Can you believe your eyes?

[SavedByGrace3]

If an alien landed on earth one week after creation what would he see? (Humor me about the alien and his age for the moment.) What assumptions would he make about the age of the earth?
Would he would see animals that were all in the same stage of development? He would see horses. Would all the horses be one week old? Just foals and fillies? Or would all the animals and plants be mature and at a set age? Would they be at various stages of development? A foal would need a mature mother horse capable of nursing it. So the mother horse would have had to be created in that state. What would the alien assume from seeing this? Mature animals look to be decades old. What does the alien assume?
If he cut down a large tree how many rings would this week old tree have? If the alien counted the rings what would he assume about the age of the tree? If you told him the tree was only a week old, what would he think about you? If convinced it was only a week old, would he think the rings are a lie? Do these trees have fruit and nuts that would take months to grow and develop? Why would someone deceive him into thinking these trees were many years old, when it in fact they were only a week old?
If this alien looked up into the sky what would he see? He is obviously intelligent and knows about the speed of light and immense distances of space. What would he think about seeing stars that are a billion years old. The light took a billion years to travel from a star to the earth. What would he think? He sees a star that is a million light years away go super nova. What would he assume from this? He knows that event actually took place a million years ago. If Adam told him that creation was actually only a week old, what would he ask? He knows that what he is seeing is a record, a testimony if you will, about the past. A history written in light. It is the "heavens declaring" (saying) something to us. He might ask who wrote this history that apparently never happened? If creation is only a week old, then that star did not exist a million years ago, much less go super nova a million years ago. He might ask if this manufactured light history is actually a lie written in light. Can you blame him?
Realize that we are very much like that alien. We see things that lead us to believe this earth is very old. If the earth is 6000 years old, then the light we are seeing today is a fiction of things that never happened.
If I wrote you a letter and dated it a week before I actually wrote it, would that be a lie?
How could God pull this off? How could He create a fully formed, mature tree without rings? That is the very nature of a tree. So that might be understandable. But a history of the universe written in light, full with events that never happened to objects that did not and would not exist for millions of years?
God does not lie. But I think our perceptions and assumptions can lead us to make conclusions that are obviously false.
Could God create a universe that looks billions of years old for "the sake of the story?" Of course He can. And we can work with that once we realize that is what He did. "I am going to plop you down into a stage that looks billions of years old, but it is all just props, So carry on with the play." But did He do this? Or is the creation really billions of years old and not just a contrived stage, complete with props, actors, and a prologued fictional script?
I go with the reality of an old creation.

 

[d taylor]

-​

You really ought to, if you are going to discuss God's creation use the creation described in The Bible and not sciences fabricated one and add God into it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

-​

You really ought to, if you are going to discuss God's creation use the creation described in The Bible and not sciences fabricated one and add God into it.

I guess that is the point.
Faith is evidence of things not seen, not the denial of things that are.
We know about the flat earth theory. This theory denies the reality of what we see around us. They insist that the earth really is flat.
Christianity is not a flat earth religion. We are allowed to reconcile what we believe with what we see around us. It is not faith to deny what we see around us in every direction, at every level of life. Forget science. You do not have to be a scientist to know the earth is round and that the earth is very old and the universe is even older. We are not flat earthers.

 

[BobRyan]

If an alien landed on earth one week after creation what would he see? (Humor me about the alien and his age for the moment.) What assumptions would he make about the age of the earth?

It would appear to be millions or billions of years old and Adam and Eve would appear to be at least 20 years old.

No animals would appear to be dying of old age. They would all appear to be in early adult stages for that species.

 

[BobRyan]

How could God pull this off? How could He create a fully formed, mature tree without rings? That is the very nature of a tree. So that might be understandable. But a history of the universe written in light, full with events that never happened to objects that did not and would not exist for millions of years?

The Genesis account does not require that God made "a zillion and two great lights" on Day 4. The text says He only made two of them. The Bible does not give us the time when God made the stars. We only know that He also made stars - but we don't know how long before making Earth and our Sun - that was.

