Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

You have never explained how age was "embedded" into the universe.

Ex nihilo --- now I have.

 

[lucaspa]

Creationists do not consider plants to really be living, because they do not have the "breath of life." This is nonsense, of course, since plants are living organisms by every definition of the term. They even undergo respiration and therefore do "breath," in a sense.

I wasn't addressing the plants. I was addressing the people. Why would they have to eat if they weren't going to die? What's the purpose of eating? What happens if we don't eat? We die!

The other problem I have with this "no death before the Fall" concept is that God threw Adam out of the garden to keep him from eating of the Tree of Life and thereby becoming immortal (apparently, this only became a possibility after Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge first). If he was already immortal, this would hardly have been a concern.

I know. I used this in a post to Amvet. A problem with Biblical literalism is that it is internally inconsistent. They discard literalism when it doesn't fit their human, preconceived theology.

According to most Creationists, God's perfect creation went bad because Adam disobeyed God. The logic is that creation existed only to serve Adam and when he sinned it corrupted all of creation. Why God didn't prevent this (as He must have forseen it) is beyond me, but has something to do with free-will.

I know their position. Remember, I'm pointing out arguments against it. One argument is Genesis 3:14-19. We have the conseqeunces God allowed to creation. They are very specific and very limited.

Paul tried to make a non-scriptural theology where the consequences of the Fall are more universal. Paul did this so that he could tie Jesus to the OT for the gentiles he was preaching to. Paul wanted the gentiles to accept the Torah, so he made up this excuse to do so.

 

[lucaspa]

Fair enough, Lucapsa.

You have your "bible" --- I have mine.

It looks like we're both Sola Scriptura, eh?

(Or solo scriptura, as someone liked to call me.

The problem is that you worship your "bible". I don't.

Do you know what sola scriptura means? Luther introduced the term. In his day the Church said that you had to have the intercession of priests in order to find God; you couldn't find Him on your own.

Luther (and Calvin and the other Reformers) said that each person could find God on his/her own. All you needed as a guide to find God was scripture -- sola scripture -- only scripture was needed, not priests. That's why they translated the scripture into the existing languages.

What we have now in Biblical literalism is sola scriptura on steroids and crack. The idea is that if you only need scripture, then scripture must be inerrant. This means that instead of having other means of knowing God -- such as the Holy Spirit or Creation -- people are supposed to listen scripture. In practice, it means that you listen to the people who tell you what scripture says.

So we have come full circle. Luther used sola scriptura to free us from the tyranny of human priests. Biblical literalists use sola scriptura to bind us to the tryanny of literalist ministers.

 

[lucaspa]

Ex nihilo --- now I have.

That doesn't explain anything. You say God created everything ex nihilo -- from nothing -- in a 6 day period. But He did so in such a way that parts of creation LOOKS like it has been around for millions/billions of years longer than other parts.

How is that different from Oomphalos? You still have God creating everything from nothing but with an appearance of age it doesn't have to have.

 

[Baggins]

Indeed --- I plead "guilty as charged".

("Peculiar" is a better word, though.)



As for you, this applies:

[bible]1 Corinthians 3:19[/bible]

It doesn't apply because your god doesn't exist.

I can't think of any nice way of dressing that up, but that is what I believe, you may as well be quoting the Silmarillion for the effect it has on me.

 

[Jet Black]

Jack, you are confusing nature TODAY with nature YESTERDAY.

Nature today is far different than it was in Genesis 1, before the Fall.

you're not going to tell us that there was a split, and that light works differently now and in the future we will all be flying round the universe in sapphire thrones, and living in a 10km square cube made of gold...... are you?

 

[lucaspa]

It doesn't apply because your god doesn't exist.

I can't think of any nice way of dressing that up, but that is what I believe, you may as well be quoting the Silmarillion for the effect it has on me.

Baggins, I would ask that you are careful to make that first statement one of belief. You did say "that is what I believe", which did correct the misimpression you were stating a fact rather than belief.

Also, don't make this personal. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Therefore, Avvet's idea is either accurate or inaccurate regardless of whether it has an effect on you.

You need to argue against the idea. In this case, the argument is that he took 1 Corinthians 3:19 out of context. Paul is arguing against Apollos, a minister that disagrees with Paul. Apollos came to the Corinthian church and contradicted Paul. Paul is trying to get the people back. If you continue in the chapter, you find:

"Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's."

Avvet is using the verse exactly opposite of what Paul intended. He wants us to listen to him, not to what God tells us in His Creation.

By the way, 1 Corinthian 3:18 says "Let no man deceive himself." We are all arguing that Avvet is deceiving himself 1) that his literal reading of Genesis is the correct interpretation and 2) God created the universe such that it only looks old.

 

[Baggins]

Baggins, I would ask that you are careful to make that first statement one of belief. You did say "that is what I believe", which did correct the misimpression you were stating a fact rather than belief.

Also, don't make this personal. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Therefore, Avvet's idea is either accurate or inaccurate regardless of whether it has an effect on you.

You need to argue against the idea. In this case, the argument is that he took 1 Corinthians 3:19 out of context. Paul is arguing against Apollos, a minister that disagrees with Paul. Apollos came to the Corinthian church and contradicted Paul. Paul is trying to get the people back. If you continue in the chapter, you find:

"Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's."

Avvet is using the verse exactly opposite of what Paul intended. He wants us to listen to him, not to what God tells us in His Creation.

By the way, 1 Corinthian 3:18 says "Let no man deceive himself." We are all arguing that Avvet is deceiving himself 1) that his literal reading of Genesis is the correct interpretation and 2) God created the universe such that it only looks old.

I was really just addressing his point aimed at me from the bible.

Quoting the bible at me is as pointless as quoting the Silmarillion, I think both are the work of men/a man, and neither is the result of divine inspiration. He was basically just using the bible to call me stupid, well sticks and stones, and it is not as if I don't think the reverse is true

His idea , which I would label as the Omphalos hypothesis ( although he is in denial about this ) is not disprovable, in as much as Last Thursdayism can't be disproved.

 

[atomweaver]

Since embedded age and actual age are indistinguishable, of what use is the idea of embedded age to any study of purely natural phenomena?

I think maybe the Bible was created with embedded youth, instead...

 

[Loudmouth]

Ex nihilo --- now I have.

Let's get to the heart (or belly) of the issue. Did Adam have a bellybutton?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

you're not going to tell us that there was a split, and that light works differently now and in the future we will all be flying round the universe in sapphire thrones, and living in a 10km square cube made of gold...... are you?

Don't frget the Egyptian hieroglyphs that PROVE there was a flood... they have boats in!

 

[funyun]

Nevermind.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I am God.

No one can disprove this, because the only way you all can see me is through my word that is this post.

And it is wrong to question God.

 

[Freodin]

I see that AV1611VET still confuses "age" and "apperance of age".

A hypothetical question for you:

If I was to create (ex nihilo, if you want) a coin stamped "1807".... would that mean that I created this coin with an embedded age of 200 years?

 

[five]

Dear AV6etc,


you're so wrong at everything you say. Please discontinue.

- God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's get to the heart (or belly) of the issue. Did Adam have a bellybutton?

In my opinion --- no.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see that AV1611VET still confuses "age" and "apperance of age".

A hypothetical question for you:

If I was to create (ex nihilo, if you want) a coin stamped "1807".... would that mean that I created this coin with an embedded age of 200 years?

No.

 

[Freodin]

No.

Why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not?

He wasn't born --- he was created. Also, it would serve as a powerful testimony to his progeny of who he was.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that you worship your "bible". I don't.

Indeed you do:

[bible]Romans 1:25[/bible]