Adam and the Scientist

[shernren]

But nature has been praising God from the beginning of creation. In the Psalms we read that the heavens declare God's glory. In fact, it is the rest of creation who sees God's invisible things clearly, and us humans don't see them clearly, as the rest of the passage clearly goes on to state.

 

[Deamiter]

" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (KJV)

But, notice that the 'things that are made' is also in the present tense.????? So in either version you have man and creation appearing at the same time (tensewise). I think the NIV actually phrases it better using past tense.

Do you honestly think Paul would support such a reading of his letter? Do you think that he intended us to scrutinize his use of tenses in this context in order to glean some mote of information about the timing of creation? Can you honestly even begin such a detailed analysis without getting into the original Greek?

I don't think Assyrian was at all claiming that different tenses was even implicit scriptural evidence for an old Earth and I'd be shocked and rather saddened if ANYBODY started picking apart word-choices in isolated verses to make utterly out-of-context points to support their theological beliefs!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you honestly think Paul would support such a reading of his letter? Do you think that he intended us to scrutinize his use of tenses in this context in order to glean some mote of information about the timing of creation? Can you honestly even begin such a detailed analysis without getting into the original Greek?

I don't think Assyrian was at all claiming that different tenses was even implicit scriptural evidence for an old Earth and I'd be shocked and rather saddened if ANYBODY started picking apart word-choices in isolated verses to make utterly out-of-context points to support their theological beliefs!

It didn't seem to matter to those who interpreted scripture for the newer versions. What is their justification for changing present tense (KJV) to past tense (NIV) in this verse.

 

[Assyrian]

I was being a little facetious with the five billion age of man. Also I posted Rom 1:20 from the NIV. The wording in the KJV cannot be made to imply this.

" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (KJV)

But, notice that the 'things that are made' is also in the present tense.????? So in either version you have man and creation appearing at the same time (tensewise). I think the NIV actually phrases it better using past tense.

This verse is one of Paul's signature horribly convoluted Greek structures so it is understandable that different versions struggle to express it clearly. The word translated 'things that are made' is actually a noun from the verb poieo to make. It means a product or a work. As such it doesn't have a tense. The things God made in the past are still 'the things he made'. I may look at these products today, at the things he made, without travelling back to the past.

 

[Ben12]

God is spirit, but the universe he created is natural, a physical reality that natural people can understand.

Be careful you don't mix figurative and literal. Revelation is a book of symbols. Remember as well, when God made Adam, he was 'flesh and bone' (Gen 2:23), just like we are. This was before the fall.

You are not saying Jesus was created are you? Jesus is God's only begotten son. When the bible talks of Adam as son of God, it is not speaking literally

Not sure what you are saying there Ben.

Actually the lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. God had a savior before he had a sinner.

Created; I am sure God created the initial seed that was planted in Mary’s womb or conceived by the Holy Spirit; what is important is the second Adam blood is greater then the first Adam’s sin.

1 Peter 1:19but with the precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He
indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world,
but was manifest in these last times for you 21who through Him
believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory,
so that your faith and hope are in God.

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I understand that revelations is a book of symbols; but where do you get the answer for the symbols but the Bible including Genesis

Yes Adam was God's literal son; Adam was innocent and that is the most dangerous state to be in; watch my two year old grandson for two minutes. First Adam innocent at the beginning of the Bible; last Adam overcomer at the end of the Bible.

Actually Adam was created in God’s image in the beginning (God is a spirit not flesh); it was just before the fall that he became flesh. I do not believe natural men can understand the deepness of God’s Word. Oh sure they can read the Bible but there are missing the glory.

Pro. 25: 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter

Gen1 :26 </SPAN>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Later God changed that form, above was Adam in spirit,

Gen. 2: 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry you've lost me again.

 

[Jig]

The way that we tell the age of something is by testing/observing it in some way. In other words, looking at it.

My definition of age: The amount of actual real-time that has past. If God was to create a world "ready" for human occupation, He could. In the Genesis account of creation, this is what appears to be happening. We have Adam being created fully grown, the same for all the plants and animals. God simply created with "built-in" maturity. Not to mislead future observers, but to allow for the immediate habitation of Earth.

So simply looking at Creation, may not reflect the actual &#8220;age&#8221; in terms of the real time that has past after it was created.

Now if the world were created to look old, then no matter in what way we looked at it, it would still appear to be old. So without any evidence to the contrary, you cannot criticise anyone who comes to the conclusion that it is actually old.