God does not lie. But I think our perceptions and assumptions can lead us to make conclusions that are obviously false.

Certainly that can be the case.

Could God create a universe that looks billions of years old for "the sake of the story?" Of course He can.

Indeed - vast distances in an expanding universe - but we don't know from the Gen 1 text WHEN God made the universe. Only this Earth and our Sun and moon (Possibly also the planets in our solar system as a bit of a stretch).

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The Genesis account does not require that God made "a zillion and two great lights" on Day 4. The text says He only made two of them. The Bible does not give us the time when God made the stars. We only know that He also made stars - but we don't know how long before making Earth and our Sun - that was.

Certainly that can be the case.


Indeed - vast distances in an expanding universe - but we don't know from the Gen 1 text WHEN God made the universe. Only this Earth and our Sun and moon (Possibly also the planets in our solar system as a bit of a stretch).

Thanks for the points. Things to ponder. The nature of space, time, and space in time, I think, are not fully understood. Recent observations by the Webb telescope has scientists scratching their heads. Fully formed galaxies in a time when there should not have been fully formed galaxies. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the objects, perhaps it is a faulty understanding on light, space, and time. Only recently has science come to understand how gravity affects the passage of time and the movement of light. It is our false assumptions that lead to false conclusions. In computer lingo we call that GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[d taylor]

I guess that is the point.
Faith is evidence of things not seen, not the denial of things that are.
We know about the flat earth theory. This theory denies the reality of what we see around us. They insist that the earth really is flat.
Christianity is not a flat earth religion. We are allowed to reconcile what we believe with what we see around us. It is not faith to deny what we see around us in every direction, at every level of life. Forget science. You do not have to be a scientist to know the earth is round and that the earth is very old and the universe is even older. We are not flat earthers.

I never said anything about a flat earth. The creation account in Genesis 1 has none of what you wrote in your opening post, as a description of God's creation.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I never said anything about a flat earth. The creation account in Genesis 1 has none of what you wrote in your opening post, as a description of God's creation.

Ok. Thanks for the contribution!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Our knowledge of the natural world is through observation. If we can't trust the ability to know about the natural world in any objective sense through empirical observation, then what we are saying--at a fundamental level--is that the material, natural world is illusory; it is fundamentally un-real.

That the world is illusory and unreal is a belief in several religions, but Christianity is not one of them. In Christianity the natural, material, phenomenological, and observable world is inherently and fundamentally real. It is an objective reality that exists, created by the Good Creator God and is innately and inherently good.

Throughout the history of the Christian Church she has had to face off against many heresies. In her youth there were a preponderance of heretical movements and sects that, today, we collectively refer to as Gnosticism. While Gnosticism was never a unified belief system or movement, it is a way of categorizing a collection of often related ideas and religious impulses that were very common in the ancient world, and in spiritual and religious movements throughout history. An essential, or at least near-essential, idea that virtually all Gnostic religions have had is a low view of the material and natural world. At best the world was seen as inferior, illusory, a kind of prison-house of the more real, the spiritual. In Manichaeanism, for example, the material world was perceived of as where light had become entrapped and mingled with darkness, and fundamental to Manichaean eschatology was that ultimately the material world would be dissolved and light return to its source. At worst, the material world was inherently and fundamentally evil, the work and creation of a malevolent and ignorant sub-god (at times identified with the Platonic Demiurge), sometimes called Saklas ("Fool"), a title given to the ignorant and sometimes malevolent aeon named Yaldaboath (likely a corruption the Tetragrammaton, YHWH). As a consequence of this, most Gnostics had deeply bizarre beliefs about Jesus (though not all Gnostics were, or have been, necessarily "Christian" Gnostics, e.g. the Mandaeans), where Jesus is often a divine being who only appeared to be human or inhabited a human or similar, but Jesus' principle role was to be a spiritual illuminator and conveyor of true knowledge (gnosis) pertaining to the truth behind the world which could only be accessed by an elect few who, through this knowledge/gnosis, awaken to the spark of divinity within themselves.

