Comet Neowise

[Job 33:6]

It's more than simply creating something to look old. It's creating a story, that never happened.

Imagine if God created a person in the middle of a snowy field with foot tracks behind them, yet they never actually walked before.

How strange of a world view this truly is.

Where a person never actually walked through the snow, they simply were created with scars of the past.

How strange. Yet this is exactly analogous to what we see in the fossil record with fossil tracks.

In order to believe in last tuesday-ism, people have to be willing to ignore what they see with their own eyes. How could this ever be rational? It never could be.

 

[JohnDB]

This is common logic used as justification by young earthers.

The questions becomes, what is a more reasonable approach? Last tuesday-ism or...acknowledgement of history?

I'll give one more example.

Geologists run into these same scenarios when looking at fossils. Structural features like Hutton's unconformity cannot logically form in a brief amount of time, and yet we have things like dinosaur tracks and burrows and dinosau nests with eggs in them.

It's more than just...what something looks like. These are like scars of time. Dinosaur foot tracks suggest the passage of time, burrows and nests with eggs suggest passage of time (building nests, digging, walking). Feeding traces, scars in fossil bone from predator-prey battles. Etc.

Like imagine if Adam and Eve had...physical scars. It's more than just a regular man and woman, it's a man and woman that show evidence of past times.

And so ultimately, the old earth position would simply suggest that there is something broken about this last tuesday-ism worldview that continues even into the story of Adam and Eve and beyond.

To acknowledge an old earth and universe is really transformative in many aspects of one's world view, where everything, Genesis, Adam and Eve, creation of earth and life etc. Are all collectively transformed.

The old earth side suggests that we ought to trust in what we see with our eyes. The young earth side suggests that perhaps Satan is tricking us.

So the question comes down to, if you trust in what you see with your own eyes, and how confident you are in what you see.

I still believe that many conclusions drawn from the facts are likely not accurate.

Diesel was once thought to require hundreds to thousands of years to form...ok...it was discovered to form in very little time.

Petroleum deposits were once thought to be formed by dinosaurs...and now that has been debunked as well.

There's always false conclusions drawn from facts. Just a matter of complete understanding that we really don't have as yet.

 

[Leaf473]

This is common logic used as justification by young earthers.


The questions becomes, what is a more reasonable approach? Last tuesday-ism or...acknowledgement of history?


I'll give one more example.


Geologists run into these same scenarios when looking at fossils. Structural features like Hutton's unconformity cannot logically form in a brief amount of time, and yet we have things like dinosaur tracks and burrows and dinosau nests with eggs in them.


It's more than just...what something looks like. These are like scars of time. Dinosaur foot tracks suggest the passage of time, burrows and nests with eggs suggest passage of time (building nests, digging, walking). Feeding traces, scars in fossil bone from predator-prey battles. Etc.


Like imagine if Adam and Eve had...physical scars. It's more than just a regular man and woman, it's a man and woman that show evidence of past times.


And so ultimately, the old earth position would simply suggest that there is something broken about this last tuesday-ism worldview that continues even into the story of Adam and Eve and beyond.


To acknowledge an old earth and universe is really transformative in many aspects of one's world view, where everything, Genesis, Adam and Eve, creation of earth and life etc. Are all collectively transformed.


The old earth side suggests that we ought to trust in what we see with our eyes. The young earth side suggests that perhaps Satan is tricking us.


So the question comes down to, if you trust in what you see with your own eyes, and how confident you are in what you see.

yes, I hear what you're saying.
and when I say "looks", I'm using that as shorthand for "observable, objective evidence".

was there a literal Adam and Eve?
I think Paul builds part of his theology in Romans based on a literal Adam, a first man.
Jesus is the last Adam.

Paul also supports his view of the roles of men and women* by referencing a literal Adam and Eve.

*I disagree with his view, but that's kind of a different topic

 

[Job 33:6]

I still believe that many conclusions drawn from the facts are likely not accurate.

Diesel was once thought to require hundreds to thousands of years to form...ok...it was discovered to form in very little time.

Petroleum deposits were once thought to be formed by dinosaurs...and now that has been debunked as well.

There's always false conclusions drawn from facts. Just a matter of complete understanding that we really don't have as yet.

An understanding of an old earth was first published by James Hutton in the 1700s. Some facts have stood the test of time and have only become more and more supported. And just because someone can put organic matter into super-machines in a laboratory, and can simulate hundreds of millions of years in laboratory testing in a matter of months, doesn't mean that nature can or had done the same.

In this day and age, every line of independent investigation, be it through geology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, geography etc. Have all independently come to the conclusion of an ancient earth.

Do we learn more over time? Yes. But time and time again, we continue to arrive at the same conclusion over and over and over again. That the universe is far older, orders of magnitude older, hundreds of millions and billions of years older than what young earthers is propose.

