Did God Create Fossils?

[miamited]

Hi AIB,

I like you. You're fun. Just for kicks, let me go into just a little further detail about the number 666 as it is mentioned in the Scriptures. We are told that there is a mark which will be received on the hand or on the forehead. One might ask, certainly I have, why the hand or the forehead? What could that possibly mean. Some say that it's an RFID chip that the government is going to make us take under the skin of our hand or maybe under the skin of our forehead. The hand maybe, but the forehead is a place of the human body with very little fatty tissue under the skin. Pretty much anything that someone places under the skin of the forehead is going to be noticeable. I don't think that anyone has put forth some plan to implant RFID chips in the forehead. They're usually implanted in areas with some fatty tissue. So, what might God's use of the term 'hand' or 'forehead' mean if not just a physical location on our body.

In the days of God's covenant with Israel He told them to bind the words of His law on their foreheads. The Jews call them phylacteries. They were actually little boxes or scrolls that they would tie around their foreheads to show their piousness. But God asked them to do this, I believe, for a more sound reason. He wanted their thoughts to be always on Him and His law and this binding of His law on their foreheads was to be a sign of that. So, what if God is telling us that some will be marked on the 'hand' or on their 'forehead' isn't really some physical mark, but rather what they think and what they work for. Our hands generally denote work. Our forehead generally denotes thinking.

When we have a tough problem to solve we often will rub our foreheads as we try to figure things out. Why? Why don't we rub our elbow? When someone's thoughts are troubled they will often put their forehead in their hands. So, it's really not all that far fetched to consider that this mark on our 'hand' and 'forehead' is what we think and what we work for.

I believe that the Spirit of God has led me to this truth. Yes, I'm sure others will just say it's the musings of a sick mind, but...

Is it at all possible that this mark really denotes and is given to people based on the things they worked for. Did they work for godly things or did they work for worldly things? If worldly, then they are marked as such. Their thoughts. Were they thoughts in line with godly thoughts or were they more inclined towards worldly thoughts? If worldly, then they are so marked. So, we each and every one of us receive a mark on our hand or forehead if we are inclined to 666, trust and truth in man over trust and truth in God.

It's the mark of the beast. So, just a question, and I don't expect a response but would just like you to prayerfully consider whether your hand or forehead may be marked. Is your work really for God? Even though I know that up until now you have firmly believed that it is, aren't you the one that said that people like me do more damage to the gospel and the truth of God? But if I'm right in believing that God has not lied to us or been somehow misleading or unclear in what He has told us about the how and why we are here, who is really doing more damage to the gospel and the truth of God? You see, my friend, it's all in what we believe is truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Riberra]

As to your second paragraph, I don't have to prove God's word, God just asks me to believe His word. I do. Without a doubt. God has told me that He created this realm of existence in six days and accounted through the genealogies of Adam about when that six day period was. ...

-The 6,000 years give us the timing of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden...Not when the Universe and the Earth was created in the beginning mentionned in Genesis 1:1/

-Genesis 1:2 describe the Earth who became a waste and a desolation -empty and void-....

-A 6 days restauration of the Earth's biosphere by God begin .... Genesis 1:2-31 /The world that is now./

-The creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is mentionned in Genesis 2:7-25...After the 7Th day of rest.
-The creation account tell us that God created other humans in Genesis 1:26-28 on the 6Th day....Cain's wife come from these people that God have created on the 6th day.

God himself known that there was other people than Cain,Adam and Eve by placing a mark upon Cain.
Genesis 4
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

 

[miamited]

The 6,000 years give us the timing of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden...Not when the Universe and the Earth was created in the beginning mentionned in Genesis 1:1/ Genesis 1:2 describe the Earth who became a waste a desolation -empty and void-....

The creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is mentionned in Genesis 2:7-25...After the 7Th day of rest.
The creation account tell us that God created other humans in Genesis 1:26-28 on the 6Th day....Cain's wife come from these people that God have created on the 6th day.

God himself known that there was other people than Cain,Adam and Eve by placing a mark upon Cain.
Genesis 4
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Hi riberra,

Well, that's not how I read it. We don't have any idea how old Cain was when he killed Able. There may well have been dozens of children born to Adam and Eve before that time. Consider that one of the reasons that Cain may have been in fear for his life is that he had to live among the relatives of Able. The Scriptures speak plenty of death, but the one's who were usually found to take retribution for a death were the family of the dead. Strangers wouldn't have much cared. The law against murder hadn't been given by God at that time so there was no lawful reason that a stranger would seek retribution for a death.

