Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

[jazzbird]

Ok, so what you are proposing is maybe Eve was created thousands of years after Adam. So Adam was thousands of years older than Eve? Boy, talk about a mismatch!

Nooo.....not thousands of years! Maybe it was a month, maybe a year, maybe ten years.....I don't know, but a thousand years is a bit extreme. If he was going to get lonely, it would be a lot sooner than that. The point is that the text seems to imply that some amount of time went by before Eve was created. Adam was given a lot of work to do. He was to cultivate the garden, name the animals and care for them, and he also had the company of God. So, he had plearureable work and fellowship with God to fill his days, but after a reasonable amount of time he became lonely for human companionship.

But your particular criticism about Adam naming the animals ignores two very important facts: (1) Adam was much more intelligent than we can even imagine today; and (2) he did not have to name every species of animal, but only the distinct "kinds" of animals that were of immediate interest and access in his daily activities.

Adam had been created in the very "image" of the omniscient God, and that image had not yet been damaged by sin and the curse. Scientists today recognize that modern man actually uses only a very small part of his brain's potential, but Adam, with his mental capacity just then created by a purposeful, wise, loving Creator, perhaps could have used it all! He could surely have recognized, almost instantly, the distinctive qualities of each pair of animals as the different kinds passed before him, and then given them appropriate names.

Furthermore, he did not have to name all the species of even this limited number of animals, but only the kinds--which is a much broader term, possibly comparable, in many cases, to our modern taxonomic "family." Although we cannot calculate the actual number of animals involved, it was not inordinately large, and Adam, with his vast innate mental abilities, could surely have named them all in a reasonable part of one day's time.​

​

That's an interesting theory about Adam. I don't think there is any way to know if Adam did in fact use more of his brain than we do, is there, and sinless doesn't necessarily equal more intellegent. All we know from the creation accounts is that God created Adam in His image, and we are too. I believe that "created in His image" refers to the fact that we are unique in all of creation. Things that make us unique include our spirit, our ability to make moral decisions, our creativity and our capacity for abstract thinking. I'm not convinced that would include any kind of "super-human" qualities that we lost at the fall. At the fall, they gained knowledge of evil, they lost their intimate relationship with God and they were forced out of Eden. There is nothing that suggests that they lost any kind of mental ability. I just don't think that being sinless equals superior intellegence. Jesus was God incarnate and a sinless man, yet He didn't perform any of His tasks at a super-human speed. He did His work like any other carpenter. To say that Adam just instantaneously new what to call all the animals and took no time or pleasure in the act strikes me as empty and robotic. God gave this job to him. Therefore it is meaningful, but what you propose - to me, at least - removes much of the meaning from the act.

That aside, it still seems highly implausible that the entirity of day 6 could take place in a day. Adam was created in the second half of that day. He was to cultivate the garden, which in itself would take some time. Also note, with regard to vegetation that the Bible says that God commanded the earth to "sprout vegetation" in Gen 1:11. The plants were not created on the earth fully formed, but they grew from seed. It takes some time for plants to grow - much more than a day. If God was working in 24 hour days, why wouldn't he have created the plants in their mature state? In order for them to grow from seed to plant is a day, obviously they would have been growing in "fast forward" - for lack of a better term. What's the point of that? But back to Adam....you're right, he only named kinds. I'm not sure how many that actually entails. I was searching for an answer to that but couldn't find an estimate of how many animals that would actually be. What I did find however was that young earth creationists apparently must believe in evolution to make their view work, though they are adamentally opposed to scientific evolution. I found these excerpts on YEC sites:

It is thought there are between 5 and 50 million species on earth today, with only 1.75 million characterized and named. The relative number of terrestrial species per major taxa are listed below, and this does not include insects and spiders which alone exceed 1 million. It is certain given the number of species alive today that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the flood of Noah. It is believed by many creationists that the mammalian Family level of classification is closely synonymous to the Biblical kinds for many animals, and the various species within have evolved since the flood.

For decades creationists have been using the word "kind," "type," or "group" for their envisioned categories of genetically unrelated organisms, including all those formed by the Creator during the Creation Week. Within each of these categories the various species, subspecies, and varieties were conceived to have diversified from common ancestral stock. However, until recent years there has not been a serious comprehensive methodology of classification focusing on characterizing each original category, which is separated by genetic gaps from all other categories.

From what I am understanding on young earth sites, the belief is that from the kinds that were created in the six days, biological evolution works to create new species. Old earth creation does not believe that.

References:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html​

 

[Cal]

Nooo.....not thousands of years! Maybe it was a month, maybe a year, maybe ten years.....I don't know, but a thousand years is a bit extreme. If he was going to get lonely, it would be a lot sooner than that. The point is that the text seems to imply that some amount of time went by before Eve was created. Adam was given a lot of work to do. He was to cultivate the garden, name the animals and care for them, and he also had the company of God. So, he had plearureable work and fellowship with God to fill his days, but after a reasonable amount of time he became lonely for human companionship.

