The historicity of Adam

[Gxg (G²)]

I have heard variations from pious Orthodox that range from literal Genesis to God taking an early hominid and imbuing it with a soul. Even heard an argument that those hominids were a source of spouses for Adam's children since incest was forbidden.

I was able to find this much on the subject, from Kallistos Ware:

• Kallistos Ware - Orthodoxy and Evolution
• DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism

From what I understand, it seems that the Orthodox Church/the Church Fathers were very complicated when it comes to what they stated as it concerns how it's easy to see patterns toward the allegorical and not being 100% literal in all things. - more at Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice.

As far as I can see, the Fathers NEVER held to the stance which YEC have today when seeing the world made in a literal 24-hour day mindset - even though they held to the concept of a Young Earth - and that is the nature of what others have already pointed out when it came to their views of instantaneous creation.

This is also seen in Augustine, whose doctrine of creation was complex. For all matter, according to him, was created on the first day. Subsequently God created pregnant ideas that Augustine called rationes seminales, which were imbedded in creation. Some only came to fruition afterwards, even, it might be argued, after the Fall. For Augustine , he thought that God could even have catered for the eventuality of the Fall of man into sin and the subsequent curse.

Excerpt from Augustine's "On Genesis" Book II "Question of the phase in which the moon was made" 15, 30

"God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its natural development through periods of time that are suited to it, it contained it beforehand as something hidden, if not in specific forms and bodily mass, at least by the force and reckoning of nature, unless of course a tree, void of fruit and stripped of its leaves throughout the winter, is then to be called imperfect, or unless again at its origins, when it had still not yet borne any fruit, its nature was also imperfect. It is not only about the tree, but about its seed also that this could not rightly be said; there everything that with the passage of time is somehow or other going to appear is already latent in invisible ways. Although, if God were to make anything imperfect, which he then would himself bring to perfection, what would be reprehensible about such an idea? But you would be quite within your rights to disapprove if what had been begun by him were said to be completed and perfected by another."
​

The philosophical underpinnings of evolution are present, with others long noting that it should be remembered that we are not talking about changes from one kind to another... but merely a perfection of an existing, undifferentiated type to a more differentiated one.


The father's view on instaneous creation is similar to what has occurred in modern-day views with things. In example, I'm reminded of the view that John Sailhamer wrote in Genesis Unbound or in his other books, which says that all of creation happened in verses 1 and 2.

It may be as old as 4 trillion years, as far as he is concerned, and what was happening in Genesis 1 each day was not the bringing into being of the earth and its various forms, but rather the ordering, managing and structuring of things. And this allows for 24 hour days but also allows for an old earth. Theologian/Pastor John Piper did an EXCELLENT review on the work from Sailhamer on his ministry site - as Dr. John Sailhamer's 1996 book, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Multnomah) is 250 pages of worthwhile reading. For Sailhamer suggests that the word "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 holds within itself the key to a correct reading of the text...as in his view, the word can be understood to refer to the boundless (or not) ages before God "prepared" the Earth for human habitation (as described in Genesis 1:2-2:4) - meaning that the dinosaurs, ice ages, and geological strata can be traced to this "beginning" while the presence of humankind on the earth takes place only after this extended period of "beginning". ....leading to the view that science can rightly deal with this "beginning" period without fearing that faith will be contradicted because it is only with the creation of man and God's preparation of the earth for human habitation that concerns the author of Genesis 1:2-2:4 (taken by Sailhamer to be Moses).

This may seem like an issue to some..

But IMHO, there are many reasons why it doesn't seem to be something we should trip on. Technically, the scriptures already note that day was not always used in a 24 hour sense. For both the Bible and modern science say that God must be eternal and operate in at least two dimensions of time - and the Bible clearly states that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day (Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8).

"And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26) - something that took 3000+ years

And the scripture saying "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)" - which took 900+ years

Moreover, I'm reminded of how scripture says "And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (Genesis 2:2)"

In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest, which continues to this day.

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
​

By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long.

For more, one can go here (As it concerns Old Earth Creationism) and here to day-age interpretation « The GeoChristian

• What is a day? « The GeoChristian
• J.P. Moreland's advice to young-Earth creationists « The GeoChristian

For me, ultimately, I don't see how there's any logical way of escaping the fact that the allegorical interpreters (e. g., Origen and Augustine) did have specific scriptural reasons for rejecting a calendar-day view of Genesis 1...paticularly the fact that the creation days could not be solar days if the Sun was not created until the fourth day. ..and as the seventh creation day is not closed out by the “evening and morning” phrase, it is considered longer than a 24-hour day. And even the so-called “literalist” fathers often relied on nonliteral modes of interpretation in dealing with the Old Testament, such as typology and numerological association (more here, here, here ).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Enormous changes in isolated populations have been observed in very short periods of time (within decades). Taken to 1000s or even 100s of years, this, inevitably, means speciation or "macroevolution."

