Did God Create Fossils?

[Winter_Rose]

Satan put the bones there to trick believers. Dinosaurs are not a part of God's plan and CREATION.
God bless you. Deny the dinosaur LIE.
#christians against dinosaurs

I still think dinosaurs are awesome and I enjoy learning about them. Why wouldn't he create dinosaurs if he created all the other different animals?

 

[Riberra]

That won't work, Riberra. For one thing, the Bible never speaks about Preadamites.

The Bible don't use the word Adamites either.

For another, sin is seen as entering through Adam and his descendants.

From where came Cain's wife?Remember based on Genesis 4 Cain was a young man maybe 20 years old when he have killed his twin brother Abel.

 

[Hoghead1]

Where exactly does it state that in Scripture Enfyre?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Satan put the bones there to trick believers. Dinosaurs are not a part of God's plan and CREATION.
God bless you. Deny the dinosaur LIE.
#christians against dinosaurs

Ned Flanders quote! Are you a Simspsons fan?

 

[Colter]

How do you know that he did not see Jesus as he claims he did -- were you there? Did you get the video?



Denying the Rev 20 Lake of Fire event that is predicted to happen in Rev 20 after the 1000 year millennium - was made up by people who can't afford to admit to the truth.

You can post your bias - I can post mine - but mine is from the actual Word of God.

See how easy that is??

Why not try out something more objective?

Yes, I can see how easy that is, and the motivation behind it. You are only trying to do to me what was done to you. That's how abuse works in dysfunctional families. The biased priest who wrote the Bible established their writings as the writings of God, then on that foundation they could manipulate and bully.

Plenty of people have spiritual awakenings as Paul, the former persecutor of Christians did, but that does not mean they are equal to God, or that their words are Gods Words. Paul was just the first great charismatic preacher, the Roman world heard about Jesus through Paul so they revered him, his teaching and preaching. When the Romans put together the cannon they converted Paul's letters to The Word of God. See how easy that is? Besides Paul's gospel was about the cross, Jesus' gospel that he had hoped the Jews would accept, the gospel they would be teaching from Jerusalem today, was about the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Colter]

The fragments of lore used to make Genesis in Babylon contain matter of fact statements about other people and cities beyond the garden:


13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech

* Who were the people Cain was afraid of, people that God was aware of?

* Who was Cains wife?

* Who was Enochs wife?

* Who was Irads wife?

* Who was Mehunjaels wife? and on and on......

 

[miamited]

Who says carbon dating is "dead on accurate"? I think everyone recognizes that there is a manner of variability in the results; however, even a 600 year difference is insignificant on the scale of millions of years.

Hi AIB,

Maybe. But just possibly consider that if that variance is constant something that is actually only at most a few years old being off by 600 years would be quite a ways off with material 6,000 years old. Many, many articles I have read regarding carbon dating written by the people who use it, say that it is not a reliable dating method beyond about 5,000 years. It just seems odd to me that the trustworthiness of the method is lost at pretty much precisely the number of years that God tells us the creation age is.

Of course, there are other methods that science uses to date material, but they all are based on the assumption that the measured material has always performed consistent to what we see today.

My consideration is that, if, the creation came about just as God has said it did as regards the time and manner. How old would a piece of that creation have measured using the methods we have today on day 10 of its coming into being? Adam would certainly have measured at least 20 years old based on all that we know about human growth and aging on the very day that he came to exist.

You see, or likely you don't, we have been duped into believing that man is smart. We even think to ourselves that we have evolved from some 'stupid and ignorant' ape like creature that couldn't have counted to ten to become all wise and all knowing. We can travel through space. We can build mighty structures that reach into the heavens. We are the gods of this earth! The truth. We are like unto ants running around here and there making ourselves busy building great lives and careers and doing what seem like mighty and wondrous things to ourselves, while in the eyes of our God, the one who created us, we are still just 'stupid and ignorant' creatures. Full of sin and wickedness. The most wicked of our work being our unending struggle to deny the truth of God because of our false belief that we are all wise. We have figured it all out.