That's an interesting theory, but not Scriptural. It's pure speculation which, as we have seen demonstarted with how people handle the Word of God over history, can be very dangerous.

That's an interesting theory about Adam. I don't think there is any way to know if Adam did in fact use more of his brain than we do, is there, and sinless doesn't necessarily equal more intellegent. All we know from the creation accounts is that God created Adam in His image, and we are too. I believe that "created in His image" refers to the fact that we are unique in all of creation. Things that make us unique include our spirit, our ability to make moral decisions, our creativity and our capacity for abstract thinking. I'm not convinced that would include any kind of "super-human" qualities that we lost at the fall. At the fall, they gained knowledge of evil, they lost their intimate relationship with God and they were forced out of Eden. There is nothing that suggests that they lost any kind of mental ability. I just don't think that being sinless equals superior intellegence.

Well there are a couple of things that prove our intelligence has degenerated over time. Just look at how long they lived, Adam lived almost a thousand years and his sons and his son etc. It has also been proven through study of genetic's that old age result's in the dying of genes and brain cells. Now Adam was made perfect in the image of God and sinless to live for eternity. Can you imagine how intelligent he must have been?

We are made in the image of sinful Adam, with all the imperfections of him plus some more from our parents and our parents parents ad infintium.....We can expect to live for less than a hundred years at our birth. Can you imagine how less intelligent we are to a perfect man?

Jesus was God incarnate and a sinless man, yet He didn't perform any of His tasks at a super-human speed. He did His work like any other carpenter. To say that Adam just instantaneously new what to call all the animals and took no time or pleasure in the act strikes me as empty and robotic. God gave this job to him. Therefore it is meaningful, but what you propose - to me, at least - removes much of the meaning from the act.

I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about intelligence and efficiency. Adam didn't "instantly" know what to name the animals but as a perfect man it is not unreasonable to propose that he could think and focus in degrees that you and I could never imagine. I mean if we could imagine it then we would have to be perfect too, right?

That aside, it still seems highly implausible that the entirity of day 6 could take place in a day. Adam was created in the second half of that day.

But the Trinity is implausible, we shouldn't take the Word of God to our bar of puny judgments otherwise we wouldn't even believe in miracles.

He was to cultivate the garden, which in itself would take some time. Also note, with regard to vegetation that the Bible says that God commanded the earth to "sprout vegetation" in Gen 1:11. The plants were not created on the earth fully formed, but they grew from seed.

That's not biblical, that's your specualtion at work again. Was Adam created as an embryo? Was he created as a baby? Or was he created as a full grown man? If Adam was created with the appearance of age why are you having trouble with plants?

Adam as a one day old probably looked 20 or 30 years old. Maybe that's where your confused, I mean on how God created everything with the appearance of age?

But back to Adam....you're right, he only named kinds. I'm not sure how many that actually entails. I was searching for an answer to that but couldn't find an estimate of how many animals that would actually be.

Thanks I think the explanation was very plausible too!

 

[jazzbird]

I think it is a mistake to compare this mysteriously unique day with any other day the Earth has ever seen. In addition, I think it is a mistake to think that because there is a unique mysterious day referred to in Scripture that there are many mysteriously unique day's. Because to do so takes the "unique" out of "unique."

I can't help but feel that we are totally misunderstanding each other on this whole unique day thing. I think we must be coming at it from totally different angles. I really don't understand why you keep comparing unique and ordinary days.

But it is important, what the bible say's and intends is very very important.

The Bible is the revelation of God and it is the most important evidence we have as a source of knowledge. The reason the Scriptures don't refer to the creation day's as unique is because they are not unique. They are ordinary days. Why would you want to try to make them unique?

Yes, you are right. It is important. I didn't mean to say that the study of words and texts and translations is not important. And I would especially never say that what teh Bible says and means is unimportnat. My feeling on the matter in our situation is that since the Hebrew allows for the translation as a period of time - as much as you are trying to prove that it cannot be translated that way in Genesis - there is reason to consider the translation as such. What I meant about it being unimportant is that you are not going to be able to convince me that it can't be a period of time based on your single arguement, so I just feel that it may be better to go about this discussion from a new angle. Sometimes discussing a new aspect will even resolve the old problem.

Also, if you don't mind I would like to see this "substantial evidence" you have in the next post, I mean if it's not too much trouble. Because there are hundreds of PhD's in science who see absolutely no evidence for an old Earth at all. Now I know there are numerous atheist scientists with PhD's that refute this but I think it is their biased atheistic worldview that is producing this biased conclusion. By the way speaking of atheist old earth scientists, does it bother you at all to be siding with millions of atheists who also hold to an old earth? Please pardon me here to be so bold to ask but I think this should be some kinda warning signal for you.

