Rocks formed naturally vs Rocks created by God in Genesis 1

[JimR-OCDS]

Sounds like Catholics haven't learned to revise their own debates...

Correction- The catholic church curated the Latin collection of Holy books. The Catholic church did not "give us" the bible. With that logic basically the Ethiopian Church created the bible first, not Rome.

The Old testament is the Jewish Torah, and the New Testament is a collection of books from the apostles. It has nothing to do with White European Catholicism.

There was only one Church founded by Jesus Christ and it was called the Catholic Church. The word "Catholic" means universal.

The Church established the Old and New Testament canons of the Bible. The Old Testament which was used by the early
Christian Church was the Septuagint version which was for Greek speaking Jews. The Jewish Rabbinical School after the 70AD
dysphoria kept only the Hebrew translation as it had less connection to the Christians. 80% of the quotes in the NT
referencing the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls found both the Hebrew
translation and the Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament. In other words, the Septuagint was valid 150 years before
Christ.

The Latin Codex didn't come about until St Jerome translated the Greek manuscripts into Latin. This was done because
the Church had grown in the West and the common language was Latin at that time. Wycliffe was the first to translate
the Latin Codex into English and even then, the first translations were mere glosses or portions of the Latin Vulgate.

I'm not a Scripture Scholar but most who are, exist in the Catholic Church and always have been.
I'll listen to them before a participant in a social media internet forum like this.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A simple alternative to explaining the carbon-dating flaw is the fact that our Scientific knowledge of rock formation is limited to how they are formed now on their own; either igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks, a slow process and build-up of rocks over time, from volcanos, sea beds, heat and pressure...naturally formed on their own over a long period.

View attachment 331309

But the imperative for carbon dating disregards whether the first rock formation had a creator altogether.
Were the first Rocks formed within a day? That's the question, the next question is how do we measure the initial earth rocks that were formed in Genesis 1?

A rock formed in a day by an Omnipotent-Being does not show measurable results on a simplified carbon-14 apparatus. Technically nothing, can form naturally on its own in a day, especially a rock.


View attachment 331311

View attachment 331312

We can't measure the supernatural (definition: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature).

So Scientists base their Hypothesis on "what if" there was no creator, how would things exist naturally?


Overall, the same theory on our "evolution", if God didn't create humans in a day, then the hypothesis is how are we formed naturally, scientists theorise that this type of chance requires "millions of years of evolution". That's how complex creation is, it's an attempt to comprehend the supernatural, but without a creator.

As much as they want us to assume it is, Evolutionary science isn't an argument against Creation, it's a theory on a world and universe without a God.
Every Scientific hypothesis is based on the formulated template – "If there's no God, how did we get here?".

There is a difference between something constructed over a long period of time by a designer/creator, and something formed by spontaneous evolution brought on by chance. Because God works outside of our space-time continuum, He is not limited by our measurement of time. In fact He created time. Therefore there is no problem with him creating rocks by an instant miraculous process in His own reality, while in our reality where time exists, they could have taken billions of our years in the process of creation.

The problem arises when people think that God created the cosmos from within our time-based reality. If He had, then it should have been a miraculous process over 6 24 hour days, but if in fact that He created from His own reality outside our time based continuum, then what would be instant for Him, could very well take billions of years in our space time dimension.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I hold to a loose form of Theistic Evolution.
I most certainly believe in God, Christ, creation, and science too!

I would call it Theistic Construction rather than Evolution. Evolution is a spontaneous process brought about by Deism, where God stands back while everything happens. Theistic Construction means that God is actively involved in forming the cosmos at each stage of its creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Humanity is no more intelligent now than it was thousands of years ago.

Well, that's a testable assumption...

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect​

You’ve probably heard someone lament the state of “kids today”: that current generations aren’t as smart as the ones that came before them. However, psychologists who study intelligence have found that there isn’t much support for this idea; instead, the opposite may actually be true. Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually improved over time. Below, we’ll review what the Flynn effect is, some possible explanations for it, and what it tells us about human intelligence.

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect

Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually increased over time.

www.thoughtco.com

Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"

Flynn effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, that's a testable assumption...

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect​

You’ve probably heard someone lament the state of “kids today”: that current generations aren’t as smart as the ones that came before them. However, psychologists who study intelligence have found that there isn’t much support for this idea; instead, the opposite may actually be true. Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually improved over time. Below, we’ll review what the Flynn effect is, some possible explanations for it, and what it tells us about human intelligence.

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect

Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually increased over time.

www.thoughtco.com

Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"

Flynn effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is interesting that modern astronomers use the data collected by the ancient Egyptians concerning the cosmos and positions of stars to compare with where the same stars are today. What this means is that the ancient Egyptians were far more intelligent and knowledgeable about the planets and stars when what we might think. Much of that knowledge was suppressed by the Medieval Church, and is now being rediscovered.

In view of how even atheistic scientists are discovering about the nature of the cosmos, many are saying that there is overwhelming evidence of design, which means that there is a designer who has infinitely more intelligence and power than we can imagine. This is why many prominent scientists are moving away from spontaneous evolution in favour of designed construction.

