In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Hammster]

I remember it from a post yesterday. However, reviewing the thread it is not there. There is a similar thread on the C&E side, perhaps it may have been there. Nevertheless, I do not accept embedded age as it requires deception, especially on the scale that we observe; not just with age, but the processes involved as well.

It doesn't have to be deception. It could be that science has just not caught up yet. Or the interpretation of evidence is biased as to not allow God to have His reasons for doing things.

Just some possibilities.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nevertheless, I do not accept embedded age as it requires deception,

I somehow don't think God would go out of His way to create Adam from some hominid DNA, just so you won't accuse Him of deception.

He knew you would think this way ... but He let His plan prevail.

And for the record, the angels shouted for joy over it.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Where's your joy?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just some possibilities.

Here's one:

Science is myopic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let them argue their own cases then.

They have been.

 

[Hammster]

Here's one:

Science is myopic.

It certainly can be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what's required.

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭

That I can do.

It seems that you can only explain why you believe. That still is not enough for others. Public debate requires a bit more. You are satisfied with your answers, but you will not convince too many people.

 

[RickG]

Here's one:

Science is myopic.

For the layman, yes. For those of us who are academically trained and spent a lifetime performing scientific research and observing the laws of physics and chemistry that are never seen to change it is just the opposite, all encompassing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's one:

Science is myopic.

Science answers the questions that it is able to answer. That does not make it "myopic". If that is the case I could make the same claim for all religious beliefs.

 

[RickG]

It certainly can be.

Example?

 

[AV1611VET]

They have been.

What's wrong then?

Aren't they fast enough?

 

[AV1611VET]

... all encompassing.

Under the sun, you mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science answers the questions that it is able to answer.

No argument there.

 

[Hammster]

It seems that you can only explain why you believe. That still is not enough for others. Public debate requires a bit more. You are satisfied with your answers, but you will not convince too many people.

It's not my job to convince others. Even my first post in this thread wasn't meant to convince anyone. It was to demonstrate the fallacy in another member's understanding of Genesis 1.

 

[Hammster]

Example?

Does it account for the supernatural?

 

[AV1611VET]

Example?

Give me a scientific reason (not method) for why (not how) it went dark for three hours during Jesus' crucifixion.

I can give you an excellent theological one.

Can you give me an excellent meterological one?

 

[RickG]

Under the sun, you mean?

?

 

[AV1611VET]

For the layman, yes. For those of us who are academically trained and spent a lifetime performing scientific research and observing the laws of physics and chemistry that are never seen to change it is just the opposite, all encompassing.

Under the sun, you mean?

?

That's a line from the book of Ecclesiastes.

Let's go above the sun then, shall we?

If scientific research is so "all encompassing," perhaps scientific research would like to tell me how we got angels sans evolution?

 

[RickG]

Does it account for the supernatural?

It accounts for what it can observe. It is science, not religion of philosophy. Not being able to observe something does not make it myopic.

 

[RickG]

That's a line from the book of Ecclesiastes.

Let's go above the sun then, shall we?

If scientific research is so "all encompassing," perhaps scientific research would like to tell me how we got angels sans evolution?

Angels sans evolution? I haven't a clue what that is.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because God intended for us to see them, prior to the invention of the telecscope.

The plan of salvation is in the stars, and thus those who have never heard the Gospel via special revelation, will be held accountable for not knowing the Gospel via general revelation.

QV Psalm 19.

Um, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, we would only be able to see things less than 6,000 light years away.