Now you're talkin'! There are also hundreds of Christian Scientists with PhD's as well as OT scholars who are absolutely convinced that the earth is old and that their findings line up clearly with Scripture. Obviously as Christians, they are not out to debunk Christianity through their view, but rather have come to it in an honest way. To me, it is the young earthers who are more like the aethists because they are afraid that violence will be done to the word of God if they do not fight for a young earth. No offence intended, and I know all young earthers aren't like that, but I do see that as a danger that one can fall into. As far as me siding with the atheists, nothing could be farther from the truth! The only thing we share in common is a belief that the earth is very old. I do not believe in evolution. I do not believe we are here out of chance. I believe that God was in complete and loving control of each creational act. Atheists and I would not agree with much of anything.

Anyway....here are a few very prominent Christian men who believe in an old earth:

Most famous of course would be Hugh Ross. He is an astro-physicist. Here is a brief blurb from his bio:

Hugh's unshakable confidence that God's revelation of Himself in Scripture and nature do not, will not, and cannot contradict became his unique message. Communicating that message as broadly and clearly as possible became his mission. He scouts the frontiers of origins research to share with scientists and nonscientists alike the thrilling news of what's being discovered and how it connects with biblical theology.

Gleason Archer - Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Norman Geisler - Christian apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina

J.P. Moreland - Philosopher

Do you know Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason? I love to listen to him. He's also an old earther.

As for evidence.....

Starlight
Rock and ice layers
Radioactive Dating

Sorry it's merely a list right now. Don't have time for an extensive essay at the moment but would be happy to discuss any of the above with you.

GEN 1: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

GEN 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.

GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

GEN 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

GEN 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

GEN 1:31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

GEN 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


Now your verse:

GEN 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

You see the contrast? The Holy Spirit is revealing how the Earth was made in specific 24 hour days, and then He refers to them all as the day of creation or the time of creation. He could have and would have used this general period of time wording in all the preceeding verses if they were periods of time instead of 24 hour days but He chose not to.

Why?

Same Holy Spirit, written on the exact same day (no pun intended), referencing the exact same event, and written by the exact same person Moses. You really bring out a very good point here.

Not to be dense, but I'm not sure I follow your arguement here. These are two separate creation accounts. In one account it talks of six days and in the other it talks of one.

As for your list of evening and morning, if we look closely at the Hebrew we actually see that the interpretation is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be:

The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.

How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.

Reference:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

 

[jazzbird]

That's an interesting theory, but not Scriptural. It's pure speculation which, as we have seen demonstarted with how people handle the Word of God over history, can be very dangerous.

Tell me specifically what is not Scriptural. And how is it that Adam got lonely in the span of a couple hours?

Well there are a couple of things that prove our intelligence has degenerated over time. Just look at how long they lived, Adam lived almost a thousand years and his sons and his son etc. It has also been proven through study of genetic's that old age result's in the dying of genes and brain cells. Now Adam was made perfect in the image of God and sinless to live for eternity. Can you imagine how intelligent he must have been?
We are made in the image of sinful Adam, with all the imperfections of him plus some more from our parents and our parents parents ad infintium.....We can expect to live for less than a hundred years at our birth. Can you imagine how less intelligent we are to a perfect man?

Do you have proof that Adam was way smarter than us? The Bible says absolutely nothing about his intellegence - at least to my knowledge.

And I still say your interpretation takes meaning and purpose from the task.

I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about intelligence and efficiency. Adam didn't "instantly" know what to name the animals but as a perfect man it is not unreasonable to propose that he could think and focus in degrees that you and I could never imagine. I mean if we could imagine it then we would have to be perfect too, right?

I find this much more highly speculatory than my supposed speculation.

That's not biblical, that's your specualtion at work again. Was Adam created as an embryo? Was he created as a baby? Or was he created as a full grown man? If Adam was created with the appearance of age why are you having trouble with plants?

Adam as a one day old probably looked 20 or 30 years old. Maybe that's where your confused, I mean on how God created everything with the appearance of age?

If Adam was created as an infant he wouldn't be able to care for himself, so it would be much more reasonable to create a man instead of a baby. And the Bible says that God created a man. But the Bible also says that the vegetation began as a seed - that's not speculation.

And why would God try to trick us by creating with the "appearance of age?" He is not a deceiver.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That's an interesting theory, but not Scriptural. It's pure speculation which, as we have seen demonstarted with how people handle the Word of God over history, can be very dangerous.

Well there are a couple of things that prove our intelligence has degenerated over time. Just look at how long they lived, Adam lived almost a thousand years and his sons and his son etc. It has also been proven through study of genetic's that old age result's in the dying of genes and brain cells. Now Adam was made perfect in the image of God and sinless to live for eternity. Can you imagine how intelligent he must have been?

