Jump to content


Does God's Word Speak Of Things Made To...


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:55 PM

The way I look at it, if all came from the samething, something that exploded. Then all things should have the same time markers.

Example: Bang! Everything begins and came from it. So comming from the bang, it should all date back to it. So science says the earth is only a few billion years old, but the universe, and some of the things in it, date much older. So unless the dating methods are off, we did not come from the one thing that exploded. For what it was made of, should be in everything that exists. But have we found anything on earth that dates as old as 13-20 billion years old?

But, does God's word explain different ages of things that were created in one day?

First we start with Adam and Eve. Were they created as babies, or fully formed and grown? To have an appearance of age, but without the actual time of age.

So when God created, did He also make his creation have the appearance of age, without the actual time of age?

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

How can you create generations in one day (have to read the verse a few times to get it)? Unless you are giving the appearance of age without the actual time of age. So like Adam and Eve, God's creation was made the same way. But why?

First we will start with the creation of man for better understanding. Both creation of man and woman were where they were of age to take care of themselves. Why? So that they could survive, and everything could work.

So why was the universe made with different appearences of age? Each thing has a certain balance to work with another. The sun being a certain apperance of age so it don't burn the earth up, or freeze it. The earth being a certain apperance of age to best support life. And all of the rest of the creation to be in appearance of certain ages so that all could work together.

God being eternal, could acheive this. For if God can create man with the appearance of age, why not everything else?

#2 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 20 March 2005 - 07:26 PM

Well, an all-powerful god certainly could create a world with the appearance of age. (He could also have created the earth 30 seconds ago, with the appearance of age, and the appearance of memories in all of us).

But the bible doesn't say god made the world that way. If you are a biblical literalist, it's just conjecture. If you're a scientist, it's an unfounded assertion that cannot be tested in any way.

But I have to wonder why a loving god would do that. Why would he try to fool us?

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 08:12 PM

Well, an all-powerful god certainly could create a world with the appearance of age. (He could also have created the earth 30 seconds ago, with the appearance of age, and the appearance of memories in all of us).


So are you saying we live in a matrix? :)

But the bible doesn't say god made the world that way. If you are a biblical literalist, it's just conjecture. If you're a scientist, it's an unfounded assertion that cannot be tested in any way.

It is because God is not explainable. To assert your view upon the spiritual, and make the assumptions that you do. And to project it being wrong. You would have to have knowledge through knowing something about the spiritual and eternal realm. Do you?

But I have to wonder why a loving god would do that. Why would he try to fool us?

Would God fool us? LOL, No, it is we who fool ourselves by trying to explain God by naturalistic means.

These are classic answers given for things that are unexplainable. I have heard them several times by several people. The last on I have heard about a 100 times.

God is beyond science. Why? because He is eternal, and science knows nothing about the eternal. And if they did, then they would have all the answers. For I believe that the eternal part of God has the explaination to all that science can only theorize about.

#4 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 20 March 2005 - 08:50 PM

It is because God is not explainable. To assert your view upon the spiritual, and make the assumptions that you do. And to project it being wrong. You would have to have knowledge through knowing something about the spiritual and eternal realm. Do you?
Would God fool us? LOL, No, it is we who fool ourselves by trying to explain God by naturalistic means.


But if one is basing their ideas about the formation of the universe and life on a literal interpretation of the bible, then they have to go by what the bible says. The bible doesn't say the earth was created with the appearance of age, and I think it's a big stretch to interpret it that way.

And if you're going to go into big stretches of interpretation, then why not interpret the creation story as a metaphor, a parable, etc? Where, and why, do you draw the line with "interpretation"?

I think the "appearance of age" argument is logically inconsistent with the "literal bible" argument.

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 09:00 PM

Could you please explain the meaning of this verse?

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

How do you get several generations in one day?

#6 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 20 March 2005 - 09:29 PM

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,


from websters:

generation: the process of bringing into being.

Since several things were "generated", the plural "generations" is used.

That seems to be consistent with the rest of the sentence.

Since this part of Gen 2 is "supposed" to be just sort of a quick summary of Gen 1, then the word "generations" is referring back to "the way I told you things were made back in Gen 1".


As to the "day", I guess that's a metaphorical day, meaning something like "in the time of" because it says IN the day, not ON the day. (Gen 1 also says the earth and heavens were created on separate days).

So my "translation" of that line would be:

"these are the processes that were used to bring the heavens and the earth into being, when they were created, in the times when god made them".

Of course, the word "generations" is already someone else's interpretation of what was said in the original hebrew/greek text, so as to what this passage is really saying...?