However, scientific evidence of an old earth is stronger than a young one, and that many theologians are coming to the conclusion that we must take notice of two books - The Bible, and the book of nature and neither contradicts the other.

What this means concerning the rocks, is that instead of occurring naturally by chance, they were constructed by design over billions of years as the earth was formed.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is interesting that modern astronomers use the data collected by the ancient Egyptians concerning the cosmos and positions of stars to compare with where the same stars are today. What this means is that the ancient Egyptians were far more intelligent and knowledgeable about the planets and stars when what we might think. Much of that knowledge was suppressed by the Medieval Church, and is now being rediscovered.

Maybe more than someone unacquainted with the history of science might think. The science of classical civilization was lost to Europe during the dark ages, but was kept alive by Muslims.

 

[The Barbarian]

In view of how even atheistic scientists are discovering about the nature of the cosmos, many are saying that there is overwhelming evidence of design,

"Intelligent Design" has pretty much crashed and burned, as evidence continues to show that the universe developed from a very few simple rules (or maybe just one). God is a lot smarter than many creationists are comfortable with. As I said, engineers are starting to use evolutionary processes to solve very difficult problems that resist design solutions.

What this means concerning the rocks, is that instead of occurring naturally by chance, they were constructed by design over billions of years as the earth was formed.

Natural laws are not by chance. Michael Denton was one of the fellows of the now-defunct Discovery Institute. Here's his more recent thinking:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton Nature's Destiny

 

[Aussie Pete]

It is interesting that modern astronomers use the data collected by the ancient Egyptians concerning the cosmos and positions of stars to compare with where the same stars are today. What this means is that the ancient Egyptians were far more intelligent and knowledgeable about the planets and stars when what we might think. Much of that knowledge was suppressed by the Medieval Church, and is now being rediscovered.

In view of how even atheistic scientists are discovering about the nature of the cosmos, many are saying that there is overwhelming evidence of design, which means that there is a designer who has infinitely more intelligence and power than we can imagine. This is why many prominent scientists are moving away from spontaneous evolution in favour of designed construction.

However, scientific evidence of an old earth is stronger than a young one, and that many theologians are coming to the conclusion that we must take notice of two books - The Bible, and the book of nature and neither contradicts the other.

What this means concerning the rocks, is that instead of occurring naturally by chance, they were constructed by design over billions of years as the earth was formed.

There is also the possibility of a pre-Adamic creation, which is my personal view. It's also known as the gap theory. I believe that the earth was not originally formless and empty. I believe that Satan, as Lucifer, ruled that era until he rebelled against God. His fall brought about catastrophe so that the earth was described as formless and empty. It's one possibility that fits what we know. Is it correct? We will find out one day.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well, that's a testable assumption...

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect​

You’ve probably heard someone lament the state of “kids today”: that current generations aren’t as smart as the ones that came before them. However, psychologists who study intelligence have found that there isn’t much support for this idea; instead, the opposite may actually be true. Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually improved over time. Below, we’ll review what the Flynn effect is, some possible explanations for it, and what it tells us about human intelligence.

An Introduction to the Flynn Effect

Researchers studying the Flynn effect have found that scores on IQ tests have actually increased over time.

www.thoughtco.com

Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'"

Flynn effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we have now is vast amounts of knowledge that the ancients did not have. A Greek measured the circumference of the earth within a few kilometres, inventing a form of maths to do so. (About 300 BC). In my book, that's as intelligent as it gets. We have kids coming out of school believing that the earth is flat or that you can choose your gender. That is as dumb as it gets. I don't trust IQ tests. I am now amazed when someone can work out change without going to the calculator or computer. When I congratulated a McDonalds employee for that, she said, "I'm older than I look".

I do not believe that the human mind evolves, so it will not improve. Knowledge gathers at an exponential rate, and when there are more minds there is a greater rate of increase in knowledge. That does not mean greater intelligence.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There is also the possibility of a pre-Adamic creation, which is my personal view. It's also known as the gap theory. I believe that the earth was not originally formless and empty. I believe that Satan, as Lucifer, ruled that era until he rebelled against God. His fall brought about catastrophe so that the earth was described as formless and empty. It's one possibility that fits what we know. Is it correct? We will find out one day.

As well as being formless and void, it was totally covered by water. Unless Lucifer's rule was aquatic, it seems fairly improbable.

 

[The Barbarian]

What we have now is vast amounts of knowledge that the ancients did not have. A Greek measured the circumference of the earth within a few kilometres, inventing a form of maths to do so. (About 300 BC).

No. The math used to determine the circumference of the Earth was developed over a long time by Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek mathematicians. For Eratosthenes, the brilliant moment was realizing the relative positions of Alexandria and Scyene on the Earth made it possible to use the sun's inclination in each place on a given day, to compute that circumference. The math was routine.

I am now amazed when someone can work out change without going to the calculator or computer. When I congratulated a McDonalds employee for that, she said, "I'm older than I look".