Even if trying to argue that such events were impossible, from a literalist perspective, I would have to seriously wonder how could one do that in light of what scripture notes?

Specifically, the idea that a species "turning into" another species - say a dinosaur becomes a chicken - is a problem for God seems to me to be no different than saying that it was a problem for God when I went from being a child to an adult, or when the cheese I ate yesterday went from being a bit of a cow to a bit of me.

Things are not less because we do not grasp them wholly, but they are all that we grasp and more. Technically, one does see that principle come into play when the Lord does miracles....defying the laws of nature.

The Exodus Account is one of the greatest examples---as there was much "MUTATION"/Random occurrence...with materials/elements that had absolutely NO connection being SUDDENLY made to connect. Some quick examples, as found in the lengthy account and instructions surrounding the tenth plague and the Exodus (Exodus 11:1-13:16).

Exodus 7
...10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

..7 This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD : With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. 18 The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.' "

​

A Staff turning into another object ENTIRELY like a snake has serious ramifications......and is a continuation of what was said in Exodus 4:1-17 when God first called Moses/told him to throw down his staff and see it transform. The section of Exodus 4:1-17 narrates dialouge between God and Moses regarding the signs He will perform before Israel and Pharoah.....and it is framed by explicit references that will bring Moses' staff info focus. Exodus 4:3-9 goes into depth about the three signs (i.e. the turning of his hand into leprosy, the turning of the staff into a snake and the waters turning into blood)......indicating that the extent of the Lords power over the realm of nature to do things that seem SCIENTIFICALLY impossible

The miracle of turning WATER into Blood was even more of a radical miracle than the turning of a staff info a snake. And as evidenced when it came saying that even in vessels of wood/stone water was turned into blood, the extent of the first plague shows that it cannot be explained simply as the result of natural causes.Its interesting to note that in John 2, Jesus did the same thing with water transmutation..........except that He turned the Water into wine, with no record of his adding anything else to it that was necessary for it to transform as other often had to do when making wine.

For another example Exodus 8:17 and Psalm 105:31 come to mind when the Lord spoke, and there came swarms of flies, and gnats throughout their country....simply from Moses throwing handfuls of dust into the air and seeing it transform. Where is it the case that GNATS are somehow related to Dust---or have the same mechanics as Dust does? Was it necessary for Gnats to be guided step by step into becoming another thing ALTOGETHER? No---as God can do ANYTHING.

There are many other miracles besides this where the natural laws of nature seemed to be violated in order to prove a point. Since the Bible unquestionably teaches that God brought the universe into existence (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6) and that He owns and rules it all by his own Purposes (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 10:14), this certainly would be possible. God can do what seems to be impossible ....and with man going through jumps in his evolution, why would it not be possible?

I must say that there are many reasons for evolution makes logical sense. For we seem to presuppose evolution quite often, even though many find it very inappropriate to "presuppose" common ancestry since we know this to be a fact of life - as Common ancestry is still common ancestry, even without evolution. But how it develops is intriguing in/of itself. Part of me was reminded of amazing creatures such as Pangolins, also known as “scaly anteaters,” due to the scales they posses (and being the only real mammals with scales). With the Pangolin, I had seen such creatures before in books - but never looked much into it after that. Studying them more in action, I was like "God is amazing in how much he can create ." When you look at them, they look like they're in chainmail worn by knights. Mini-soldiers ready for battle. .....