Thus for the Gnostics truth could not be found in the natural world at all, rather the material universe was an illusion, a deception, and a state of ignorance which veiled human beings from knowing the actual truth of the world and who they actually are. And only by bypassing the world through the attainment of true spiritual knowledge and ultimately freeing themselves from the shackles of matter could they return from whence they came, the "true god" that exists in a spiritual fullness ("pleroma") beyond the ignorant world of matter.

This is not Christianity. Christianity proclaims the innate goodness and reality of the material world. The material creation is not evil, nor ignorance, it is not an illusion of deception. It is real, and it is good. The problem, the error, in the material world is a moral one, it is sin, it is a brokenness which has cast a shadow of death over creation. Creation is good, and it is real; sin does not rob creation of these things, but it does cast suffering and misery upon creation (Romans 8:20-22).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sir Joseph]

If an alien landed on earth one week after creation what would he see? (Humor me about the alien and his age for the moment.) What assumptions would he make about the age of the earth?
Would he would see animals that were all in the same stage of development? He would see horses. Would all the horses be one week old? Just foals and fillies? Or would all the animals and plants be mature and at a set age? Would they be at various stages of development? A foal would need a mature mother horse capable of nursing it. So the mother horse would have had to be created in that state. What would the alien assume from seeing this? Mature animals look to be decades old. What does the alien assume?
If he cut down a large tree how many rings would this week old tree have? If the alien counted the rings what would he assume about the age of the tree? If you told him the tree was only a week old, what would he think about you? If convinced it was only a week old, would he think the rings are a lie? Do these trees have fruit and nuts that would take months to grow and develop? Why would someone deceive him into thinking these trees were many years old, when it in fact they were only a week old?
If this alien looked up into the sky what would he see? He is obviously intelligent and knows about the speed of light and immense distances of space. What would he think about seeing stars that are a billion years old. The light took a billion years to travel from a star to the earth. What would he think? He sees a star that is a million light years away go super nova. What would he assume from this? He knows that event actually took place a million years ago. If Adam told him that creation was actually only a week old, what would he ask? He knows that what he is seeing is a record, a testimony if you will, about the past. A history written in light. It is the "heavens declaring" (saying) something to us. He might ask who wrote this history that apparently never happened? If creation is only a week old, then that star did not exist a million years ago, much less go super nova a million years ago. He might ask if this manufactured light history is actually a lie written in light. Can you blame him?
Realize that we are very much like that alien. We see things that lead us to believe this earth is very old. If the earth is 6000 years old, then the light we are seeing today is a fiction of things that never happened.
If I wrote you a letter and dated it a week before I actually wrote it, would that be a lie?
How could God pull this off? How could He create a fully formed, mature tree without rings? That is the very nature of a tree. So that might be understandable. But a history of the universe written in light, full with events that never happened to objects that did not and would not exist for millions of years?
God does not lie. But I think our perceptions and assumptions can lead us to make conclusions that are obviously false.
Could God create a universe that looks billions of years old for "the sake of the story?" Of course He can. And we can work with that once we realize that is what He did. "I am going to plop you down into a stage that looks billions of years old, but it is all just props, So carry on with the play." But did He do this? Or is the creation really billions of years old and not just a contrived stage, complete with props, actors, and a prologued fictional script?
I go with the reality of an old creation.

SavedbyGrace3, your conclusion of an old earth/universe is shared by a majority of both believers and unbelievers. For the atheist, it's an understandable consistent belief necessary to maintain their presuppositional world views. But for the Christian, it's a contradiction to their faith's underlying scriptures. It can only be done by disregarding Genesis, which Jesus, Peter, and Paul affirmed. Were they mistaken in their referencing Genesis accounts as real history?

Current neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) and the necessarily dependent assumption of old ages is being taught as fact now in our culture - through the educational system, media, parks, museums, and even theological seminaries and churches. I too accepted the notion for the first half of my Christian life, thinking that the Bible could accommodate it with proper interpretation. It's called theistic evolution. But after 25 years of studying the matter, I've learned a few things:

Macro evolution, a process by definition that specifically excludes supernatural causes, opposes the Bible's creation account. The two are not compatible belief systems.