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 10:44 PM

Generations:


descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
account of men and their descendants
genealogical list of one's descendants
one's contemporaries
course of history (of creation etc)
begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

#8 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 21 March 2005 - 12:33 PM

First we start with Adam and Eve. Were they created as babies, or fully formed and grown? To have an appearance of age, but without the actual time of age.


But the question is would God give Adam scars for injuries he never acquired? Would he make fossils of animals that never lived? Why does the isotopic makeup of the rock correlate with radioactive decay? Why do we see so many meteor impacts, any one of which would have wiped out the human race? There is the appearance of age and then there is the appearance of a history that never happened. Those are two different things.

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:14 PM

But the question is would God give Adam scars for injuries he never acquired?

I'm not quite sure I know what your speaking of. But if it's the taking of the rib to make Eve. God has healng power as well. In fact, the rib is the only bone that can regenerate itself as long as it membrane is left intact.
http://www.answersin...v21/i4/ribs.asp
In fact, when bone replacement is done, some surgeons will use the rib bone because of this. I believe God left the rib to do this to show His power to heal.

  Would he make fossils of animals that never lived?

LOL, that's funny. How do you get a fossil from something that never existed (never lived would be the same as never existed)? Just because the bible does not mention certain animals, does not mean they were not there. Besides, I know you are refering to dinos, why only refer to them when there are several animals not mentioned in the bible?

  Why does the isotopic makeup of the rock correlate with radioactive decay?

If God can create Adam and Eve with the appearance of age without the time of age, why not this also? Make a rock appear older in age, but yet younger in time. Do you know why God did this? Think about it. If God created all that we see, and in working order that we see and observe, there were probably certain things that had to be done in order to make all things work together as they do.

Example: Lets say the earth and the sun were the same age. The sun was probably stronger back in the age of what the earth is right now. So to stick a sun out there in space that is the same age as the earth would burn it up. So God took a sun, made it have the appearance of age (with all age markers etc...), so that it would work with current creation. For if everything was not of different ages apperances (not actual time age), would it work together as we observe today?

And I'm still waiting for someone to expalin why everything does have different time markers when it all supposetly came from the same rock that exploded. For if the earth truly came from the supposed rock that exploded during the big bang, there should be time markers here on earth that would be tracable back to the original matter that exploded. But yet has anyone found it?

  Why do we see so many meteor impacts, any one of which would have wiped out the human race?

Actually, this is science spectulation. Example: Can you tell me the size of a meteor it would take to wipe out life?

Example: What would be the size and speed travel limit of a meteor that could strike the earth and not wipe out life? What would be the upper limit of one that would wipe out life?

If you can't answers these questions, with observable facts, then the question itself becomes speculation on your part.

  There is the appearance of age and then there is the appearance of a history that never happened.  Those are two different things.

View Post

Are you so sure? That statement you made actually gives the possibility of the statement in the O.P. (original post). Age without history of things that never happened. Like Adam and Eve never had been babies. All things in our universe dating differently (even though they all supposetly came from the samething, the big bang rock). etc....

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:28 PM

And I'm still waiting for someone to expalin why everything does have different time markers when it all supposetly came from the same rock that exploded. For if the earth truly came from the supposed rock that exploded during the big bang, there should be time markers here on earth that would be tracable back to the original matter that exploded.

View Post


Current cosmology has no physical matter during the first few seconds of the big bang, very roughly it’s:

Expansion,
Light/heat,
Subatomic particles & gravity,
Hydrogen,
Hydrogen clumps,
First generation suns,
Heavy elements synthesised in first generation suns,
First generation suns go supernova, seeding the universe with heavy elements,
Solar systems.

Each element has unique properties thus different ‘markers’.

#11 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 21 March 2005 - 03:07 PM

I'm not quite sure I know what your speaking of. But if it's the taking of the rib to make Eve. God has healng power as well. In fact, the rib is the only bone that can regenerate itself as long as it membrane is left intact.


I am not referring to the scar left from removing the rib.

Look at your hands. If you are like me, there are a few scars here and there. This gives your hands the appearance of a history, not of age per se. You know where those scars came from, each one has a story. Would Adam have scars on his body that have no history, just for an "appearance of age".

At the same time, would God give the Earth scars that represent things that never happened? Would God give the earth over 100 observable meteor craters greater than 1 km in diameter? How many of those 100+ meteor impacts are recorded in the Bible? Or even in human history for the last 6,000 years?