Being able to do math in one's head is generational. So is knowing how to use a digital coupon. But it doesn't have to be. My millennial daughter can do both. So can I.

I do not believe that the human mind evolves, so it will not improve.

The Flynn effect shows that it does improve. This isn't biological evolution, but culture. Human minds evolving require brains to change as they have over various species of humans in the distant past. The fact that people are generally smarter today than in the 1800s is a matter of learning to use what we have, not biological evolution.

Edit: It's clear that the increase in intelligence over the last hundred years or so, is mostly a matter of better using the potential of the brain, than of any actual change in allele frequencies in the human population. This is an example of exaption, a trait that evolved as a result of some other adaptation, and only secondarily became useful.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As well as being formless and void, it was totally covered by water. Unless Lucifer's rule was aquatic, it seems fairly improbable.

God judged the earth by flood in Noah's time. Why should the same not apply in a prior creation? And why would God create something formless, empty and flooded? If you want to study this further, "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee is a good place to start.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God judged the earth by flood in Noah's time. Why should the same not apply in a prior creation? And why would God create something formless, empty and flooded? If you want to study this further, "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee is a good place to start.

In Job 38, it says that the earth was totally covered by water and surrounded by thick clouds making it darkness underneath. Actually Job 38 gives a clearer description of creation, supplementing Genesis 1. The book of Job is the oldest book of the Bible and it predates the Exodus by at least 400 years, before Israel settled in Egypt. This is why Moses didn't give a full description of the first days of creation, because there was no need seeing that he already knew what the author of Job had already written. This shows that Scripture supplements, complement, and interprets Scripture.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

God judged the earth by flood in Noah's time. Why should the same not apply in a prior creation? And why would God create something formless, empty and flooded? If you want to study this further, "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee is a good place to start.

Good point.
Isaiah said He in fact did not created it without form, and in fact created it in a format that was habitable. A plug and play earth.

Isaiah 45:18
King James Version
18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

The "vain" here is the same word in Genesis 1:2 translated "without form."

Genesis 1:2 KJV
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He did not created it without form and void. The earth of Gen 1:1 was habitable.
So what happened to the habitable earth He created in Gen 1:1?

Gappers answer the question by the pre-adamic earth concept. The fall of satan and the angels caused tremendous chaos on the earth. Dake suggested that it was turned upside down.

The 6 day "creation" is actually a recreation, or a reforming.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Good point.
Isaiah said He in fact did not created it without form, and in fact created it in a format that was habitable. A plug and play earth.

Isaiah 45:18
King James Version
18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

The "vain" here is the same word in Genesis 1:2 translated "without form."

Genesis 1:2 KJV
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He did not created it without form and void. The earth of Gen 1:1 was habitable.
So what happened to the habitable earth He created in Gen 1:1?

Gappers answer the question by the pre-adamic earth concept. The fall of satan and the angels caused tremendous chaos on the earth. Dake suggested that it was turned upside down.

The 6 day "creation" is actually a recreation, or a reforming.

Job 38: 4-11

Good point.
Isaiah said He in fact did not created it without form, and in fact created it in a format that was habitable. A plug and play earth.

Isaiah 45:18
King James Version
18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

The "vain" here is the same word in Genesis 1:2 translated "without form."

Genesis 1:2 KJV
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He did not created it without form and void. The earth of Gen 1:1 was habitable.
So what happened to the habitable earth He created in Gen 1:1?

Gappers answer the question by the pre-adamic earth concept. The fall of satan and the angels caused tremendous chaos on the earth. Dake suggested that it was turned upside down.

The 6 day "creation" is actually a recreation, or a reforming.

Job 38:8-11
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

This is the link between Genesis 1:1 when it says that the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters.

This is more reliable than the speculation about might have been during a pre-adamic earth concept. The Bible is silent about that, and it is quite risky to add to God's Word with speculations that God hasn't said to us. In Job 38, where the description of God creating the heavens and the earth is older by at least 400 years than Moses' description in Genesis, we have to take both Job 38 and Genesis 1 together to get an appreciation of God creating the cosmos.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Job 38: 4-11

Job 38:8-11
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

This is the link between Genesis 1:1 when it says that the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters.

This is more reliable than the speculation about might have been during a pre-adamic earth concept. The Bible is silent about that, and it is quite risky to add to God's Word with speculations that God hasn't said to us. In Job 38, where the description of God creating the heavens and the earth is older by at least 400 years than Moses' description in Genesis, we have to take both Job 38 and Genesis 1 together to get an appreciation of God creating the cosmos.

It is very simple. Most, if not all, translators use the word "was" formless and void. The early versions of the NIV study bible had a margin alternative, "possibly, became". I don't know why "was" is used any more than I understand why the word "baptise" is used instead of the actual translation, which is immerse.

The word "became" is an acceptable translation and fits the narrative. It's the same word used when Lot's wife "became" a pillar of salt. She did not start out that way. Likewise, the earth did not start out formless and empty. Or so many believe. It is no more speculation to say that the earth became formless and void than it is to assume that God created it formless and empty in the first place.