thread? I have too strong an opinion on this one to do so, and it might be difficult to remain at all objective.

[Salsa]

One more point concerning God's "deception".

Does the fact that God tests our faith count as such? Consider Abraham. When God told him that through Isaac he would be the father of many. He had the literal word of God on the one hand, but on the other he had a set of conflicting circumstances (his and Sarah's age and the fact that Isaac was to be offered).

When God tested Abraham, was he deceiving Abraham?

Also, what do we make of 2 Thess 2:10,11?

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In light of this, I don't see any reason why God would not be entitled to create an "old looking" universe. Since He told us how much time it took, and we have the choice of believing hem, then we cannot call Him deceptive.

Now, I'm not saying that God did create an old-looking universe, or that he is testing us in this way. But the possibility does exist.

[MamaElephant]

One more point concerning God's "deception".

Does the fact that God tests our faith count as such?  Consider Abraham. When God told him that through Isaac he would be the father of many. He had the literal word of God on the one hand, but on the other he had a set of conflicting circumstances (his and Sarah's age and the fact that Isaac was to be offered).

When God tested Abraham, was he deceiving Abraham?

Also, what do we make of 2 Thess 2:10,11?

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In light of this, I don't see any reason why God would not be entitled to create an "old looking" universe. Since He told us how much time it took, and we have the choice of believing hem, then we cannot call Him deceptive.

Now, I'm not saying that God did create an old-looking universe, or that he is testing us in this way. But the possibility does exist.

In context: 9 But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

God does not send delusions, but allows them. Again, notice all of the references to the lawless one:

6 And so now YOU know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

[Air-run]

As a side note I don't see convergent evolution as much of a factor. I think evolution rolls lot and lots of dice and some of those results will be similar and thus gravitate to an evironment they do well in.
I do but with a couple of differences. As I mentioned above I think lots of dice are rolled. Also, if starting points are greater in number and further back then there is no need for the major transitions.

I don't think your dice analogy completely works, because where the dice have numbers that are always randomly changing - DNA has systems to eliminate random changes. So, change is not the norm, it is normally prevented.

Also, its not the case where the rolling dice either produce no change or possibly positive change. The rolling dice more often than not produce negative changes. If evolution were a board game, the negative die rolls would keep moving you backwards. The few positive changes wouldn't be enough to move you the hundreds of genetic steps closer to major adaptive changes.

I think "major transitions" are just as much of a problem for a long-slow process as much as they are for punctuated equilibrium.

Going from a single cell bacteria to a snake is a major transition - no matter how many years you give it.

Let me ask you a question since you are a creationist. Let's take an existing animal, say a salt water crocodile. Do you see a situation whereby God created that animal as it appears or perhaps with some minor differences. Or do you think that crocodile evolved from another animal God previously created and that animal was very different to todays salt water crocodile.

I wouldn't say that any extant species looks exactly the way it did when it was first created. Perhaps there are some - but I think there was a degree of built in species plasticity. My guess is that the various species of crocodile (caiman, gharial) are all evolved variations of the original created crocodile - but not from an extremely different animal.

[ikester7579]

One more point concerning God's "deception".

Does the fact that God tests our faith count as such?  Consider Abraham. When God told him that through Isaac he would be the father of many. He had the literal word of God on the one hand, but on the other he had a set of conflicting circumstances (his and Sarah's age and the fact that Isaac was to be offered).

When God tested Abraham, was he deceiving Abraham?

Also, what do we make of 2 Thess 2:10,11?

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"

In light of this, I don't see any reason why God would not be entitled to create an "old looking" universe. Since He told us how much time it took, and we have the choice of believing hem, then we cannot call Him deceptive.

Now, I'm not saying that God did create an old-looking universe, or that he is testing us in this way. But the possibility does exist.

Good point. A lot of people do not understand that evolution is also a test to see if we will believe what is written, or how man interprets what he sees.

[Salsa]

Good point. A lot of people do not understand that evolution is also a test to see if we will believe what is written, or how man interprets what he sees.

Exactly. I think that would apply whether or not God "sends" or "allows".

[MamaElephant]

Exactly. I think that would apply whether or not God "sends" or "allows". 

Of course it does. I just wanted to clarify this point:

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

And I am not good at summing up conclusions. Sorry about that.

[Ron]

So, again, I ask “What translation issues?”

Two I remember reading about a long time ago was "dragon" and "cedar", the latter in connection with Job and the Behemoth.

Ark, you really need to specify the "Translation Issues" you are attempting to use as an argument here. You're not making any sense at all. You may want to re-think this tactic.

Exactly. I think that would apply whether or not God "sends" or "allows". 

Of course it does. I just wanted to clarify this point:

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

And I am not good at summing up conclusions. Sorry about that.

Indeed... We are tempted of our own proclivities. What we find is that the relativist and weak Christian will seek to shift the blame to others (including God). The relativist will do this mainly as an excuse to not believe in God, as an argument against God (see the argument for Evil, and argument for morality). As for the weak Christian, mostly it is because they were taught misinterpretations and such.

[MamaElephant]

Good point. A lot of people do not understand that evolution is also a test to see if we will believe what is written, or how man interprets what he sees.

Exactly. I think that would apply whether or not God "sends" or "allows". 

I think that Jesus made it clear that He does test us in this way:

“To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted. This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it; and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, ‘By hearing, you will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, you will look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive.’”—Matthew 13:2, 10, 11, 13-15; Isaiah 6:9, 10.

“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”—Matthew 16:1-4.

"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to these.’ 30 Then he said, ‘No, indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’”-- Luke 15:29

Quoting is my strong point. I am not so good at coming up with my own discourses.