I contend that the very reason that Cain feared for his life was that Cain had to live among the kin of Able and they would want revenge.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Riberra]

Hi riberra,

Well, that's not how I read it. We don't have any idea how old Cain was when he killed Able. There may well have been dozens of children born to Adam and Eve before that time.

Based on Genesis 4 Abel and Cain have presented their offering to God as soon as they became young adult...which mean that they were aged betwen 16 and 20 years old.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

 

[Colter]

Based on Genesis 4 Abel and Cain have presented their offering to God as soon as they became young adult...which mean that they were aged betwen 16 and 20 years old.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

The bigger story his hiding in plain sight. Contributions to a religious order are for the support of a larger society than a family of four. Also, "flocks" and "fields"? How much food would a family of four need in a tropical paradise? And the God revealed in the life of Christ would never belittle the more arduous work of a farmer and his tithe, that's purely human bias!

 

[miamited]

Based on Genesis 4 Abel and Cain have presented their offering to God as soon as they became young adult...which mean that they were aged betwen 16 and 20 years old.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Hi riberra,

Well, I'm glad that you have found the hidden clue to their ages. Perhaps one day the Spirit will also lead me into that truth.

One thing we can know by your understanding is that Eve was a very, very patient woman. It may likely have been 100 years before the Lord gave her the replacement for Able.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Wilson]

This pretty much debunks the young Earth theory.

Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000

The first scientist to ever calculate the age of the universe was Dr. Halton Arp. He had the solution down to one equation and two unknowns. Unsolvable! However, he assumed that one of the variables, the speed of the star emitting the red-shifted light, was near light speed, heading away from us. Then he was able to posit the distance of that star from us and ergo, the minimum age of the universe... around 13-15 billion years.

All the world's scientists greeted this calculation with rejoicing!

But then Arp realized he'd assumed the answer. So he withdrew his calculation. And he was fired. How can we give science such slavish acceptance when its whistle-blowers are squashed?

Arp was alive the last time I e-mailed him. He shows on his website pictures of twin stars where one of the stars emits red-shifted light as it circles the other. Obviously, red-shifted light does not mean light-speed!

Imagine, if you would, an astronaut falling into a black hole (this is a standard example first told by Stephen Hawking in Brief History of Time). I quote from the paraphrase of Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (he worked for Sandia National Lab in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics and a Particle Beam Fusion Project): "As he falls toward it [the black hole], an astronomer watching him from far away sees that the astronaut's watch is ticking slower and slower... it takes an hour for the astronaut's watch to go from 11:57 am to 11:58... a day to reach 11:59! The astronomer never does see the astronaut's watch reach 12:00."

Dr. Humphreys makes the observation that from the perspective of the astronaut, the astronomer's planet is ancient! The event horizon of the black hole ages time artificially... time that is outside the black hole can age by billions of years in a very short time!

If God used a big bang to start the universe, all of the stars would have passed through the event horizon caused by the disintegration of the black hole (the reverse of a black hole forming is a white star expanding). This 'wiping' of the universe by an event horizon would artificially age all the stars, regardless of the scientific age-determination technique. This is a summarization of Dr. Humphreys' book, "Starlight and Time".

I realize that scientists today do not use the 'expanding white star' approach to the big bang that I used above. But this is because Hubble's Law, which posits the universe is expanding like a muffin in the oven, ASSUMES that red shift can only be interpreted as near-light-speed travel away from Earth. Keep in mind that, when science allows each parcel of space to expand independently of the others, the speed of the furthest stars -- with respect to earth -- can exceed light speed!

I know I'm not 'proving' the age of the universe. I'm only saying there are enough unknowns about the universe so that we can't disprove the Bible by quoting the latest scientific thinking. I know that some people think Humphrey's book has been 'proved wrong'. Yeah, old-earth scientists disagreed with Humphreys, but that doesn't prove he's wrong. Most of the science of black holes was made up by Hawking, who now admits he can't 'prove' that black holes exist and therefore can't 'prove' the his black-hole science is true.

What's the fundamental flaw of the latest scientific thinking? See my next post.

 

[James Wilson]

What's the fundamental flaw of the latest scientific thinking?

Perhaps the greatest weakness of science is buried assumptions. Assumptions that are taught as fact in our educational institutions at all levels and even by the Media (look at how films and news media push global warming all the time, just like they used to panic about global cooling, which used the same computer codes to reach different and temporary conclusions). (Note: See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn, if you wish to pursue the effect of scientific assumptions further).