Genesis clearly defines a 7-day creation account, and to read long ages into it requires misinterpretation of the scriptures or outright rejection of them.

An old earth/universe model is defended primarily by radiometric dating and distant starlight, yet the preponderance of scientific evidence for a young creation far outweighs that of an old creation.

I have several excellent videos detailing scientific evidence for a young earth/universe creation, but I think any Christian respecting the Bible, the supposed foundation of his faith, should first understand that Genesis is written as a literal 7-day account of God's creation. A quick reading gives that clear impression, and close study proves it to be the case. Here are two presentations worthy of your time if you want a true Christian perspective on the matter.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Here are two presentations worthy of your time if you want a true Christian perspective on the matter.

Thanks SJ. I held to the traditional young earth creation for the first 40 or so years of my walk. The last 13 I have resolved to Theistic Evolution. Thanks for the references.
Peace

 

[oikonomia]

Since the invention of Photoshop, it especially is not wise to say you can always believe your eyes.

 

[BobRyan]

SavedbyGrace3, your conclusion of an old earth/universe is shared by a majority of both believers and unbelievers. For the atheist, it's an understandable consistent belief necessary to maintain their presuppositional world views. But for the Christian, it's a contradiction to their faith's underlying scriptures. It can only be done by disregarding Genesis, which Jesus, Peter, and Paul affirmed. Were they mistaken in their referencing Genesis accounts as real history?

Current neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) and the necessarily dependent assumption of old ages is being taught as fact now in our culture - through the educational system, media, parks, museums, and even theological seminaries and churches. I too accepted the notion for the first half of my Christian life, thinking that the Bible could accommodate it with proper interpretation. It's called theistic evolution. But after 25 years of studying the matter, I've learned a few things:

Macro evolution, a process by definition that specifically excludes supernatural causes, opposes the Bible's creation account. The two are not compatible belief systems.

Genesis clearly defines a 7-day creation account, and to read long ages into it requires misinterpretation of the scriptures or outright rejection of them.

An old earth/universe model is defended primarily by radiometric dating and distant starlight, yet the preponderance of scientific evidence for a young creation far outweighs that of an old creation.

I have several excellent videos detailing scientific evidence for a young earth/universe creation, but I think any Christian respecting the Bible, the supposed foundation of his faith, should first understand that Genesis is written as a literal 7-day account of God's creation. A quick reading gives that clear impression, and close study proves it to be the case. Here are two presentations worthy of your time if you want a true Christian perspective on the matter.

amen to that

I agree with the statements that day is day in Gen 1 and that it is composed of exactly one evening and morning where the terms evening and morning for a single day - were very well known concepts to Moses and his readers at the foot of Sinai. Readers that were in fact newly-freed slaves from Egypt and who were in no condition to infer fanciful gyrations into the Genesis 1 account.

But the text leaves some room between Gen 1 and Gen 2 for details in the rest of the universe to be represented in a moment of silence.

Angels are a higher order of beings than humans according to Ps 8:5 yet there is a lot of description for creation of humans in Gen 1 and Gen 2... and no description at all for the creation of Angels - because they are not part of Earth's creation. They are from "some place else' in the Universe. Angels are not from Earth.

You have "and God said" for what is actually made in each of the 7 days.

There is no "and God said let us make angels" in the Genesis account because it is only describing this Earth, specifically life on Earth, and our Sun and moon.

 

[byword]