First off, when I look at the world, I don&#8217;t see an old Earth. This perception of &#8220;old age&#8221; is the opinion of each observer alone. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that the Earth is old is entitled to that belief. However, the evidence given to support this age is the same evidence both sides (young; old) use to debate this issue. The difference is their interpretation of such evidence. Like I said before I&#8217;m a catastrophist.

So if neither science nor scripture can back it up, is there really any validity to the idea?

Scripture does give a timeframe. We have genealogies that link Jesus to Adam directly. Tracing back this linage and adding the ages of individuals, we can determine how long ago Adam lived and was created. Of course these numbers are not exact, but even adding these ages and accounting for missing people leniently, this number can not be larger than 10,000. And we know that Adam was the first man. When does old Earth "science" say mankind started agian?

1 Cor. 15:45
45So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

As for science, it is restricted to a class of natural phenomena&#8230;how can this restriction be beneficial when considering God&#8217;s &#8220;supernatural&#8221; handiwork?

I do not think the advocation that God created the universe with the mere appearance of age is biblical, for He inspired David to write, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1). He also inspired Paul to write, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

How could either of these verses be true if God embedded a false history in His creation? I can understand reading Genesis as largely allegory because the written word is a human inovation limited only by our own creativity. God can and does deliver His "spiritual truths" (1 Cor 2:13) via any means He wishes, not just through historical narrative. What I cannot understand is someone who insists that Genesis must be read literally, and at the same time hold that God's creation cannot be taken at face value.

Those verses have nothing to do with the age of the Earth, but the awesomeness of God&#8217;s detail in His creation. How can someone not believe when they see the great design in biology? Creation screams of a Designer.

I take the Bible literally, I can&#8217;t find a good reason to explain why it doesn&#8217;t have to be a literal account of how things really happened. How can you determine what to take literally and what to take as an allegory if &#8220;all is possible&#8221; with God?

If God decieved us about the age of the earth, then why should we believe him about anything else?

God did not deceive us, if anything we deceived ourselves. This idea that the Earth is old is merely an assumption based of a singular interpretation of the evidence. There are interpretations that suggest otherwise. I believe this old age suggestion is necessary for naturalists (and others) to believe to allow the theory of macro-evolution to at least seem plausible.

 

[Ben12]

Sorry you've lost me again.

First of all I totally understand where you are coming from; so many of God&#8217;s people see the Word of God has literal and reject anything out side of those religious laws and taboos; I am not a literalist and I know God&#8217;s Word is hidden/spiritual. You say God&#8217;s Word is that natural people can understand; and that is true when you speak of the milk of the Word, anyone including babies can drink milk. But the meat is hidden; you need spiritual teeth to chew on it; in other words mysteries (Greek sacred secret) the word mystery is written 27 times in NT. Hidden manna, mystery, parables, types, shadows; allegories, different languages, when you put all this together; it makes it almost invisible to the carnal eyes of man&#8217;s traditions and understanding.

By the Spirit of the Word I mean its real and intended meaning, in contradistinction to its apparent and surface meaning, or the "letter." It is a common mistake among Christians to suppose that the Bible is written in very plain and simple language, and that the correct meaning is that which lies upon the surface--- the most obvious and apparent sense. If I err not, the truth is just the opposite of this. The Bible often means something very different from what it says; there is a hidden, mystical sense that is like "the pearl hid in the depths of the sea, the real jewel." It may sound strange and erroneous to some to hear any one say that the Bible does not mean what it says. But if you will read this paper month after month, I think I can show you that I do not make the statement unwarrantably: and herein, let me add, lies the explanation of that fact that has been, and still is, such a stumbling stone to thousands of honest seekers after truth, viz., the almost innumerable differences of opinion on Bible doctrine. Men equally pious, devoted and learned, are in antipodal antagonism in regard to Scriptural teachings; and the learned seeing such discrepancy among those who are considered leaders, each one pointing in a different direction, are brought into endless perplexity and confusion. The fact is, oftentimes, all these leaders are wrong. They are building upon the letter that kills, and hence the contradictions. Error is manifold. Truth is a unit; there may be any number of wrong explanations of scripture or a doctrine; there is only one right one. A crooked line may run in any number of different directions. A straight line can run in but one. All the while the "doctors" are disputing about the letter, the truth lies like a fair jewel hid away in the spirit, to be revealed to some humble soul, unlearned and obscure, it may be, and yet possessing the proper spirit to enable him to receive "the deep things of God." "I thank thee, Father, maker of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight." I claim (without stopping now to give proof, of which there is abundance, as I shall show hereafter) that to all scripture there is a spirit as well as a letter, the former is the real but hidden meaning; the latter is only the outward form of the truth, the shell, the husk, the symbol, absolutely useless and worthless, and even harmful, unless the true intent is apprehended.