We are made in the image of sinful Adam, with all the imperfections of him plus some more from our parents and our parents parents ad infintium.....We can expect to live for less than a hundred years at our birth. Can you imagine how less intelligent we are to a perfect man?

I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about intelligence and efficiency. Adam didn't "instantly" know what to name the animals but as a perfect man it is not unreasonable to propose that he could think and focus in degrees that you and I could never imagine. I mean if we could imagine it then we would have to be perfect too, right?

But the Trinity is implausible, we shouldn't take the Word of God to our bar of puny judgments otherwise we wouldn't even believe in miracles.

That's not biblical, that's your specualtion at work again. Was Adam created as an embryo? Was he created as a baby? Or was he created as a full grown man? If Adam was created with the appearance of age why are you having trouble with plants?

Adam as a one day old probably looked 20 or 30 years old. Maybe that's where your confused, I mean on how God created everything with the appearance of age?

Thanks I think the explanation was very plausible too!

you are consistently replacing the word 'good' in Genesis with the word 'perfect' and taking the extra meaning of perfect as without error or flaw.
this versus the Biblical tov

Tov means “just right,” “just as intended,” “everything in its place,” “pleasing,” “giving happiness or joy,” “valuable,” “pure.”

from: http://www.vasynod.org/EGenesis1.pdf

God alone is perfect, Adam was sufficient, not perfect, and certainly not immortal.

 

[Cal]

If Adam was created as an infant he wouldn't be able to care for himself, so it would be much more reasonable to create a man instead of a baby. And the Bible says that God created a man. But the Bible also says that the vegetation began as a seed - that's not speculation.

And why would God try to trick us by creating with the "appearance of age?" He is not a deceiver.

Thanks for all your replies!

Since we are talking through so many different points at once maybe it would be a good idea if we just pick one of these points and stay with it for awhile, ok? Let's start with your last comment.

Was God deceiving anyone when he created Adam as a man?

If you were able to travel back in time, with Hugh Ross and all his science books, and see Adam the hour he was created, without knowing he was just created you and Hugh would probably say he was a 25-30 yr. old man. But he would actually have been only a 1 hour old man. Is that deception? Or is that care? As you suggested earlier Adam couldn't have taken care of himself as an infant so wasn't God showing Fatherly care by creating Adam as a fully grown intelligent 1 hour old man? Now, isn't that the appearance of age? Something looks really old, but is really incredibly young.

Now, when you and Hugh said Adam was 25 years old I might call you an "old age theorist," and if I told you God told me he was only 1 hour old you might call me a "young age theorist." You would show me the results of your experiments and analysis and prove that he was indeed a 25 year old man. You would show me all your age research analysis indicating his bones, organs and mental capicity was clearly that of a 25 year old man.

But he was really only 1 hour old. You would be deceived because of the appearance of age and you and Hugh might even try to convince me that I must have misunderstood God. But God's Word would have been right and your experiments would have been right. Adam would have been a 1 hour old fully grown man!

Now that's not implausible, that is Scriptural!

 

[jazzbird]

you are consistently replacing the word 'good' in Genesis with the word 'perfect' and taking the extra meaning of perfect as without error or flaw.
this versus the Biblical tov

from: http://www.vasynod.org/EGenesis1.pdf

God alone is perfect, Adam was sufficient, not perfect, and certainly not immortal.

Fantastic point. Thanks rmwilliams.

 

[jazzbird]

Thanks for all your replies!

Since we are talking through so many different points at once maybe it would be a good idea if we just pick one of these points and stay with it for awhile, ok? Let's start with your last comment.

Excellent idea!

Was God deceiving anyone when he created Adam as a man?

Nope. The Bible clearly tells us that Adam was created fully grown. No deception there.

If you were able to travel back in time, with Hugh Ross and all his science books, and see Adam the hour he was created, without knowing he was just created you and Hugh would probably say he was a 25-30 yr. old man. But he would actually have been only a 1 hour old man. Is that deception? Or is that care? As you suggested earlier Adam couldn't have taken care of himself as an infant so wasn't God showing Fatherly care by creating Adam as a fully grown intelligent 1 hour old man? Now, isn't that the appearance of age? Something looks really old, but is really incredibly young.

Now, when you and Hugh said Adam was 25 years old I might call you an "old age theorist," and if I told you God told me he was only 1 hour old you might call me a "young age theorist." You would show me the results of your experiments and analysis and prove that he was indeed a 25 year old man. You would show me all your age research analysis indicating his bones, organs and mental capicity was clearly that of a 25 year old man.

But he was really only 1 hour old. You would be deceived because of the appearance of age and you and Hugh might even try to convince me that I must have misunderstood God. But God's Word would have been right and your experiments would have been right. Adam would have been a 1 hour old fully grown man!

Now that's not implausible, that is Scriptural!

