Chronogenesis II

[Assyrian]

Yes --- when the Fall occurred, God cursed His Creation ---

[bible]Genesis 3:17[/bible]

The ground Adam was formed from was cursed to produce thistles and thorns when he tried to till it. The curse in Genesis is very limited, creationist claim go far beyond anything said in scripture. Anyway I don't see how I don't see how a curse on the land Adam was going to farm, is supposed to change radiometric dating of rocks anywhere else in the world, or of meteorites that have fallen since then and confirm the measured age of the planet. I doesn't see how it is supposed to effect astronomical measurements of the age of the universe.

--- and it still groans today, awaiting its redemption ---

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

You know, Paul does not actually mention anything about that being the result of the fall. Paul also mentions decay in verse 21, and it is a form of decay, radioactive decay, that allows scientists to measure the age of rocks. If decay came from the fall the fall must have happened billions of years ago, because we can measure billions of years worth of radiometric decay. But if decay came with the fall, you need something else to explain what is confusing all the measurements.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

[bible]Numbers 23:19[/bible]

God is Truth --- that's why I'm so adamant that Genesis 1 is the right order.

lie
–noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

–verb (used without object)

1. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
2. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

deceive
-verb

1. to mislead by a false appearance or statement

And so on and so forth. I think we get the idea. So, now, let's review your "pet theory":

God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order

and compare that to Numbers 23:19. Remember, now, God said it so that settles it: your pet theory is b*llocks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I couldn't agree more.

"Any other single author" would include God, btw.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

Hangonaminute... So God makes the world in such a way that it appears differently...? Isn't that Omphalism (just with respect to features other than age)? Omphalism being what you vehemently distanced yourself from?

So, let's recap. The list of things that must take a hike in order for AV to hold onto his pet theory:
1) Reality (nothing new there)
2) God
3) AV's other pet theory

Nicely done, chief.

 

[AV1611VET]

* Bumped for 2010 *
​

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

 

[Split Rock]

* Bumped for 2010 *
​

[It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

What "atheist paradigms" are you refering to? Evolution is a scientific theory, not an atheist paradigm.

So, as usual, if the Bible is dead Wrong about something, there is always some apologetic argument to make it not Wrong, or to make it Wrong on purpose. How can you ever find out if it was Wrong about something by mistake, AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, as usual, if the Bible is dead Wrong about something, there is always some apologetic argument to make it not Wrong, or to make it Wrong on purpose. How can you ever find out if it was Wrong about something by mistake, AVET?

All God would have to do is work a miracle, and there will eventually be a scientific formula that says that miracle couldn't have happened the way it did.

The Resurrection -- walking on water -- all in violation of some law of nature.

In the case of this thread specifically -- the order of the creation of the universe.

 

[driewerf]

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

According to the Big bang paradigm I would suggest this:
Light
particles
hydorgen
helium and traces of lithium
galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

There the Big bang paradigm stops. All the things that I marked red, the big bang theory is silent about. Stars (green), I'm not very sure aboout, but I think that's rather the realm of astrophysics.

 

[driewerf]

I think what he's going for is that things were created as in Genesis 1, then the Flood came along and everything got changed because of it, and now we observe a different creation order. So Genesis 1 is the only record of how things really happened because now we are looking at altered data.

What's it mean when I start to understand AV's arguments?

Isn't this rather dad's private garden?

 

[Split Rock]

All God would have to do is work a miracle, and there will eventually be a scientific formula that says that miracle couldn't have happened the way it did.

The Resurrection -- walking on water -- all in violation of some law of nature.

In the case of this thread specifically -- the order of the creation of the universe.

How about actually answering my question? How can you ever find out if The Bible is Wrong about something by mistake, AVET?

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

According to the Big bang paradigm I would suggest this:
Light
particles
hydorgen
helium and traces of lithium
galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

There the Big bang paradigm stops. All the things that I marked red, the big bang theory is silent about. Stars (green), I'm not very sure aboout, but I think that's rather the realm of astrophysics.

Actually... Light would not have existed prior to the formation of stars. So I think the order would be:

Hydrogen
Stars
Light
Death of stars to release other elements etc. etc.

Edit to clarify: I should say "visible light" cause I'm sure the EMS was in existence with the inflation of the universe.

 

[Doveaman]

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. - Isa 55:8.

 

[Doveaman]

What "atheist paradigms" are you refering to? Evolution is a scientific theory, not an atheist paradigm.
So, as usual, if the Bible is dead Wrong about something, there is always some apologetic argument to make it not Wrong, or to make it Wrong on purpose. How can you ever find out if it was Wrong about something by mistake, AVET?

If a good scientific theory conflicts with good biblical theology, then the scientific theory is dead wrong.

 

[pgp_protector]

If a good scientific theory conflicts with good biblical theology, then the scientific theory is dead wrong.

Because no one can ever be wrong about Biblical theology right?

 

[Doveaman]

Because no one can ever be wrong about Biblical theology right?

Not if the Biblical theology is good.

 

[BananaSlug]

Fundies make me sad.

 

[Doveaman]

Fundies make me sad.

Do you know what "good" means? Or is it that you don't believe any theology can be considered good?

 

[Split Rock]

If a good scientific theory conflicts with good biblical theology, then the scientific theory is dead wrong.

I would say if a good biblical theology conflicts with a good scientific theory, then the theology is dead wrong. Afterall, all theology is subjective by its very nature.

Because no one can ever be wrong about Biblical theology right?

Not if the Biblical theology is good.

How do we determine if the biblical theology is "good?"

Do you know what "good" means? Or is it that you don't believe any theology can be considered good?

How about this: if the theology doesn't conflict with reality (eg scientific theory) then we can consider it "good?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Not if the Biblical theology is good.

Or pronounced 'very good' --

Genesis 1:31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[BananaSlug]

Do you know what "good" means?

I don't believe in an ultimate "good". If you mean "good" in a moral sense, it is anything that helps physical and emotional issues within a culture. It is "good" to help others that share your culture. It is "bad" to hurt others that share your culture. It is "bad" to help others that do not share your culture. It is "good" to hurt others that do not share your culture.

Or is it that you don't believe any theology can be considered good?

I don't believe any theology. Whether it is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant to me.