 

[Leaf473]

The Bible is not a history book but it does contain relevant history.
The creation account is not a manual of how God built the universe either.

But that God did it by agency of Jesus is clear.

Adam was a real guy...Eve/Hawaa was as well.
Both names are titles...not just tags used to differentiate them. Titles as in positions of authority or position. (As is most names in scripture)

Was Adam and Eve the only people God created? We don't really know because God didn't tell us. Adam and Eve had lots of kids...and where we are only told about a few... we know they had more.

What we can figure out is that by the time Cain killed Abel the power of exponential growth had made it to where at a minimum there were roughly 20,000 people running around. City building could be possible for Cain...not just a set of empty tents.

A whole society hot and heavy looking for a miraculous "Seed of the Woman" that would allow them access back into the Garden in Eden. Making babies would be a huge imperative. One every 9 months by every post pubescent woman. (Money was food and food was money...and land was cheap and available for the taking.)

as you see it, were Adam and Eve conceived and born like all other humans?
or were they miraculously created?

 

[topher694]

it’s a deal breaker for a lot of people because if creationists lie about the evidence for a old earth then what’s to prevent them from lying about the spiritual side . Creationists especially young earthers are roundly derided as con artists by people who have left the faith. I’m glad I was never raised in a creationist household as I think being lied to like that would have caused me to lose my faith too

There's a big difference between lying and different interpretations. Calling a group of Christians liars because they don't see things the same way can cause just as much damage if not more as a wrong interpretation.

 

[Leaf473]

It's more than simply creating something to look old. It's creating a story, that never happened.

Imagine if God created a person in the middle of a snowy field with foot tracks behind them, yet they never actually walked before.

How strange of a world view this truly is.

View attachment 281148

Where a person never actually walked through the snow, they simply were created with scars of the past.

How strange. Yet this is exactly analogous to what we see in the fossil record with fossil tracks.

In order to believe in last tuesday-ism, people have to be willing to ignore what they see with their own eyes. How could this ever be rational? It never could be.

I agree with what you're saying, at the same time, I can also see the validity of looking at it this way, at least at this time:

suppose you climbed into your time machine and traveled back to when Jesus turned the water into wine.

did the wine have the appearance of having a backstory different from its actual backstory?
for example, did it appear to come from a particular kind of grape, since it was good wine?
did it have bacteria or yeast in it, and if so did the organisms appear to have been alive for many hours, being in different stages of growth or cell division?

 

[Job 33:6]

yes, I hear what you're saying.
and when I say "looks", I'm using that as shorthand for "observable, objective evidence".

was there a literal Adam and Eve?
I think Paul builds part of his theology in Romans based on a literal Adam, a first man.
Jesus is the last Adam.

Paul also supports his view of the roles of men and women* by referencing a literal Adam and Eve.

*I disagree with his view, but that's kind of a different topic

Exactly.

And that's what's tough about the situation.

Scripture appear to indicate a literal young earth.

From the position of basing a worldview purely and only around scripture, I think young earthers are justified in their conclusions.

And sometimes I give them credit. Such staunch and relentless support and trust in a direct reading of scripture. It is incredible that people might literally abandon their own eyes, and trust in the unseen to the furthest extent that physical reality may as well not even exist at all.

We could view their position as honorable.

Or, we could view it as intellectually dangerous.

And, I'm going to take this conversation in an odd direction right here.

But in the middle East there are a lot of wars and in recent times there have been battles between fundamentalist Muslims and more secular Muslims.

And one of the positions held by the fundamentalists was that all non-believers were to be killed.

And we might ask "well why is that?"

It's because they believe that non Muslims would lead others to Satan (based on the unseen) and so are willing to destroy things seen (non Muslim lives), to save what is unseen (salvation).

It is because these people took their scripture to the greatest extent of trust. The abandoned the fact that they were enslaving innocent women for sex, They abandon the fact that they were killing innocent people, innocent non-muslims, innocent Christians.

They abandoned physical reality and the destruction they were causing via a justification around salvation in the hereafter and things that were unseen.

They abandon the seen for faith in the unseen.

They abandoned their own eyes, and trusted in their scripture so deeply, that they lost connection with reality.

And obviously young earth creationists aren't in such an extreme position. However the logic is the same.

Is what young earth creationists are doing honorable? Or is it intellectually dangerous?

Should there really be no logical limit, to what someone is willing to ignore seeing, in favor of sticking with blind faith?

 

[JohnDB]

as you see it, were Adam and Eve conceived and born like all other humans?
or were they miraculously created?

Honestly I have no idea.

But I do know that all the rest of creation was spoken into existence while when it came time for man....God formed him with his hands and then breathed life into him (euphemism for giving him God's Spirit/essense)...a much much more focused and intimately involved process. This is much more than the animals got.