You must remember that we must take both Scripture and science into account. Of course Scripture supercedes science, but really I believe they go hand in hand and are not contradictory. The Bible clearly tells us that God created a man - it does not simply say He created a male, but specifically a man. Therefore, we have no reason to question Adam's physical maturation. However, The Bible does not clearly state the age of the universe or the earth.

It does hint at it's maturation - or lack thereof - in the description of plant creation: "Let the earth sprout vegetation," and "the earth brought forth vegetation." It is clear that these were not full grown plants. They began in their immature form, therefore God did not create the whole world in a mature state. We don't know from the Genesis account alone if He dealt with the rest of creation like He did the plants, or like He did Adam. Is there any place in the Bible where we are told that God made the world with the appearance of age?

If we look at Scripture about creation, we find that God's creation (our world) tells truth. It does not bring forth deception.

Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

If creation really declares God's righteousness, we expect that it is truthful. The Bible tells us that God never lies.

Hebrews 6:18 ...in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie.....

Titus 1:2 ....in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago...

If the evidence of the earth is that it's been around for a few billion years, either God really created it that long ago or he is deceiving us into thinking it is that old. Now why would a God who wants us to know Him and whose Word tells us that he reveals himself through His creation want us to be lead to believe a falsity?

 

[Cal]

Excellent idea!


Nope. The Bible clearly tells us that Adam was created fully grown. No deception there.

You must remember that we must take both Scripture and science into account. Of course Scripture supercedes science, but really I believe they go hand in hand and are not contradictory. The Bible clearly tells us that God created a man - it does not simply say He created a male, but specifically a man. Therefore, we have no reason to question Adam's physical maturation. However, The Bible does not clearly state the age of the universe or the earth.

It does hint at it's maturation - or lack thereof - in the description of plant creation: "Let the earth sprout vegetation," and "the earth brought forth vegetation." It is clear that these were not full grown plants. They began in their immature form, therefore God did not create the whole world in a mature state. We don't know from the Genesis account alone if He dealt with the rest of creation like He did the plants, or like He did Adam. Is there any place in the Bible where we are told that God made the world with the appearance of age?

If we look at Scripture about creation, we find that God's creation (our world) tells truth. It does not bring forth deception.

Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

If creation really declares God's righteousness, we expect that it is truthful. The Bible tells us that God never lies.

Hebrews 6:18 ...in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie.....

Titus 1:2 ....in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago...

If the evidence of the earth is that it's been around for a few billion years, either God really created it that long ago or he is deceiving us into thinking it is that old. Now why would a God who wants us to know Him and whose Word tells us that he reveals himself through His creation want us to be lead to believe a falsity?

Jazzbird,

If you don't mind before we get off on to these other items can we look at your comment on creation with age and my example again?

I said:

"If you were able to travel back in time, with Hugh Ross and all his science books, and see Adam the hour he was created, without knowing he was just created you and Hugh would probably say he was a 25-30 yr. old man. But he would actually have been only a 1 hour old man. Is that deception? Or is that care? As you suggested earlier Adam couldn't have taken care of himself as an infant so wasn't God showing Fatherly care by creating Adam as a fully grown intelligent 1 hour old man? Now, isn't that the appearance of age? Something looks really old, but is really incredibly young.

Now, when you and Hugh said Adam was 25 years old I might call you an "old age theorist," and if I told you God told me he was only 1 hour old you might call me a "young age theorist." You would show me the results of your experiments and analysis and prove that he was indeed a 25 year old man. You would show me all your age research analysis indicating his bones, organs and mental capicity was clearly that of a 25 year old man.

But he was really only 1 hour old. You would be deceived because of the appearance of age and you and Hugh might even try to convince me that I must have misunderstood God. But God's Word would have been right and your experiments would have been right. Adam would have been a 1 hour old fully grown man! "

Now here is an example of creation with age that reconciles with science. We have a 1 hour old man that would scientifically test out to be 25-30 years old. Science (old age) and young age would reconcile.

Would you mind addressing this and the questions I asked?

Thx!!!

 

[jazzbird]

Sorry, didn't mean to skip over questions you wanted me to answer. Here we go....

But he would actually have been only a 1 hour old man. Is that deception? Or is that care? As you suggested earlier Adam couldn't have taken care of himself as an infant so wasn't God showing Fatherly care by creating Adam as a fully grown intelligent 1 hour old man? Now, isn't that the appearance of age? Something looks really old, but is really incredibly young.