​

Attenborough's Pangolin (Natural World, BBC1 9 Nov '12)

Mammal versions of Rollie Pollie bugs/pillbugs/cellarbugs (with those bugs being what my cousins and I used to play with for hours rolling them ) - and it's a trip that a mammal can have the same features as bugs ..or really crustaceans (as creatures such as pillbugs are terrestial crustaceans and are more closely related to lobsters, shrimp and crayfish ). Of course, for me, it's also amazing to see some of the aspects from Theistic Evolution that come into view when seeing convergent evolution and how certain species - differing as they are - will still share similar traits even in completely differing environments.....evolutionary convergence being the observation that some unrelated groups of animals or plants have, though natural selection, converged on similar “designs” when they find themselves in similar environments. The classic examples are the placental and marsupial mammals (both, for example, have evolved mole-like forms), the vertebrate and cephalopod eyes, the fusiform shape of dolphins, fish, and ichthyosaurs. And to see similarities in species like Pillbugs and Pangolins is no different than seeing how some animals do things others only expect with others - like how in some ways, monotremes are very primitive for mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs rather than having live birth....the only examples being the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) - with it being the case that pangolins are related to the echidna :​

​

Even in knowing what an actual enchinda was, it is amazing when seeing the differences between them and pangolins - and yet the pangolin in its design is a parallel image of itself.​

With Convergent Evolution, although Charles Darwin famously concluded On the Origin of Species with a vision of "endless forms most beautiful" continually evolving, more than 150 years later many evolutionary biologists see not endless forms but the same, or very similar, forms evolving repeatedly in many independent species lineages. For example, a porpoise's fishlike fins are not inherited from fish ancestors but are independently derived convergent traits. ...and the same applies for the Pangolin.

• A Real-Life Example of “Convergent Evolution” | Proslogion
• Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful - Page 142 -
• C.S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design This ... - BioLogos
• Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem - Christian Apologetics UK
• A Theology of Purpose: Creation, Evolution and the Understanding of Purpose - Science and Christian Belief

I appreciate the stance C.S Lewis had with evolution when noting as he did on how much it is misunderstood to be something that destroys Christiantiy if one believes it. To be clear, I am not one who is 100% for anything and everything done in the name of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary theory - as my views have tended to go toward Progressive Creationism (from the larger system of Old Earth Creationism) ​

That said, there are still aspects within Theistic Evolution that I can see having a lot of merit - and so long as Intelligent Design is present, there are many other things I don't have a problem with ultimately. For myself, seeing Pangolins is just a testament to the fact that either evolutionary theory is true ...with it being GOD who's behind spontaneous developments that seem "random" to us when they're in fact planned...or it's the case that God sometimes does things for the sake of humor and to throw us off so we'd not think categories could fully capture his genius. Like some animals he made were done specifically because he said " I think I'll take pillbug and mix it with mammal - just because I can!!" ​

http://animalfacts-pictures.blogspot.com/2011/06/pictures-of-pangolins.html​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My 2 cents to Truthseeker,
I posted earlier that I do believe in a universe that is billions of years old but that science only eventually leads us to death. Jesus Christ is salvation unto eternal life & the Trinity who has created us has worked out this fallen existence to save us. I cannot even claim to fully understand how I can intellectually reconcile this & I understand how you feel. It is the faith & hope in our Lord's salvation to all of us that ultimately calls our conscience to account & allows us to share this hope for anyone but always taking the judgement into account.

I agree

 

[MKJ]

The one point I will concede is that scientism is not really the philosophy behind science, or what any scientist would admit is good philosophy (if and where there are such scientists that truly philosohize at all) - but it IS the philosophy behind the unphilosophical thinking of most scientists, who, as a rule, get their education and upbringing in the most unphilosophical of institutions, public education, reinforced by the mass media. It is precisely true philosophy, the kind not limited to science, in which the overwhelming majority (95% will be no exaggeration and probably understatement) of people, INCLUDING (possibly especially) scientists. I have seen how they are educated as children, MK. I know the forces that shape them (despite your objections to my observations and conclusions on that matter). And I know that they are very explicitly taught scientism by attitude, atmosphere and assumption. I say that scientists themselves are part of the quivering masses you describe.

So in going off on what good there is among the 5% or less - among scientists - that are not so poorly educated does not help us deal with the massive assumptions that have been imposed everywhere by the overwhelming majority, who eagerly accept the mantle of priesthood they have been granted, and will be quite unwilling to give up that level of authority in people's minds. So what you have left to defend is a small percentage of the total, made even smaller as many of them do not accept Christian truth. My educated guess is that you are left with maybe 0.5% of scientists who correctly grasp, at least in general terms, the metaphysical nature of the universe AND philosophize about it, employing both general philosophy and how it relates to science. And such voices are not, generally speaking, heard, nor do their conclusions and interpretations sway or color the whole, which is motivated to seek God in self, to deny authority over us outside of ourselves. I would argue far less with those that you CAN defend.

Science is pretty much never "pure". Not that you say it is, but the implications lean that way.