Adam had been the focus of all the rest of creation.

 

[Thera]

Ok...
Apparently the 6 literal day creation believers have to take a hit with this comet.

It has a 6800 year track... something that the math definitely shows and can't be explained away.

Earth history is only 6000 years at the most expanded timeline....4,000 before Jesus and 2,000 after.

Soooo

How can a comet be on a return track that is 800 years too much?

If the comet has been around 6800 years, why did they only just discover it? Did 180 generations of astronomers who went before all have their eyes closed?

 

[Job 33:6]

There's one other thing that I think is worth noting in this discussion.

Are young earth Creationist truly willing to abandon what they see with their own eyes in favor of faith in the unseen?

I am not a brain surgeon and I do not see what a brain surgeon sees. I am unfamiliar and unaware of concepts in brain surgery.

Am I a bad person or am I wrong to consider the possibility that brain surgeons may not always make the best judgment in their careers?

No.

Most people are not geologists or biologists or physicists or astronomers etc. Are they wrong to assume that we might be making mistakes?

No.

But the reality is that many young Earth's creationist haven't seen what we see. They probably have no idea what we see. So how could they ever even truly make it an accurate judgment of whether or not the earth is old?

They couldn't.

And this is where most of the young earth community resides. It's not that they ignore physical reality in favor of faith in scripture (some do but most probably don't). It's that scripture is all they've ever known. So how could they ever choose anything different from that literal reading?

How can you choose what is visible with your own eyes, if your eyes have never seen anything but scripture?

All we can do is suggest that people go to the local book store and do some more reading and hope for the best.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

it’s a deal breaker for a lot of people because if creationists lie about the evidence for a old earth then what’s to prevent them from lying about the spiritual side . Creationists especially young earthers are roundly derided as con artists by people who have left the faith. I’m glad I was never raised in a creationist household as I think being lied to like that would have caused me to lose my faith too

At some point Christians just need to be logical about things. The metrics used to date antiquities are the same for dating geological sites. So if it is ok to use it on the Dead Sea Scrolls, then it's ok to use it on a bone . That's my take on the matter. I don't defy science. God created it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up. Don't respond to trolling, report the posts.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Bible is not a history book but it does contain relevant history.
The creation account is not a manual of how God built the universe either.

But that God did it by agency of Jesus is clear.

Adam was a real guy...Eve/Hawaa was as well.
Both names are titles...not just tags used to differentiate them. Titles as in positions of authority or position. (As is most names in scripture)

Was Adam and Eve the only people God created? We don't really know because God didn't tell us. Adam and Eve had lots of kids...and where we are only told about a few... we know they had more.

What we can figure out is that by the time Cain killed Abel the power of exponential growth had made it to where at a minimum there were roughly 20,000 people running around. City building could be possible for Cain...not just a set of empty tents.

A whole society hot and heavy looking for a miraculous "Seed of the Woman" that would allow them access back into the Garden in Eden. Making babies would be a huge imperative. One every 9 months by every post pubescent woman. (Money was food and food was money...and land was cheap and available for the taking.)

This sounds like you just want to believe something that is not in the Bible. Jesus says,

6 “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9).​

This was a similar reference to the words used in the story of Adam and Eve.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).​

Also, we read:

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:23).

What were women called before this?
None.

So this is the first time the woman is called a woman.
This does not sound like a do-over.

In addition, the Scriptures say:

“And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” (Genesis 3:20).​

The lineage of Jesus Christ via by Mary's line is traced back to the name Adam: See Luke 3:23-38.

What happened to these other people before Adam? Did they sin? If so, why does Scripture say the following?

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
(1 Corinthians 15:22).

 

[J_B_]

Ok...
Apparently the 6 literal day creation believers have to take a hit with this comet.

It has a 6800 year track... something that the math definitely shows and can't be explained away.

Earth history is only 6000 years at the most expanded timeline....4,000 before Jesus and 2,000 after.

Soooo

How can a comet be on a return track that is 800 years too much?

I'm not taking a position on the earth's age, but based on what you've stated here, it does nothing to refute 6000 years. Just because it takes 6800 years to complete an orbit doesn't mean it has completed an orbit. Is there more information to go with this? For example, evidence it's completed at least one orbit?

 

[nolidad]

Ok...
Apparently the 6 literal day creation believers have to take a hit with this comet.

It has a 6800 year track... something that the math definitely shows and can't be explained away.

Earth history is only 6000 years at the most expanded timeline....4,000 before Jesus and 2,000 after.

Soooo

How can a comet be on a return track that is 800 years too much?

First off, let us know math never makes a mistake. It will always give a correct answer based on the information in the equation (assuming no human error). However that information may be incorrect so the answer while correct according to the equation is incorrect according to reality.