That would be "appearance of age," but only to an extent. Unfortunately we cannot study the body of Adam as we can the earth, but let's imagine what Adam's body might have been like. We know he is a full grown man, however besides the physical maturity, did his body really have the appearance of age? There's the old question "did Adam have a belly button?" It's only speculation, but I would suppose not since he did not experience human birth. If that is true, that would be one aspect of his body that does not carry the appearance of age. There are many other things that point to age in our bodies that would have been lacking in his, such as calluses on his hands and feet, scars, wrinkles (not old people wrinkles, but hey, I'm 27 and I have subtle "smile wrinkles" around my mouth and eyes )...I'm sure there's other signs we can think of on our bodies that point to age and wear and tear. Adam would have had none of these, so if we were able to examine him, ultimately we would conclude that he doesn't truly have an appearance of age.

And as I said before, Adam is not a case of deception because God clearly tells us that he was created physically mature.

Now here is an exmple of creation with age that reconciles with science. We have a 1 hour old man that would scientifically test out to be 25-30 years old. Science and young age would reconcile.

To an extent, but as I addressed above, there would be sufficient evidence to question Adam's age based on lack of "wear and tear."

The problem is that young age and science don't reconcile when we look at the evidence that the earth brings forth.

Would you mind addressing this and the questions I asked?

I don't know if I hit on the things you were looking for. Were there other questions that I neglected. Let me know.

 

[Cal]

Sorry, didn't mean to skip over questions you wanted me to answer. Here we go....


That would be "appearance of age," but only to an extent. Unfortunately we cannot study the body of Adam as we can the earth, The problem is that young age and science don't reconcile when we look at the evidence that the earth brings forth.



I don't know if I hit on the things you were looking for. Were there other questions that I neglected. Let me know.

You hit on them very well, thank you very much and pls allow me to add how nice it is to have a civil conversation with someone in this forum. It is too rare, this Reformed thread excluded of course!

So we do see where creation has the "appearance of age" in a crystal clear example. You made another very good point, you said "but" Adams' not around to examine. That's right, and please let me add this, and we weren't there to examine anything.

Therefore, our information is incomplete today. I propose what you proposed. I propose that if we could really travel back and examine everything that your other "old earth" scientific conclusions would be more complete and you would find "additional evidence" that would enable you to conclude that other material really had other proofs, like Adam, that would indicate a very young age. For instance, no rings in trees etc etc etc.

This biblical teaching of the "appearance of age" in Adam should cause you to reflect and think, what other appearances of age did God create that are misleading our scientific conclusions. Like the light from the stars.

 

[jazzbird]

You hit on them very well, thank you very much and pls allow me to add how nice it is to have a civil conversation with someone in this forum. It is too rare, this Reformed thread excluded of course!

It certainly is nice - and all too rare. The worst thing about being in uncivil debates for me is that if I feel attacked by someone I begin to display unchristlike behavior in response to that and I become someone that I really don't like. Thanks for making it easy to debate with kindness.

So we do see where creation has the "appearance of age" in a crystal clear example. You made another very good point, you said "but" Adams' not around to examine. That's right, and please let me add this, and we weren't there to examine anything.

Therefore, our information is incomplete today. I propose what you proposed. I propose that if we could really travel back and examine everything that your other "old earth" scientific conclusions would be more complete and you would find "additional evidence" that would enable you to conclude that other material really had other proofs, like Adam, that would indicate a very young age. For instance, no rings in trees etc etc etc.

This biblical teaching of the "appearance of age" in Adam should cause you to reflect and think, what other appearances of age did God create that are misleading our scientific conclusions. Like the light from the stars.

Woah, now where is your proof that the appearance of age is a biblical teaching?

I conceded that Adam would have the appearance of age at a preliminary examination. However, I don't think that the Adam example is crystal clear, because as I stated before, if one were able to examine Adam's body at the time of creation, they would be led to the belief that despite the fact that Adam was a full grown man, he in fact would not truly have the appearance of age. So the natural evidence would lead to the correct answer: Adam was a newly created being. In addition, we are told straight out that Adam was created a man. We were not told that any other part of creation was created with maturity. And as I pointed out with the plants, the Bible tells us specifically that some things were not created in their mature state. There is a very good reason for Adam to be created as he was. We both agree that he was created like this so that he could take care of himself. The earth and universe did not have this need.

The fundamental difference you are missing between Adam and the earth is that the earth is here for us to examine. We do not need to go back to the beginning of creation to examine the earth. It is here for us to study now.

My major concern is that this whole appearance of age thing makes God out to be a liar. I do not say that lightly. I firmly believe that God would not mislead us in this way. The Bible tells us that He doesnt. God is truthful and reveals Himself through His creation. As I said in my last post:

If the evidence of the earth is that it's been around for a few billion years, either God really created it that long ago or he is deceiving us into thinking it is that old. Now why would a God who wants us to know Him and whose Word tells us that he reveals himself through His creation want us to be lead to believe a falsity?

 

[Donny_B]

Maybe God does not like "fence sitters", and lukewarmness. We see in His council to the church of Philadelphia, He prefers that we be hot or cold, and not lukewarm. Paul says that God will send a strong delusion to believe "a lie" in the last days. Is evolution part of this lie? Perhaps He will allow the discovery of a "missing link" that will make many of the compromisers cold non-believers? Does God prefer atheists to compromisers?