Would God create light from a star that never existed? We see supernova occuring at greater than 6,000 light years away. That means that the light from the pre-supernova star never existed. Would God do this?




How do you get a fossil from something that never existed (never lived would be the same as never existed)? Just because the bible does not mention certain animals, does not mean they were not there.


Totally agree, but would God create fake fossils to give the Earth an appearance of age?

Besides, I know you are refering to dinos, why only refer to them when there are several animals not mentioned in the bible?


Actually, the Karoo formation would be a better example. If all of those fossils were alive right now, and if those fossils from that formation represented 1% of all life to ever live, then there would be 2,100 rabbit sized animals per acre of land. There is simply not enough room for all of fossil species to have lived in the last 6,000 years.

If God can create Adam and Eve with the appearance of age without the time of age, why not this also? Make a rock appear older in age, but yet younger in time.


Why do the rocks have to look "older"? This is what I am talking about. Why did God have to add argon to rocks that were deeper in the geologic record? This is creating a non-existent history, not an appearance of age. It is adding a history of radioactive decay that never happened.

Do you know why God did this? Think about it. If God created all that we see, and in working order that we see and observe, there were probably certain things that had to be done in order to make all things work together as they do.

Example: Lets say the earth and the sun were the same age. The sun was probably stronger back in the age of what the earth is right now. So to stick a sun out there in space that is the same age as the earth would burn it up. So God took a sun, made it have the appearance of age (with all age markers etc...), so that it would work with current creation. For if everything was not of different ages apperances (not actual time age), would it work together as we observe today?


How does adding argon to rocks and making over 100 meteor craters of greater than 1 km in diameter fit into this?


And I'm still waiting for someone to expalin why everything does have different time markers when it all supposetly came from the same rock that exploded. For if the earth truly came from the supposed rock that exploded during the big bang, there should be time markers here on earth that would be tracable back to the original matter that exploded. But yet has anyone found it? Actually, this is science spectulation. Example: Can you tell me the size of a meteor it would take to wipe out life?


There was no matter right after the Big Bang. Matter formed afterwards as energy condensed.

Next, only igneous rocks (ie rocks that solidified after being completely melted) can be reliably dated. Through this we can find the markers of when our solar system formed by dating the first rocks to solidify, meteors.

Example: What would be the size and speed travel limit of a meteor that could strike the earth and not wipe out life? What would be the upper limit of one that would wipe out life?


There was one 5 miles in diameter that wiped out 90% of species on Earth. It left a crater that was over 100 miles in diameter. I think that one could have easily done it. "Smaller" strikes would have darkened the sky world wide. Secondly, meteor strikes create tektites which can be easily dated using modern radiometric methodologies so we know that they have been spread throughout Earth's supposedly "faked" history.

If you can't answers these questions, with observable facts, then the question itself becomes speculation on your part.
Are you so sure? That statement you made actually gives the possibility of the statement in the O.P. (original post). Age without history of things that never happened. Like Adam and Eve never had been babies. All things in our universe dating differently (even though they all supposetly came from the samething, the big bang rock). etc....

View Post


First, answer my question to see if we are on the same page.

Would God give Adam scars from injuries that Adam never suffered?

If not, then why would he do it for the Earth and the rest of the universe?

#12 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 03:41 PM

Are you speaking of the lines left in the hand due to how the skin creases? Or are you speaking of some type of palm reading (history told through divination), which is witchcraft?

I think you better clarify this. Because if it's some sort of witchcraft your trying to push here, you will be banned for it.

#13 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:48 PM

Generations:
descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
account of men and their descendants
genealogical list of one's descendants
one's contemporaries
course of history (of creation etc)
begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

View Post


OK, I'll accept your meaning of "generations".

In which case, it seems to me that the phrase "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth" is still referring back to Gen 1, and is making an analogy to the individual days of creation as "generations". The line says "THESE are....", so it must be referring back to something that was already said. And (as i said before) the use of "IN the day" rather than "ON the day" means something like "in the time of"

Once again, I don't see how you interpret any of this as indicating "created with the appearance of age". Seems to me you are resorting to conjecture/assumptions/guesses that are just not indicated by the text.

BTW, I don't know Method at all, but I'm pretty sure he is not referring to witchcraft, given his worldview. :)

#14 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:57 PM

Actually, that was from a bible program I have. I think it was from strong's definitions. There are several books in this program, can't remember which one I got this one from.

And about method. It's up to him to clarify the meaning.

And about world view. We are finding alot of members not being truthful in this area. So I take it with a grain of salt on what's claimed. I look at how they post, and what they say to determine what they claim.