But it gets worse. These buried assumptions get ‘reburied’ every time a scientist makes a declaration or publishes a conclusion based upon his research or experiments.

A good illustration of such assumptions are the 200-year-old Uniformitarianist assumptions of geology that nothing extraterrestrial could influence this earth-science nor could any catastrophe. This held up, for 10 years of acrimonious debate, the Alvarez’ explanation for the end of the Age of Dinosaurs by the Yucatan Meteorite.

Why is this a problem? Many scientists are honest, hard-working people who want to keep their science as up-to-date as possible. When one of the buried assumptions is discovered, these scientists try to nullify the effect of that assumption. However, since previous scientific declarations don’t enumerate all the assumptions used in their work, this ‘cleaning up’ process is never as thorough as it should be.

To illustrate this problem, and a possible solution, there’s a group of top-flight scientists who would like to re-examine Twentieth Century science, because so many phenomenal advances occurred during that era. They want to reconstruct modern science, not from the conclusions of the key papers, but from the experimental results. In this approach, they hope to eliminate all the assumptions that crept in along the way that are universally rejected nowadays. Of course, this will not do anything about the buried assumptions that still reside in our scientists’ minds, but it’s a healthy first step.

 

[miamited]

Hi James,

However, all science disallows a cause such as a God. That a creature can shrink the universe or expand the universe at His will. That He can make water into fine wine in a matter of moments. That He can cause the light of the sun to shine on a given day just like normal all over the earth, yet withhold it from a singular city for a total of three days. That He can cause, however the mechanizations were handled, the shadow of the sun to go backward the distance of three steps in mere moments and even hold the sun in its place in the sky at one geographical point of the earth for nearly a whole day.

Every time that God does something, man is left without any answers as to 'how' He did it. For me, that God when He created this realm, caused all the light of all the stars to be visible across the entire expanse of the universe at the moment of its creation, seems like just child's play for Him. Yes, man spends a great deal of his time and energies studying the universe and working out the physical laws of how things work under normal circumstances when God is not actively involved, and based on those laws, makes determinations about the creation. One of the basic assumptions of science is that a law cannot be broken. Certainly by man that is true. However, if God chose to create a universe in which He commanded things to happen outside of the laws of the physical, then there is ample record that He can do that. A simple and plain reading of the text of God's word regarding the creation event would seem to also be one of those great works of God in which all the laws go out the window. The God I know can do that!

Man tries so desperately to lean on his own understanding despite God's warning of doing such a thing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Wilson]

Debunked.

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2010/07/mystery-of-bell-found-in-coal.html

I read what you suggested. I noted with interest the use of these 'decisive' words: "might be", "likely" and "ancient origin not proven". Obviously, these are not decisive words at all, particularly since the ability to create coal within a short amount of time (one scientific source said "a year" if geothermal water is present). So, the expert you referenced may have a different understanding of 'ancient' than I do.

Secondly, your expert said that AIG's position that the bell in coal does not make a good argument is just one opinion. There are three main theories of evolution: Uniformitarian, Punctuated Equilibrium and Theistic. Does the existence of any of these preclude belief in the others? No? So AIG's position does not constrain mine.

There are many observations that support a young earth that have been dismissed by old earthers. If the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, this dismissal causes no damage. But if the truth is hidden, such wholesale dismissal of actual observations is contrary to the nature of science.

Also, your expert claimed that the bell would be deformed by the immense pressures of burial. Scientists know the immense pressure only deforms if the pressure is unequally applied. For instance, a basketball immersed in the depths of the sea will be destroyed, but the same bell could easily stand any amount of pressure equally applied, whether in the depths of the sea or in the rotting jungle.

Just look at the progress of the 20th century, from the plum-pudding atom to Bohr's precise orbit atom to quantum physics' probabilistic treatment of the atom. Is anything in science indisputable? In fact, the greatest progress in science has traditionally been made by paradigm shifts wherein a treasured assumption is questioned and results in great new revelations. A good example is the switch between Newtonian physics to atomic/nuclear/quantum physics, precipitated largely by Einstein's first relativity paper shortly after the turn of the 20th Century. The same facts before the paper were the same after the paper, but look at the wholesale benefit to science. It illustrates that science based upon "likely" and "might be" does not lead to the greatest new insights.