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:11-12

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15-16

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

 

[jazzbird]

Sorry, double post.

 

[jazzbird]

Maybe God does not like "fence sitters", and lukewarmness. We see in His council to the church of Philadelphia, He prefers that we be hot or cold, and not lukewarm. Paul says that God will send a strong delusion to believe "a lie" in the last days. Is evolution part of this lie? Perhaps He will allow the discovery of a "missing link" that will make many of the compromisers cold non-believers? Does God prefer atheists to compromisers?

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:11-12

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15-16

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

Are you calling me a lukewarm Christian and a compromiser simply because I believe the world is older than 6,000 years?!?

You are taking Scripture completely out of context by applying them to this debate.

 

[Cal]

It certainly is nice - and all too rare. The worst thing about being in uncivil debates for me is that if I feel attacked by someone I begin to display unchristlike behavior in response to that and I become someone that I really don't like. Thanks for making it easy to debate with kindness.

Woah, now where is your proof that the appearance of age is a biblical teaching?

I conceded that Adam would have the appearance of age at a preliminary examination. However, I don't think that the Adam example is crystal clear, because as I stated before, if one were able to examine Adam's body at the time of creation, they would be led to the belief that despite the fact that Adam was a full grown man, he in fact would not truly have the appearance of age. So the natural evidence would lead to the correct answer: Adam was a newly created being. In addition, we are told straight out that Adam was created a man. We were not told that any other part of creation was created with maturity. And as I pointed out with the plants, the Bible tells us specifically that some things were not created in their mature state. There is a very good reason for Adam to be created as he was. We both agree that he was created like this so that he could take care of himself. The earth and universe did not have this need.

The fundamental difference you are missing between Adam and the earth is that the earth is here for us to examine. We do not need to go back to the beginning of creation to examine the earth. It is here for us to study now.

My major concern is that this whole appearance of age thing makes God out to be a liar. I do not say that lightly. I firmly believe that God would not mislead us in this way. The Bible tells us that He doesnt. God is truthful and reveals Himself through His creation. As I said in my last post:

Wait now, Adam had a 30 year old mind, heart, stomach, liver, fingers, toes and was able to immediately reproduce. This is clear direct evidence that God does create with the appearance of age.

You don't deny this. You agree with this, that is the biblical evidence.

You say that if God creates with the appearance of age he is deceitful. But you say it's ok if he created Adan with the appearance of age as a 30 year old man even though he was 1 minute old. You can't have it both ways.

You then say it was ok in Adam's case because he couldn't take care of himself as an infant. So are you saying it's ok for God to be deceitful sometimes?

I don't call it deceit at all, I call it creation as God wanted to do it. Now if He creates appearance of age with Adam and that's not deceit, why would it be deceitful for God to create an apple tree for Adam to eat apples, or a pear tree for Adam to eat pears, or tomatoes, potatoes, corn etc. etc. etc. Instead of sitting around waiting for everything to grow.

Why is it deceitful if He created Adam with the appearance of age to create stars with the appearance of age (billions of years old in appearance) for Adam to immediately see, enjoy and praise God over or a Sun to immediately warm the planet and Adam etc. etc. etc.

That sounds just like God, loving and caring for Adam as a Father, not a deceitful god out to trick all the scientists. This really should give you pause to think. Again if you were there, sure you would be able to tell Adam was 1 hour old, after careful examination, and you would be able to tell the apple tree Adam ate from had no rings. But the tree would sure look like it was a hundred years old and Adam sure would look like he was 30 years old, until your examined them in detail. And what about the stars? They would sure look like they were billions of years old too, right?

God has given you the evidence right out of the Scriptures that He creates with age and He did so out of love not deceit, why fight it?

 

[jazzbird]

Wait now, Adam had a 30 year old mind, heart, stomach, liver, fingers, toes and was able to immediately reproduce. This is clear direct evidence that God does create with the appearance of age.
You don't deny this. You agree with this, that is the biblical evidence.
You say that if God creates with the appearance of age he is deceitful. But you say it's ok if he created Adan with the appearance of age as a 30 year old man even though he was 1 minute old. You can't have it both ways.
You then say it was ok in Adam's case because he couldn't take care of himself as an infant. So are you saying it's ok for God to be deceitful sometimes?

The Bible tells us that Adam was created a man. God told us this. There is no deception. And actually I think I need to rephrase my statement about him having the appearance of age. In actuality, he was created an adult - he didn't just appear to be an adult. He was an adult. The idea of someone being born an adult is foreign to us because we must begin as an infant, but Adam did not have that kind of beginning. He was the first man and he began life as an adult.

