Adam and Eve

[AV1611VET]

"History", in his view, does not mean the recording of events, but the events themselves.

"History" is not even a viable word in Genesis 1:1.

There is no history --- of any kind, shape, or definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV first claimed, based on the presence or (assumed) absence of navels that:-

Hopefully I've simplified this by using just Genesis 1:1.

There were no navels in Genesis 1:1.

 

[Jazmyn]

A good point. AVET has never been able to explain why it was necessary, or even useful, to "embed" age into the earth when it was first made, just to make it "mature" for Adam to live on. Nor has he explained what it means to "embed" age into something.

Well the earth, mountains weathered and eroded and old trees and woods etc, sand, rocks with added moss and pebbles that didn't have to spend ages being eroded before they got there, probably look a lot prettier and more mysterious than everything being brand shiny new, ie. spiky, not very tall and barren.

 

[Jazmyn]

Hopefully I've simplified this by using just Genesis 1:1.

There were no navels in Genesis 1:1.

The pre-incarnate Christ was there. What if He had a navel?

 

[AV1611VET]

The pre-incarnate Christ was there. What if He had a navel?

Did you know that a navel is a scar?

 

[Wirmussen]

Did you know that a navel is a scar?

So you are assuming that he couldn't have had a scar?

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock, I hope you don't mind.

I'm going to quote your post, with my answers in red inserted.

This should make answering it easier.

The words in red are mine, not yours.

Fine. Then how do you explain the fact that 6,000 years is NOT enough time for all that earth history to unfold between Genesis 1 and today? Answer: Your model is wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

Well the earth, mountains weathered and eroded and old trees and woods etc, sand, rocks with added moss and pebbles that didn't have to spend ages being eroded before they got there, probably look a lot prettier and more mysterious than everything being brand shiny new, ie. spiky, not very tall and barren.

Are you claiming that God could not make pebbles without "embedding" age into them??

 

[Freodin]

"History" is not even a viable word in Genesis 1:1.

There is no history --- of any kind, shape, or definition.

So how does that hypothetical you-Adam date this certain rock you-he picked up to 800,000,000 years?

And why do you agree with him?

 

[laconicstudent]

I'd also like to know how the Great Barrier Reef is the size it is. Biologists estimate that it would have required several million years to grow to its current size.

 

[laconicstudent]

Well the earth, mountains weathered and eroded and old trees and woods etc, sand, rocks with added moss and pebbles that didn't have to spend ages being eroded before they got there, probably look a lot prettier and more mysterious than everything being brand shiny new, ie. spiky, not very tall and barren.

So in the interest of making things "prettier", God created a world that is deceptive. Fascinating. Some of us don't believe our God works to deliberately deceive us in the name of something as petty as aesthetics.

 

[Wedjat]

fossils aren't needed to make a pretty landscape.

 

[Mike Elphick]

You see, without 'history', you are blind to the processes that might have been taking place whilst the object has been aging.

Okay --- Mike --- let's simplify this even further.

Let's just use Genesis 1:1 --- and we'll skip the whole rest of the chapter.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now --- let's take a look at what we have:

TERRA AQUA​

This is how the earth looks after Genesis 1:1, and before Genesis 1:2.

Ah! witnesssmarbles.com, what a wonderfully informative evangelical site! Ok, I won't quibble about your picture being of a marble with a highlight, neither of there being no light at the time to see it by and nor why there is no heaven - but in those days, didn't they believe the earth was flat?

And you're wrong about it being Terra Aqua (a ball of water) - in Genesis 1 it's described as a water-covered solid earth:-

Genesis 1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Is this why we were supposed to "skip the whole rest of the chapter"?

This ball of sea water is 4.57 billion years old, and yet, 1 second before Genesis 1:1, this ball of water did not exist.

This is a version of the young earth creation Omphalos hypothesis in which God supposedly created the world with the appearance of age and made it look like things that never actually happened did happen (e.g. animals becoming buried and fossilised). By 'appearance' and 'look' I mean an ancient state or condition that is indistinguishable from real age.

Genesis implies that Adam and Eve were created as mature people. That had to be, because growing up requires parenting, so they appeared older than they really were, but why was it necessary to add several billion years to the apparent age of the earth?

I put it to you: this is no more that a creationist tale to explain why the history of the Bible does not accord with modern scientific findings. And it's not actually about belly buttons.

The amount of mass/energy in the entire universe at this point consists of the amount of mass/energy in this ball of water.

No. The universe is never actually mentioned in Genesis. Concerning mass and energy, please provide some figures to back up your claim, or show us where any of this is mentioned in Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how do you explain the fact that 6,000 years is NOT enough time for all that earth history to unfold between Genesis 1 and today?

QV my first point here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mike, I'm going to answer this post with respect to how I asked my question --- not how you're adding to it.

Again, my answers are in red --- I hope you don't mind the format.

...but in those days, didn't they believe the earth was flat?

Who? I don't see any flat-earthers in Genesis 1:1.

And you're wrong about it being Terra Aqua (a ball of water) - in Genesis 1 it's described as a water-covered solid earth:-

Not in Genesis 1:1, it isn't.



Is this why we were supposed to "skip the whole rest of the chapter"?

No, you're supposed to skip the whole rest of the chapter so you can focus on the point I'm making.

Genesis implies that Adam and Eve were created as mature people. That had to be, because growing up requires parenting, so they appeared older than they really were, but why was it necessary to add several billion years to the apparent age of the earth?

Who are Adam and Eve?

 

[Mike Elphick]

"History" is not even a viable word in Genesis 1:1.

There is no history --- of any kind, shape, or definition.

Hopefully I've simplified this by using just Genesis 1:1.

There were no navels in Genesis 1:1.

Mike, I'm going to answer this post with respect to how I asked my question --- not how you're adding to it.

Again, my answers are in red --- I hope you don't mind the format.

...but in those days, didn't they believe the earth was flat?

Who? I don't see any flat-earthers in Genesis 1:1.

And you're wrong about it being Terra Aqua (a ball of water) - in Genesis 1 it's described as a water-covered solid earth:-

Not in Genesis 1:1, it isn't.

Is this why we were supposed to "skip the whole rest of the chapter"?

No, you're supposed to skip the whole rest of the chapter so you can focus on the point I'm making.

Genesis implies that Adam and Eve were created as mature people. That had to be, because growing up requires parenting, so they appeared older than they really were, but why was it necessary to add several billion years to the apparent age of the earth?

Who are Adam and Eve?

So what? I've got another book. The first page reads:-

Roger Penrose
THE ROAD TO REALITY
A Complete Guide to the Laws
of the Universe

There is no history on this page, there is no mention of navels, no flat-earthers, no ball of water and no Adam and Eve.

you're supposed to skip the whole rest of the chapter so you can focus on the point I'm making

So what exactly is your point? That a sentence of ten words has explanatory limitations?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Not in Genesis 1.
<...>
Not in Genesis 1.
<...>
Not in Genesis 1.
<...>
Not in Genesis 1.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Spacewyrm]

AV1611VET, do you have a belly button?

 

[Cabal]

AV1611VET, do you have a belly button?

He has an embedded post count?

 

[Split Rock]

Using the Bible to calculate time, one concludes that the earth has gone around the sun roughly 6100 times. This is much too short a timespan for evolution to have occurred.

Then you have two choices.

1. The Earth is actually far older than what is implied by a counting up of the geneologies in the Old Testament.

2. Your Embedded Age model is Wrong.

Which is it?