 

[Citanul]

Scripture does give a timeframe. We have genealogies that link Jesus to Adam directly. Tracing back this linage and adding the ages of individuals, we can determine how long ago Adam lived and was created. Of course these numbers are not exact, but even adding these ages and accounting for missing people leniently, this number can not be larger than 10,000. And we know that Adam was the first man. When does old Earth "science" say mankind started agian?

But that has nothing to do with the notion that the world was created to look old, which was what my point was.

 

[shernren]

My definition of age: The amount of actual real-time that has past. If God was to create a world "ready" for human occupation, He could. In the Genesis account of creation, this is what appears to be happening. We have Adam being created fully grown, the same for all the plants and animals. God simply created with "built-in" maturity. Not to mislead future observers, but to allow for the immediate habitation of Earth.

But God could have made life-forms that could survive on an Earth that not only is 6,000 years old but looks 6,000 years old. Equally, God could have made an Earth look several millions of years old and still have it able to support life. Is God so unimaginative that He has to fake the universe's age to make it life-friendly? As it is, 99.999999% of the universe isn't friendly to life anyway. Why should God make all that empty space, and make it all bear the hallmarks of age, just for a lone blue planet to be habitable - and when He doesn't even need to?

 

[Deamiter]

I find ice cores particularly counter to this Omphalos argument. They contain tens of thousands of years of visible yearly rings that hold evidence of the 11-year cycle of solar activity, major events (like meteorite impacts and volcanic eruptions that were previously dated to precisely the same time) and evidence showing temperature and atmospheric composition that is mirrored by varves and tree rings elsewhere.

Even below the point where individual layers can be visually identified the regular yearly cycles in the highly stable arctic and inland greenland are easily found by measuring changes in electrical resistance. Further, regular sunspot cycles longer than the 11-year Schwabe cycle (i.e. 210 and 2300 years) have been followed back over a hundred thousand years.

To have these features just poofed into existance isn't just God's attempt to make the Earth inhabitable -- it would be nothing short of deception.

 

[Mallon]

But God could have made life-forms that could survive on an Earth that not only is 6,000 years old but looks 6,000 years old.
[/color]

Indeed! Surely an omnipotent God could make life capable of surviving in a world that appears young! The argument that life could only survive on an old-looking planet is both ad hoc and unbiblical. Why in the world would Adam have been better off if the first trees were created with growth rings?

 

[Assyrian]

First of all I totally understand where you are coming from; so many of God’s people see the Word of God has literal and reject anything out side of those religious laws and taboos; I am not a literalist and I know God’s Word is hidden/spiritual. You say God’s Word is that natural people can understand; and that is true when you speak of the milk of the Word, anyone including babies can drink milk. But the meat is hidden; you need spiritual teeth to chew on it; in other words mysteries (Greek sacred secret) the word mystery is written 27 times in NT. Hidden manna, mystery, parables, types, shadows; allegories, different languages, when you put all this together; it makes it almost invisible to the carnal eyes of man’s traditions and understanding.

My point was that it is the natural world God created that natural man can understand.

I try not to go too overboard on allegories, but I do agree that a lot of the bible is written in parable metaphor and figure.

 

[Jig]

But that has nothing to do with the notion that the world was created to look old, which was what my point was.

I answered this question, though maybe not directly. I suggested that it is only the interpretation of the observer that may or may not identify what they see as "old". The evidence for both ideas (old; young earth) is the same, just with a different interpretation. May I also point out that 10,000 years is a very long time.

I find ice cores particularly counter to this Omphalos argument. They contain tens of thousands of years of visible yearly rings that hold evidence of the 11-year cycle of solar activity, major events (like meteorite impacts and volcanic eruptions that were previously dated to precisely the same time) and evidence showing temperature and atmospheric composition that is mirrored by varves and tree rings elsewhere.

Even below the point where individual layers can be visually identified the regular yearly cycles in the highly stable arctic and inland greenland are easily found by measuring changes in electrical resistance. Further, regular sunspot cycles longer than the 11-year Schwabe cycle (i.e. 210 and 2300 years) have been followed back over a hundred thousand years.