I don't call it deceit at all, I call it creation as God wanted to do it. Now if He creates appearance of age with Adam and that's not deceit, why would it be deceitful for God to create an apple tree for Adam to eat apples, or a pear tree for Adam to eat pears, or tomatoes, potatoes, corn etc. etc. etc. Instead of sitting around waiting for everything to grow.
Why is it deceitful if He created Adam with the appearance of age to create stars with the appearance of age for Adam to immediatley see and praise God for or a Sun to immediately warm the planet and Adam etc. etc. etc.
God has given you the evidence right out of the Scriptures that He creates with age and He did so out of love not deceit, why fight it?

How do you know that there were trees without rings. As I've pointed out a few times, the Bible says that the plants began as seed and grew up. Therefore, the trees would indeed have growth rings.

The problem with the arguement that starlight was created with the appearance of age is that starlight then becomes an illusion. Adam was what he was. He was real. But to say that light from the universe could be instantaneously seen means that the source wasn't real. So we are not actually seeing light from something that really existed. This suggests that God merely created the illusion of a universe and not the universe itself. So if this is true, what else isn't real? This encourages a whole lot of skepticism.

Everything we have learned about the earth tells us that it is old. Why is it so important to fight that information? It lines up with Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture that goes against an old earth. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God created the world with the appearance of age. Adam is the only example given in the Bible of God's creation that didn't begin in infancy, and God had reason to create him as an adult. Nowhere else does the Bible hint that everything was created with the appearance of age. To assume that it was simply because Adam was created a man and not an infant doesn't make sense. All you are doing is making assumptions. We know from Genesis that some things began in their infant state.

If something only appears to be old, it is in reality not old. If it is not old, yet it leads people who study it to believe it is old, it is deceptive. If the creation is deceptive, does that not lead us to the conclusion that the creator of the creation is also deceptive? What reason does God have to fabricate what nature tells us? What is the purpose?

 

[Cal]

The Bible tells us that Adam was created a man. God told us this. There is no deception. And actually I think I need to rephrase my statement about him having the appearance of age. In actuality, he was created an adult - he didn't just appear to be an adult. He was an adult. The idea of someone being born an adult is foreign to us because we must begin as an infant, but Adam did not have that kind of beginning. He was the first man and he began life as an adult.

Wait now, isn't this mincing words a little bit? I mean you agree Adam had a body, heart, mind, liver, toes, eyes, fingers and teeth of a 30 year old man, yet he was only 1 second old.

Now that is the apprearance of a 30 year old man who is really only 1 second old. That's a fact that you agreed to and I think you still agree to. This was not an illusion, this was a fact of history.So the question remains unanswered, why is it not deceptive for a loving God to create a fully grown man who appears, functions, lives and reproduces like a 30 year old man and yet only be a week old, and yet be deceptive to create a fully grown apple tree for Adam to eat from on the first day?

 

[Cal]

How do you know that there were trees without rings. As I've pointed out a few times, the Bible says that the plants began as seed and grew up. Therefore, the trees would indeed have growth rings.

But you pointed this out presupposing God was deceptive if He created a fully grown tree with the appearance of age. As you have already agreed earlier, God does create with the appearance of age without the intent of being deceptive but out of love, as you so aptly put it.

So now this will help you understand other Scripture as well.

These verses reveal that God created fully grown tress in one day:

GEN 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
GEN 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

You have also learned that every time the Holy Spirit refers to morning and evening, night and day or a day with a number attached (513 additional time)as He does in these verses that it means a literal 24 hour day. So of course there was fully developed fruit on fully developed trees for Adam to eat on his first day and all with the appearance of age.

 

[Cal]

The problem with the arguement that starlight was created with the appearance of age is that starlight then becomes an illusion. Adam was what he was. He was real. But to say that light from the universe could be instantaneously seen means that the source wasn't real. So we are not actually seeing light from something that really existed. This suggests that God merely created the illusion of a universe and not the universe itself. So if this is true, what else isn't real? This encourages a whole lot of skepticism.

I don't know why this would create skepticism in you, it creates awe in me and in millions of others.

Maybe this is like the "god being deceptive" post earlier that you admit to being love and not deception after all. It seems like deception or the creation of skepticism if you don't believe God created all in six literal days. But once you begin to unravel it as you did with Adam you discover what you thought was deception is really love.

Now lets look at skepticism. You do realize that there was light before there were stars and a sun. This was one of the very first things revealed in Scripture, and not to make skeptics out of us, not at all, but instead to create a sense of awe in us to better worship our Creator.

GEN 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
GEN 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
GEN 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day.

Now you stated, "So we are not actually seeing light from something that really existed. This suggests that God merely created the illusion..." But this isn't Biblical, God created light without a source on the first day and it wasn't an illusion, it was a fact.

See, these are the kinda things that help us interpret Scripture, we let Scripture interpret itself.