No, I don't think science is ever pure. I am allso not trying to defend scientists in particular. I am trying to be clear about the way we should understand the processes by which science works, and therefore how we should understand its results.

Scientists are a mixed bag, as in many professions. A great many scientists are, in a certain sense, technicians. They are not philosophers, even about science. Just like most doctors aren't particularly philosophers about the practice of medicine, or the meaning of health, and most civil servants aren't much into political philosophy. If they are competent, they do understand how to use the mechanisms of their trade properly. You don't have to be much into medica philosophy to propery diagnose an illness or care for a patient, and the same is true of scientists for the most part - they have to observe the processes of science to get good results, not necessarily be deeply engaged with why the process works.

There are of course scientists who are more attuned to an interested in those things, and the best are the ones who think very carefully about the philisophical inplications. And some of those become philosophers of science, along with philosophers who are trained in science and come at it from the other direction.

And there is a sort of trickling down of ideas that happens within these groups. Ideas about the way the process works ultimately influence the way the technicians go about their work.

One thing that I would say though that is quite different about scientists as a whole group from the general population is an understanding of the unfinished nature of scientific ideas, and the provisional nature of many theories. These kinds of limits are widely, maybe even near-universally, understood by professional scientists, but very rarely communicated by the media - this is a common source of frustration for scientists.

The article that was posted above about homo erectus is a good example - that sort of change is really not surprising to paleontologists, who after all are the ones who know what their theories are based on. But the general public tends to get the idea that things are much much more settled and that this sort of rethinking is unusual. There is even a lot of controversy about the classic dinosaur species that the public takes for granted as being things that are known for sure. (In fact there is a paleontologist joke about two toes giving birth to a molar which highlights this awareness.)

 

[rusmeister]

This reminds me of some of my conversations with my best friend, who is an agnostic biology researcher at Moscow State University. I tell him my thoughts and he agrees with a lot - but not all of them, and he tells me a little about what goes on in the world of labs and journals. (And yes, he actually puts up with and has some respect for GKC!)

There's a lot less I would argue with here. I would probably change your expression "science works", which is about how it ought to work in theory, to "scientists work", what in fact actually happens. I would insist that scientific work is done - however conscientiously - by people who infected with the general philosophy and spirit of our age. They cannot escape having hermeneutics any more than we can, and the dominant ones, even among otherwise good scientists are at the very least, strongly influenced by the bad philosophy that is generally a conscious lack of it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well... the most distant point in the universe as of 2011 is known as GRB 090429B, at a distance of 13.14 billion light-years, making the age of the universe at least 13.14 billion years old, plus half a billion or so to account for the age of the star. This means that 13.14 billion years ago, a star died and exploded that was 30 times the sun's mass, resulting in a GRB or gamma ray burst, and we just saw it on Earth four years ago in 2009. Gamma ray bursts are very distinctive (you could have seen it in the sky) and variations in brightness and wavelength produced by their afterglow allow us to measure their distance of travel. You can read more about it here: NASA - NASA's Swift Finds Most Distant Gamma-ray Burst Yet

not if God created it visible from the beginning, which would again make the star much younger

 

[Knee V]

not if God created it visible from the beginning, which would again make the star much younger

And God created light before He created any light sources.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And God created light before He created any light sources.

good point. He also created plants before the sun. dunno how that would work with evolution

 

[Knee V]

good point. He also created plants before the sun. dunno how that would work with evolution

Miracles is miracles.

 

[AndrewEOC]

not if God created it visible from the beginning, which would again make the star much younger

Created what visible from the beginning? The star died 13.14 billion light years away, 13.14 billion years ago, which is why we saw the gamma-ray burst from its explosion only in 2009. It took us that long to see the event actually happen in the sky on Earth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Created what visible from the beginning? The star died 13.14 billion light years away, 13.14 billion years ago, which is why we saw the gamma-ray burst from its explosion only in 2009. It took us that long to see the event actually happen in the sky on Earth.

only if you accept uniformatarianism. whatever we are looking at now, God could have created it visible from creation. you are assuming that it died 13.14 BYA

 

[AndrewEOC]

only if you accept uniformatarianism. whatever we are looking at now, God could have created it visible from creation. you are assuming that it died 13.14 BYA

Again... created what visible from the beginning? Obviously what we saw in 2009 was not visible to us prior to 2009. We know it died 13.14 billion years ago because the wavelengths of the GRB's afterglow indicate it travelled 13.14 billion light years before reaching Earth. Or, from the article I posted: "In certain colors, the brightness of a distant object shows a characteristic drop caused by intervening gas clouds. The farther away the object is, the longer the wavelength where this sudden fade-out begins. Exploiting this effect gives astronomers a quick estimate of the blast's "redshift" -- a color shift toward the less energetic red end of the electromagnetic spectrum that indicates distance."