 

[Colter]

Perhaps the greatest weakness of science is buried assumptions. Assumptions that are taught as fact in our educational institutions at all levels and even by the Media (look at how films and news media push global warming all the time, just like they used to panic about global cooling, which used the same computer codes to reach different and temporary conclusions). (Note: See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn, if you wish to pursue the effect of scientific assumptions further).

But it gets worse. These buried assumptions get ‘reburied’ every time a scientist makes a declaration or publishes a conclusion based upon his research or experiments.

A good illustration of such assumptions are the 200-year-old Uniformitarianist assumptions of geology that nothing extraterrestrial could influence this earth-science nor could any catastrophe. This held up, for 10 years of acrimonious debate, the Alvarez’ explanation for the end of the Age of Dinosaurs by the Yucatan Meteorite.

Why is this a problem? Many scientists are honest, hard-working people who want to keep their science as up-to-date as possible. When one of the buried assumptions is discovered, these scientists try to nullify the effect of that assumption. However, since previous scientific declarations don’t enumerate all the assumptions used in their work, this ‘cleaning up’ process is never as thorough as it should be.

To illustrate this problem, and a possible solution, there’s a group of top-flight scientists who would like to re-examine Twentieth Century science, because so many phenomenal advances occurred during that era. They want to reconstruct modern science, not from the conclusions of the key papers, but from the experimental results. In this approach, they hope to eliminate all the assumptions that crept in along the way that are universally rejected nowadays. Of course, this will not do anything about the buried assumptions that still reside in our scientists’ minds, but it’s a healthy first step.

But the assumptions of the authors of Geneses are above reproach?

 

[James Wilson]

However, all science disallows a cause such as a God.

Not all scientists. Einstein was the greatest scientist of the 20th Century, yet he attributed much of his progress to a belief in God (clearly not the Judeo-Christian God, but an all-powerful God nonetheless).

We moved out of the chaos of the Middle Ages when scientists who were Christian put forth a belief in an ordered creation by an all-powerful God; this inspired the cause-and-effect that is the life-blood of science today.

I believe in cause-and-effect as my primary research tool in science. What have I written that causes you to believe that I'm depending upon miracles? I accept a God of miracles, but the when and the where is up to Him and therefore does not fit into scientific theories.

However, I also believe in the inspiration of God, as Einstein did.

There are two developmental stages in science: Exploration and Verification (the following is an excerpt from my novel, Exploration and Verification):

Scientific progress has two stages: Exploration and verification. An explorer can do anything, as long as he later verifies it using standard scientific approach. But do not limit your exploration because you fear failure in the verification stage. You must doubt established science, think crazy thoughts, and posit the unthinkable, before you really know whether it is truly incredible!”
“I can’t just throw away everything I’ve ever learned about science!”
“Yes, that would be going a little too far. You have got to selectively doubt. You have got to explore, dismissing a piece of accepted wisdom here and there. But unless you challenge, doubt, and disbelieve, you cannot really conduct ground-breaking science.”
“You’ve got to doubt to be a great scientist,” Bobby summarized.
“That’s right!”
“Should I be questioning my Christian faith?”
“Absolutely not! Everybody has the unquestionables. The things they refuse to doubt. It is part of their personality. Their soul, person, and character. Many of your social scientists refuse to doubt the goodness of maximum tolerance, which ends up with ‘everyone doing what is right in their own sight.’ And that kind of ‘tolerance’ was why God sent the Flood in Noah’s day.”
“So I don’t question the core beliefs that determine my identity and give me stability in life?”
“Right. You do not have to commit mental suicide! Listen, most scientists will not question the infallibility of the human brain as a determiner of truth. Christians believe in revealed wisdom that is beyond the pale of an unenlightened but brilliant human. God interacts with His people and with believing scientists, giving them greater insights than they can pick up with their five senses.”
“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’” Bobby quoted. “The foundation of our American culture presumed belief in God. To now expunge all belief in God from science, education, and public life, and claim you are upholding the principles of the constitution is a travesty and actually unscientific.”
“Good point! Any enforced ‘group think’ or outlawing of religious beliefs destroys the power of diversity in science. We cannot fully explore our world and universe unless we allow the explorers to be diverse in their thinking, methods, beliefs, and approaches. Science without diversity is dead.”
“But won’t my work be rejected if they find out I’m a Creationist?!”
“Remember the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy of the US military in the 20th Century…?”
“Uh nope. That was before my time.”
“Most scientists will allow private faith if you don’t mention it in publications and conferences. You just let your work support itself. Nonbelieving scientists do not have to have philosophical discussions telling us what their belief structure is and what their biases are, before we accept their science.
“Most of the early evolutionists were sexual predators. Their friends and colleagues hid their daughters and wives when they came visiting. Do we warn school children today when teaching evolution, about the personal beliefs of these founding evolutionists? No, it does not even come up. Neither should your Creationism come up! Not if you are following scientific procedure in the second stage, verification of your model! Private beliefs stay private!”
“Okay,” Bobby conceded, “how exactly should I change my paradigm?”
“Ask yourself how your problem would be explained if the Earth were created less than 10,000 years ago.”
“All right. My problem is explaining the unusually rapid movements we’re recording for the San Andreas fault with a young Earth, not one five billion years old… We know by actual measurement that the tectonic plates driving the San Andreas fault usually slip at the rate of less than 10 cm. or 4 inches per year…. But, can I trust those actual measurements?”
“Probably. There are two levels of ‘facts’ in science. Direct measurements and those derived from or influenced by our assumptions. Give the first level of ‘facts’ much more credibility than the second. The trick is telling them apart.”