If an alien landed on earth one week after creation what would he see? (Humor me about the alien and his age for the moment.) What assumptions would he make about the age of the earth?
Would he would see animals that were all in the same stage of development? He would see horses. Would all the horses be one week old? Just foals and fillies? Or would all the animals and plants be mature and at a set age? Would they be at various stages of development? A foal would need a mature mother horse capable of nursing it. So the mother horse would have had to be created in that state. What would the alien assume from seeing this? Mature animals look to be decades old. What does the alien assume?
If he cut down a large tree how many rings would this week old tree have? If the alien counted the rings what would he assume about the age of the tree? If you told him the tree was only a week old, what would he think about you? If convinced it was only a week old, would he think the rings are a lie? Do these trees have fruit and nuts that would take months to grow and develop? Why would someone deceive him into thinking these trees were many years old, when it in fact they were only a week old?
If this alien looked up into the sky what would he see? He is obviously intelligent and knows about the speed of light and immense distances of space. What would he think about seeing stars that are a billion years old. The light took a billion years to travel from a star to the earth. What would he think? He sees a star that is a million light years away go super nova. What would he assume from this? He knows that event actually took place a million years ago. If Adam told him that creation was actually only a week old, what would he ask? He knows that what he is seeing is a record, a testimony if you will, about the past. A history written in light. It is the "heavens declaring" (saying) something to us. He might ask who wrote this history that apparently never happened? If creation is only a week old, then that star did not exist a million years ago, much less go super nova a million years ago. He might ask if this manufactured light history is actually a lie written in light. Can you blame him?
Realize that we are very much like that alien. We see things that lead us to believe this earth is very old. If the earth is 6000 years old, then the light we are seeing today is a fiction of things that never happened.
If I wrote you a letter and dated it a week before I actually wrote it, would that be a lie?
How could God pull this off? How could He create a fully formed, mature tree without rings? That is the very nature of a tree. So that might be understandable. But a history of the universe written in light, full with events that never happened to objects that did not and would not exist for millions of years?
God does not lie. But I think our perceptions and assumptions can lead us to make conclusions that are obviously false.
Could God create a universe that looks billions of years old for "the sake of the story?" Of course He can. And we can work with that once we realize that is what He did. "I am going to plop you down into a stage that looks billions of years old, but it is all just props, So carry on with the play." But did He do this? Or is the creation really billions of years old and not just a contrived stage, complete with props, actors, and a prologued fictional script?
I go with the reality of an old creation.

I think the aliens would be afraid of the dominant species, dog… mostly because they have such huge servants trained to pick up their poop.
They may leave, thinking, ^\|~_ /-<~ ¥\_^ /-~>*^\ ~||+_^<>. -/\~<^**

(translated: ‘legged furball control giant creature pick up <|~\ _ to serve. Much risk, <|~\ _ cause no-breathing- no invade, no be slave to <|~\ _ producing beasts.”

( I didn’t know how to translate <|~\ _. Didn’t want to guess… I know speculation is discouraged here, so I left it in the original language of ]<*>[. )

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I think the aliens would be afraid of the dominant species, dog… mostly because they have such huge servants trained to pick up their poop.
They may leave, thinking, ^\|~_ /-<~ ¥\_^ /-~>*^\ ~||+_^<>. -/\~<^**

(translated: ‘legged furball control giant creature pick up <|~\ _ to serve. Much risk, <|~\ _ cause no-breathing- no invade, no be slave to <|~\ _ producing beasts.”

( I didn’t know how to translate <|~\ _. Didn’t want to guess… I know speculation is discouraged here, so I left it in the original language of ]<*>[. )

^#%\|~^_ /-^^<*&((*&\_^ /-~>*^\ ~||+^&%%%^<>. -/\~<
Cats are contenders for the dominant species since we provide for them indoor units maintained by said humans.
Our cat-food budget is approaching 40 bucks a month and we are having to replace furniture. There is talk of a revolution.

 

[byword]

^#%\|~^_ /-^^<*&((*&\_^ /-~>*^\ ~||+^&%%%^<>. -/\~<
Cats are contenders for the dominant species since we provide for them indoor units maintained by said humans.
Our cat-food budget is approaching 40 bucks a month and we are having to replace furniture. There is talk of a revolution.

Yeah, but you know, if there is an invasion, cats will take a nap and have the pet life all to themselves when it’s over!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Yeah, but you know, if there is an invasion, cats will take a nap and have the pet life all to themselves when it’s over!

And dogs will just bark and wake the neighbors up.

 

[byword]

And dogs will just bark and wake the neighbors up.

Reigning cats & dogs-

 

[Lost4words]

An alien wouldn't mess with a Corgi!