In any case here is what Bishop Alexander Mileant had to say:

In order to somehow explain the difference in the ages of stars, some creationists offer a hypothesis according to which, at the moment of the creation, the stars had ‘instantly lined up’ depending on the categories of the so-called Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, displaying the complete set of all the possible stellar conditions. That is, some of them looked like they had been evolving for some hundred million years prior to that, and others — a few billion years. Therefore, according to this hypothesis, "the universe only appears to have existed for a long time, and the same is true for our planet."

But if we applied this explanation to the explosion of a supernova, located more than 7,500 light years away from us, it would turn out that the explosion never happened. In that case, from the creationists’ perspective, God simply created both the already exploded supernova and the light waves some distance away from it, to make it appear that there had been an explosion. In this case, we would have to declare God a falsifier, Who intentionally creates the universe in such a way that the scientists, who objectively study it, would arrive at a wrong conclusion, saying the universe has existed for billions of years. Obviously, it is difficult to evaluate the hypothesis of a young universe from the theological point of view: why would God need to create a universe that looked much older than it really was?

Personally I think it's awesome that we can watch what has happened throughout the history of the universe just by looking up at the stars. Who needs the History Channel when we have the beautiful night sky?

 

[rusmeister]

Well, Andrew, Matt is right in that you ARE making assumptions that are NOT taken for granted by all of us. This is the general problem, being able to identify assumptions and go down into the roots of thought to find the silent and unquestioned first principles.

There's a reason, I think, as to why Christ was silent when Pilate asked what truth is. It's obvious to me that he wasn't asking an honest question but was being skeptical of being able to know the truth, period. Not saying that's you, or anybody here, but that it is a root assumption that prevents any truth from being communicated.

 

[truthseeker32]

In that case, from the creationists’ perspective, God simply created both the already exploded supernova and the light waves some distance away from it, to make it appear that there had been an explosion. In this case, we would have to declare God a falsifier, Who intentionally creates the universe in such a way that the scientists, who objectively study it, would arrive at a wrong conclusion, saying the universe has existed for billions of years. Obviously, it is difficult to evaluate the hypothesis of a young universe from the theological point of view: why would God need to create a universe that looked much older than it really was?

This train of thought is the biggest reason I reject the young earth point of view. It would mean that God created the world in such a way that scientists have time and time again been deceived into thinking the world is very old, given archaeological, paleontological, astronomical, biological, genetic, etc. evidence. It would mean that God created the world so it appears to be a lot older than it actually is, making Him a deceiver of sorts.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Keep in mind that God is outside of time anyway. For Him five minutes is fifty million years, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and 25 years from now all exist at the same time, both and neither. He's outside of time. God can press His hands together and form coal or a diamond in a nano second and it would register as tens of thousands. To try and apply scientific reason to the Almighty who is outside of the scientific rules, it's just not helpful....

This train of thought is the biggest reason I reject the young earth point of view. It would mean that God created the world in such a way that scientists have time and time again been deceived into thinking the world is very old, given archaeological, paleontological, astronomical, biological, genetic, etc. evidence. It would mean that God created the world so it appears to be a lot older than it actually is, making Him a deceiver of sorts.

 

[Protoevangel]

Funny how we always assume that it's God who created the world to "look old" instead of thinking that maybe. just maybe... it's might be our own suppositions about what we're looking at that is faulty? I mean, I get it from the atheists and materialists, but for those of us who presumably know "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." ... I don't care if a Bishop said it or not, to claim, "we would have to declare God a falsifier," is about the most impious and piteously false statement that could be spoken ob the subject. It's sad that anyone could be taken in by such weak thinking.

 

[rusmeister]

I think we should be careful to avoid saying hurtful things. And I suppose that I have been as careless as anyone.