My novel goes on from there, but I didn't want to impose too much upon this discussion.

 

[James Wilson]

But the assumptions of the authors of Geneses are above reproach?

There is one fundamental premise that we would have to agree upon to continue this discussion: Everybody has some assumptions in their thinking. For example, see the story I told above about the geologists blocking scientific progress on what killed the dinosaurs (the Yucatan meteorite) based upon their Uniformitarian assumptions.

So, you cannot do science (for the most part) without assumptions.

I have assumptions too (what a shocker!).

I believe there are two kinds of wisdom: Man-based and revealed. I believe the story in Genesis is revealed wisdom from God Himself.

What's wrong with Man's wisdom? In the Bible God said, "I will prove men foolish in their wisdom." But what if man only uses logic? Can there be anything wrong with that? It's very difficult for any man... any scientist... to pinpoint all of his own assumptions.

Below is an example:
(The following was actually reported in a science magazine -- I believe it was Science News but I'm not positive). An atheist claimed that his prayers made plants grow faster. A scientist decided to prove him wrong. In the first laboratory test, the scientist only allowed the atheist to pray over the water that a technician later brought to the test plant. And the plants receiving the prayer water did better than the other plants.

Then the scientist decided that the technician doing the watering might be influencing the plants somehow, knowing which water had been prayed for. The next test involved a “double blind” wherein neither the technician nor the atheist knew which plants received the prayer water. And the plant receiving the prayer water still did better.

Then, the scientist put enough salt into the water to kill the plant before the atheist prayed. And the plant still did better with the prayed-for, salty water!

(End of story reported in the science media)

What happened here!? The scientist thought he controlled all outside influences (i.e., had a closed universe) by locking the doors of the laboratory. But, locked doors do not restrict Satan, so the scientist unknowingly operated in an open universe. And Satan walked into the lab to shake our belief in prayer.

I do not use Satan in my scientific discussions, unless the results reported in the lab are clearly outside of my understanding of how God functions in His ordered universe. I don't believe I've mentioned Satan once in this string on fossils.

This presentation I've just given would only make sense to a believer in God AND in revealed wisdom. I suspect many comments will come in by people wishing to outlaw God from His universe and deny Him the power to speak to His people. Please do not interpret my lack of response to such debates as an admission that I no longer believe in God and revealed wisdom.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are many observations that support a young earth that have been dismissed by old earthers. If the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, this dismissal causes no damage. But if the truth is hidden, such wholesale dismissal of actual observations is contrary to the nature of science.

Such as...

 

[Riberra]

That He can make water into fine wine in a matter of moments. That He can cause the light of the sun to shine on a given day just like normal all over the earth, yet withhold it from a singular city for a total of three days. That He can cause, however the mechanizations were handled, the shadow of the sun to go backward the distance of three steps in mere moments and even hold the sun in its place in the sky at one geographical point of the earth for nearly a whole day.
......
One of the basic assumptions of science is that a law cannot be broken. Certainly by man that is true. However, if God chose to create a universe in which He commanded things to happen outside of the laws of the physical, then there is ample record that He can do that. A simple and plain reading of the text of God's word regarding the creation event would seem to also be one of those great works of God in which all the laws go out the window. The God I know can do that!

Man tries so desperately to lean on his own understanding despite God's warning of doing such a thing.