Such is the case with this comets date! Any event unobserved can only be guessed at based on plugging in assumptions and some educated guesses and some "ifs".

The math should say If thi and if this and if we are correct in this, then X is correct.

 

[Brightmoon]

There's a big difference between lying and different interpretations. Calling a group of Christians liars because they don't see things the same way can cause just as much damage if not more as a wrong interpretation.

. Have you read some of those creationist essays ? I said lying because I meant lying not different interpretations. They deliberately ignore or hide the fact of verifiable physical evidence that proves them wrong. Mainstream scientists won’t do that. I’m not saying that scientists are correct all of the time but they will admit it . Professional Creationists hide the truth rather than admit it and go to fear mongering rather than admit they were wrong (you’re gonna go to hell unless you believe this pseudoscience we want you to believe )

 

[Freed Man]

Ok...
Apparently the 6 literal day creation believers have to take a hit with this comet.

It has a 6800 year track... something that the math definitely shows and can't be explained away.

Earth history is only 6000 years at the most expanded timeline....4,000 before Jesus and 2,000 after.

Soooo

How can a comet be on a return track that is 800 years too much?

One error I can point out in you're OP is in that you say creationists believe that the earth is exactly 6000 years old at the "most expanded timeline". 4000 years before Jesus and 2000 years after. But this just proves that you're pulling numbers out of your hat. Since this is the year 2020 AD, then at least 2020 years have passed after Jesus. So that's at least 20 years beyond your "most expanded timeline." And the amount of time before Jesus that the earth has been in existence is estimated to be about 4425 years, give or take. So that's a proven error on your part. You're probably going to say that still doesn't come up to the 6800 years of the comet track. Well, since you pulled the exact number of 6000 out of your hat, claiming that that's the "most expanded timeline" when the timeline that the bible gives is a few hundred more that, then how do we know that your not also pulling the 6800 number out of the top of your head. Maybe you could explain the math of how you came up with that number.

 

[Leaf473]

Exactly.

And that's what's tough about the situation.

Scripture appear to indicate a literal young earth.

From the position of basing a worldview purely and only around scripture, I think young earthers are justified in their conclusions.

And sometimes I give them credit. Such staunch and relentless support and trust in a direct reading of scripture. It is incredible that people might literally abandon their own eyes, and trust in the unseen to the furthest extent that physical reality may as well not even exist at all.

We could view their position as honorable.

Or, we could view it as intellectually dangerous.

And, I'm going to take this conversation in an odd direction right here.

But in the middle East there are a lot of wars and in recent times there have been battles between fundamentalist Muslims and more secular Muslims.

And one of the positions held by the fundamentalists was that all non-believers were to be killed.

And we might ask "well why is that?"

It's because they believe that non Muslims would lead others to Satan (based on the unseen) and so are willing to destroy things seen (non Muslim lives), to save what is unseen (salvation).

It is because these people took their scripture to the greatest extent of trust. The abandoned the fact that they were enslaving innocent women for sex, They abandon the fact that they were killing innocent people, innocent non-muslims, innocent Christians.

They abandoned physical reality and the destruction they were causing via a justification around salvation in the hereafter and things that were unseen.

They abandon the seen for faith in the unseen.

They abandoned their own eyes, and trusted in their scripture so deeply, that they lost connection with reality.

And obviously young earth creationists aren't in such an extreme position. However the logic is the same.

Is what young earth creationists are doing honorable? Or is it intellectually dangerous?

Should there really be no logical limit, to what someone is willing to ignore seeing, in favor of sticking with blind faith?

hmmm... is fundamentalism dangerous?
honorable?
should there be limits to Faith?

I think how a person answers will depend on what they believe about how God reveals his truth to us.

I don't think fundamentalism, in most cases, has any greater negative impact on a person's life than, say, being a neat freak or shopping to relieve stress.

did I address your questions enough, or do you want me to write more details?

do you believe Abraham was out of line when he tied up Isaac and put him on the altar?

 

[Leaf473]

Honestly I have no idea.

But I do know that all the rest of creation was spoken into existence while when it came time for man....God formed him with his hands and then breathed life into him (euphemism for giving him God's Spirit/essense)...a much much more focused and intimately involved process. This is much more than the animals got.

Adam had been the focus of all the rest of creation.

was Adam formed out of dust as a single human?
was Eve formed out of a rib from Adam?

I'm not saying a person has to answer one way or the other.

but, if we start taking the story apart piece by piece, at some point we have to question if all have really sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

and maybe this shows my liberal side here, but I'm okay with that approach.

one possible way to read the Bible is to look for major themes, such as
there's just one God,
he/she sent Jesus,
because of that we should love the people around us.