To have these features just poofed into existance isn't just God's attempt to make the Earth inhabitable -- it would be nothing short of deception.

I understand your view on the ice core samples. However, the rings fit a non-yearly pattern, not of summer/winter, but periods of warmer/colder.

During WW2, some airplanes crash landed in Greenland in 1942, they were found in 1990 and dug up. They were under 263 feet of snow. Bob Cardin, one of the people who dug up one of the planes makes many remarks about how they dug through many hundred if not thousands of these "rings" to get to the planes. However, the ice had only 48 years to pile on top.

 

[KTatis]

I answered this question, though maybe not directly. I suggested that it is only the interpretation of the observer that may or may not identify what they see as "old". The evidence for both ideas (old; young earth) is the same, just with a different interpretation. May I also point out that 10,000 years is a very long time.



I understand your view on the ice core samples. However, the rings fit a non-yearly pattern, not of summer/winter, but periods of warmer/colder.

During WW2, some airplanes crash landed in Greenland in 1942, they were found in 1990 and dug up. They were under 263 feet of snow. Bob Cardin, one of the people who dug up one of the planes makes many remarks about how they dug through many hundred if not thousands of these "rings" to get to the planes. However, the ice had only 48 years to pile on top.

Thats because the strong wind would blow the snow from miles away onto the crash site.

 

[Assyrian]

Talk Origins, Index to Creationist Claims
CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.

 

[Jig]

Talk Origins, Index to Creationist Claims
CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.

Speculative information. If evidence can be given to answer why the increased number of ice layers is happening, it would be quite ignorant to suggest new evidence will never undermine the gerenal concensus of other ice layers. The interpretation of any evidence can never be conclusive.

 

[Assyrian]

It is not speculation to say that the rate of snowfall in the area where the bombers were is much higher than where the ice cores are sampled. It is not speculation to say that the surface temperature of the ice near the coast where the bombers were, rises to melting point and refreezes numerous times a year, while the annual temperatures where ice cores are sampled are much lower. It is not speculation to say the ice covering the bombers is useless for disproving the ice cores.

 

[Citanul]

I answered this question, though maybe not directly. I suggested that it is only the interpretation of the observer that may or may not identify what they see as "old". The evidence for both ideas (old; young earth) is the same, just with a different interpretation. May I also point out that 10,000 years is a very long time.

I don't have the knowledge to argue whether carbon or radiometric dating (I guess this makes up part of the evidence you're talking about) is open to interpretation or not, but there are other processes which require time.

For example, if I look at person I can make a reasonable guess at how old they are. This means that unless they were "poofed" into being, they had to have been alive for at least a certain amount of years.

Similarly, I can look at a tree's growth rings and determine it's age. Neither of these estimations of age leave much room for interpretation except within a reasonable margin for error.

Of course, we don't have 10,000 year old people or trees (at least I don't think we have trees, but we definitely don't have the people). However, what about stars?

We can measure the distance that a star is away from Earth, and as far as I know the measuring techniques are not disputed by any creationists. This means that if a star is more than 10,000 light years away then the light we're seeing from it has taken more than 10,000 years to get to us (I don't know if there is any star that far away - if not, then substitute galaxy for star).

In other words, the light we see from such a star is more than 10,000 years old. And as far as I know every reputable scientist who has measured the speed of light has come up with the same figure (notwithstanding the fact that it has changed a bit as the accuracy of that measurement has improved). So that's something which doesn't depend on interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

We can measure the distance that a star is away from Earth, and as far as I know the measuring techniques are not disputed by any creationists. This means that if a star is more than 10,000 light years away then the light we're seeing from it has taken more than 10,000 years to get to us (I don't know if there is any star that far away - if not, then substitute galaxy for star).

Lots of stars more than 10,000 light years away in our own galaxy

The spiral galaxy which the Sun and our solar system inhabit. The center of the Milky Way is located in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, and the Sun is moving in its orbit towards the constellation Cygnus. The distance from the Earth to the center of the galaxy is 30,000 ly, and the orbital period of the Sun about the galactic center is 250 million years. There are approximately 2x10^11 stars in the Galaxy. The Galaxy's dimensions are 100,000 ly in diameter and about 2,000 ly thick. According to three recent independent studies, the Sun lies about 50.5 ly north of the galactic plane, towards the constellation Coma Berenices (Sky & Telescope 1996).

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/MilkyWayGalaxy.html

​