(Gurney! Look over there! Behind you! Quick!)
I was just reading GK's "The Victorian Age in Literature", and came across this highly relevant quote (He was talking about Macaulay, who imagined gradual and inevitable improvement in politics):

But he did not see the flaw in his political theory; which is that unless the soul improves with time there is no guarantee that the accumulations of experience will be adequately used. Figures do not add themselves up; birds do not label or stuff themselves; comets do not calculate their own courses; these things are done by the soul of man. And if the soul of man is subject to other laws, is liable to sin, to sleep, to anarchism or to suicide, then all sciences including politics may fall as sterile and lie as fallow as before man's reason was made.[bless and do not curse]

This relates not only to the narrower idea of scientism, but to all strictly human endeavors.
So Andrew, if we "know" that something happened 13 billion years ago*, then we know it only because we trust the soul of men, who we are supposed to limit our trust in, anyway.

I know my birthday, not because I witnessed or remember it, but because I believe the authority of my parents in telling me what it was. If I know that e=mc2, I "know" it because I believe the authority figures who sternly tell me that it is so, and assure me that it can be tested, and that they have done so. If I know that America experienced a Revolution, then again, I know it because I have faith in the authority.

* though I do NOT, in fact, "know" this. It may be true or not true, but "knowing" it is vain if it is not true.

Unless we acknowledge that the natural sciences can be as much in error, despite what seems to be consistency (and the consistency may be illusory if our knowledge is founded only on faith in human thought) , as any other branch of human thought or activity, then we are indeed engaged in scientism, the unwarranted elevation of the natural sciences and scientists into dogmatic authority equal to the Church and Holy Tradition, and treated with the same (if not greater) level of deference and dogmatic certainty.

 

[MKJ]

Keep in mind that God is outside of time anyway. For Him five minutes is fifty million years, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and 25 years from now all exist at the same time, both and neither. He's outside of time. God can press His hands together and form coal or a diamond in a nano second and it would register as tens of thousands. To try and apply scientific reason to the Almighty who is outside of the scientific rules, it's just not helpful....

I don't think the idea is that could could not have done things to look as if they was in fact a much longer history of the universe than there really was. It's not trying to say he had to be scientific.

The suggestion truthsayer is thinking of, which is sometimes made by some creationists, is that the world is only 6000 or whatever years old, but was created ready-made with evidence of an older history. So the day God finished the Earth, it had a whole fossil record already laid down for a history that never happened, it had light which looked like it had originated in the universe millions of years ago showing things that never really happened at all....

It is a very weird idea that God would do that. What could be his purpose? If he did it, does he mean for us to believe evidence he created for things that never happened? Are we right then to believe it, or are we meant to think he put it there to trick us? If so, might there be other things he did to trick us?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again... created what visible from the beginning? Obviously what we saw in 2009 was not visible to us prior to 2009. We know it died 13.14 billion years ago because the wavelengths of the GRB's afterglow indicate it travelled 13.14 billion light years before reaching Earth. Or, from the article I posted: "In certain colors, the brightness of a distant object shows a characteristic drop caused by intervening gas clouds. The farther away the object is, the longer the wavelength where this sudden fade-out begins. Exploiting this effect gives astronomers a quick estimate of the blast's "redshift" -- a color shift toward the less energetic red end of the electromagnetic spectrum that indicates distance."

In any case here is what Bishop Alexander Mileant had to say:



Personally I think it's awesome that we can watch what has happened throughout the history of the universe just by looking up at the stars. Who needs the History Channel when we have the beautiful night sky?

no, what you know is that something happened billions of lightyears away, and that light travels a certain speed, and that we first saw it from earth in 2009. what you don't know is when. you are assuming uniformity that you don't know, and have no way of knowing, is what made it possible to see it.

 

[truthseeker32]

Funny how we always assume that it's God who created the world to "look old" instead of thinking that maybe. just maybe... it's might be our own suppositions about what we're looking at that is faulty?

If we can't trust our observational and problem solving skills, then I would merely alter the question and ask "Why has God created us in such a way that, all things considered, our ability to make accurate observations and theories that explain the world are actually a load of bunk?" It sounds like serious subjectivism.

Take sediment layers, for instance. Lets say scientists can observe that a new sediment layer forms every 10 years. After a little digging they count 2500 sediment layers and estimate the first was formed approx. 25,000 years ago. Is that really scientists being weak-minded, or is it just the explanation that sounds more probable than "oh, God just wants you to think things work this way but they don't. P.s, he isn't going to help you figure out how it really happened either."

There seems to be this perception on here that scientists go about their research and experiments as sloppily as 4th graders. That may be the case with some, and they may try to apply their discipline's explanatory power too far, but within their area of expertise they know what they are doing, and they are offering explanations far superior to those offered by the YEC-ers.