#15 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:15 PM

Actually, that was from a bible program I have. I think it was from strong's definitions. There are several books in this program, can't remember which one I got this one from.


Still don't see where the "appearance of age" interpretation comes from.

Were you just throwing this idea out for discussion, or is it an interpretation that you subscribe to?

#16 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 11:05 PM

Well first you have to understand that YEC believes the reference to day in Genesis is 24 hours. Then you take the verse that says: Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Which more or less says that generations of heaven and earth were created in the "day" (one day) that God made the earth and the heavens. So how do you make generations (look of old) in one day? Unless you have an ability to control time through living in eternity. For if eternity were the same, then we would be able to see it and test it.

Are there not theories of different time deminsions, but yet not provable? Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity can be used to actually prove that time travel is possible. Einstein’s theories predict that the faster a spacecraft moves, the slower time ticks inside of it. This is called time dilation.
Here's a neat website with even a java script program showing how time dilation might work.
http://www.walter-fe...imedilation.htm

So if time dilation works through speed, what if eternity acheives a speed where time no longer exists? Where a being like God, who has the power to create, could create in 6 days because of this control over time. What we see as impossible, God could do by just speaking it into existance. And this would include the age needed for each object to work with the other.

Here are some more links:
http://hyperphysics....lativ/tdil.html
http://www.fourmilab...p/timedial.html
http://www.phys.unsw...u/~jw/time.html

For we would not know the laws or limitations of this until we are able to acheive it.
There are even tests going on to prove time dilation at low speeds.
http://www.btinterne.../SR/sr4/sr4.htm

Here are some animations of what it would look like.
http://www.anu.edu.a...te/Seminar.html

#17 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:46 AM

Are you speaking of the lines left in the hand due to how the skin creases? Or are you speaking of some type of palm reading (history told through divination), which is witchcraft?

I think you better clarify this. Because if it's some sort of witchcraft your trying to push here, you will be banned for it.

View Post


I am not trying to spread witchcraft. Let's take my right pinky finger, for example. It has two scars the lateral sides. I got these scars when someone threw some scaffolding onto the side of a truck where I had my hand resting. Those scars have a history. As everyone gets older we all amass a few scars here and there, and those scars represent a history of what has happened to our body.

The question is whether or not God would give Adam these types of scars even though Adam never suffered the injuries to leave those scars. This would be giving Adam the appearance of having a history of injuries. The Earth DOES have these scars in the form of large meteor impacts. Not only that, but the ratio of isotopes in rocks gives the rocks a history of radioactive decay. These features are not required for the earth to function, or for a needed appearance of age. These are scars that give the appearance of a long history, a history that you claim that God faked.

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:52 PM

But the bible doesn't say god made the world that way.  If you are a biblical literalist, it's just conjecture.  If you're a scientist, it's an unfounded assertion that cannot be tested in any way.

View Post


This is a double standard. Scientists make unfounded assertions all the time, especially in regard to biological and astronomical evolution. Case in point the big bang. If it wasn't conjecture, it wouldn't be so easy to find secular scientists who say it's conjecture:

www.cosmologystatement.org

#19 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:56 PM

...  The Earth DOES have these scars in the form of large meteor impacts.  Not only that, but the ratio of isotopes in rocks gives the rocks a history of radioactive decay.  These features are not required for the earth to function, or for a needed appearance of age.  These are scars that give the appearance of a long history...

View Post


Do you agree your argument is completely reliant on on the assumption of constant radioactive decay? If radioactive clocks can be reset by some global catastrophe, as plenty of evolutionists acknowledge is possible, it completely invalidates your argument.

Fred

#20 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:38 PM

This is a double standard. Scientists make unfounded assertions all the time, especially in regard to biological and astronomical evolution. Case in point the big bang. If it wasn't conjecture, it wouldn't be so easy to find secular scientists who say it's conjecture:

www.cosmologystatement.org

View Post


Wrong. The Big Bang, evolution, and most other scientific theories are supported by evidence (the background radiation in the universe, for example, for the Big Bang). In some cases the evidence may not be very strong, and the theories may have many holes in them, or even be wrong.

But even the weakest accepted theories have some evidence behind them, and some predictive power. "The appearance of age argument" has NO hard evidence for it. It is 100% conjecture, totally untestable.

By the way, I think you should reread your link. It doesn't say the Big Bang is "conjecture"; not even close. What it says is that those particular scientists think the theory may be wrong, and that other potential theories deserve more research.

Sounds like good old-fashioned scientific debate going on there. That's the way science works.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users