Science is not there to try to prove or disprove God's miracles....

Science have to eleminate "magic" from their research if they want to try to find how all of the fundamental force of the Universe (Created by God) works...

The scientists try to understand the fundamental law of physics because they hope to one day be able to manipulate these fundamental forces of the Universe at will for the benifit of humanity and of course also for monetary benifits.

Imagine for example if we can one day discover how to manipulate gravity at will... like we do with electricity and magenetism natural forces which have been a mystery until man of sciences via observation and testing have discover how to use it at will for the benifit of humanity.... If they have said; only the power of God can do that we will not have electricity today....Science is not really rejecting God ....

 

[Riberra]

Hi riberra,

Well, I'm glad that you have found the hidden clue to their ages. Perhaps one day the Spirit will also lead me into that truth.

The clue have always been there in plain sight .... there is nothing hidden in God's words... God have created humans (Mankind) in Genesis 1:26-28 on the 6Th Day...And God after the 7 th Day of Rest (Genesis 2) have created -the man Adam- and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden isolated from the humans that He have created on the 6 Th day.
Cain's wife that Cain have encontered in the Land of NOD come from the humans (Mankind) that God have created on the 6Th Day

 

[miamited]

The clue have always been there in plain sight .... there is nothing hidden in God's words... God have created humans (Mankind) in Genesis 1:26-28 on the 6Th Day...And God after the 7 th Day of Rest (Genesis 2) have created -the man Adam- and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden isolated from the humans that He have created on the 6 Th day.
Cain's wife that Cain have encontered in the Land of NOD come from the humans (Mankind) that God have created on the 6Th Day

Hi riberra,

And somewhere in there is hidden that Cain was 16 to 20 years of age?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Riberra]

Hi riberra,

And somewhere in there is hidden that Cain was 16 to 20 years of age?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Abel and Cain were possibly even a little younger than that, maybe 15 years old....How long do you believe it have taken to Cain to till the ground or for Abel to be a keeper of a flock of sheep ?
Genesis 4:4
And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock

first·ling/ˈfərstliNG/
noun

the FIRST agricultural produce or animal offspring of a season.


Genesis 4:1-8
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

 

[miamited]

Hi riberrra,

You do understand, I hope, that 'firstlings' doesn't mean the first of the first of a man's flocks that he's ever going to have. It is merely the new born of any given season. Since there is yet no command to make sacrifices unto the Lord, we can't even be sure that this was a practice that they did every year. We can assume so, but we can't, with any assurance know so. The account goes on to say that 'it came to pass' when they were in the field that Cain Rose up against Abel his brother. There is no indication that the time of this attack was in the near time after the sacrifices spoken of. The time in which 'it came to pass' may well have been years later.

So, Cain and Abel may well have been making these sacrifices for years of the firstlings of their crops and flocks. God rebuked Cain for his offering apparently because of his heart and attitude regarding his sacrifice and warned him about sin taking hold of him. Cain and Abel still talked to one another and some time in the future of all that Cain rose up and slew his brother. So, guessing at an age for the men when this event took place is merely that, guessing.

However, we do know that Seth was born to Adam and Eve when Adam was 130 years old. Cain and Abel were earlier children then Seth and so for them to have been 15-20 years old that would mean that they were born well after Adam was 100. Maybe, maybe not. We do know that Adam and Eve had other children and since a woman's gestation period is 9 months and there was no real form of protection from pregnancy, it is very possible that Eve had dozens of children by the time Seth was born. One of the female of those children was Cain's wife. Paul wrote that Adam was the first man: So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. These were the two men who were directly created by God. I know, I know. We don't consider Jesus to have been created, but however one wants to consider that Jesus came to exist, he came directly from God. Just as the first Adam came directly from God.

We know that the term first Adam and last Adam cannot mean just mankind in general because there are still men being born to women. So, if we think in terms of all mankind, then Jesus would not have been the last Adam. No, I'm confident that the first and last Adam are directly related to their special creation through the very hand of God and not just men born through natural sexual relations.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Wilson]

Such as...

Your request is a little ambiguous. I'm assuming you're asking for clarification of my statement: "There are many observations that support a young earth that have been dismissed by old earthers." If this is not the clarification you're asking for, please do not accuse me of being evasive.

Dr. Russell Humphreys, an astrophysicist who worked in a national lab for many years, compiled this list in one short paper at http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/ (this is not intended to be all inclusive) and also made the statement about YE observations outnumbering OE ones:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.