And a great crowd of people have followed, like lemmings, the all wise guise of man. We are constantly crying out to others who stand with the plain truth of God, that can't be true! Man has proven that! Man knows! The plain truth that God merely spoke and created this realm of existence pretty much just like we see it today in a matter of a few turns of the earth about 6,000 years ago. Well, that just isn't possible! We know as an unquestioned fact that such an account is absolutely without any sliver of a doubt not true.

Me, I believe God. I think Solomon in his wisdom told us the truth. Man's ways are foolishness. A chasing after the wind.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[Colter]

Once the educated preist class established their writings as Gods writings, once they made man an inferior idiot with no common sense, then they could claim anything and poor stupid man of no faith had no defence. That's how destructive cults work. But then came the age of enlightenment and scientific investigation when the church lost the right to kill people who dare question their writings.

The train has left the station!

 

[Kenneth Redden]

If the flood did not produce the fossil record, then what did in context of a young earth view? I have heard it said that God could have created coal when He formed the world. But coal comes from organic remains, pressurized over long periods of time. Also, coal seams contain fossils, such as the imprints of leaves and other organic structures. If God created this, he is essentially making detailed evidence of something alive that never lived. Would God do this?

Absolutely not! It grew naturally. There are no lies embedded in this Universe.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Absolutely not! It grew naturally. There are no lies embeded in this Universe

That's the point.

 

[Riberra]

The plain truth that God merely spoke and created this realm of existence pretty much just like we see it today in a matter of a few turns of the earth about 6,000 years ago. Well, that just isn't possible! We know as an unquestioned fact that such an account is absolutely without any sliver of a doubt not true.

Can you tell us by which method of calculation you arrive at a 6,000 years old age for the Earth and the Universe ?
Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There is no mention about when that beginning -begin -...

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Hi AIB,

Maybe. But just possibly consider that if that variance is constant something that is actually only at most a few years old being off by 600 years would be quite a ways off with material 6,000 years old. Many, many articles I have read regarding carbon dating written by the people who use it, say that it is not a reliable dating method beyond about 5,000 years. It just seems odd to me that the trustworthiness of the method is lost at pretty much precisely the number of years that God tells us the creation age is.

Of course, there are other methods that science uses to date material, but they all are based on the assumption that the measured material has always performed consistent to what we see today.

My consideration is that, if, the creation came about just as God has said it did as regards the time and manner. How old would a piece of that creation have measured using the methods we have today on day 10 of its coming into being? Adam would certainly have measured at least 20 years old based on all that we know about human growth and aging on the very day that he came to exist.

You see, or likely you don't, we have been duped into believing that man is smart. We even think to ourselves that we have evolved from some 'stupid and ignorant' ape like creature that couldn't have counted to ten to become all wise and all knowing. We can travel through space. We can build mighty structures that reach into the heavens. We are the gods of this earth! The truth. We are like unto ants running around here and there making ourselves busy building great lives and careers and doing what seem like mighty and wondrous things to ourselves, while in the eyes of our God, the one who created us, we are still just 'stupid and ignorant' creatures. Full of sin and wickedness. The most wicked of our work being our unending struggle to deny the truth of God because of our false belief that we are all wise. We have figured it all out.

And a great crowd of people have followed, like lemmings, the all wise guise of man. We are constantly crying out to others who stand with the plain truth of God, that can't be true! Man has proven that! Man knows! The plain truth that God merely spoke and created this realm of existence pretty much just like we see it today in a matter of a few turns of the earth about 6,000 years ago. Well, that just isn't possible! We know as an unquestioned fact that such an account is absolutely without any sliver of a doubt not true.

Me, I believe God. I think Solomon in his wisdom told us the truth. Man's ways are foolishness. A chasing after the wind

I'm not suggesting that we are smart or have everything figured out. However, scientific methodology results in an extraordinary amount of testable, reproducible conclusions that not only correspond to our experience of the universe in which we live (albeit limited as it might be), but also fits squarely within hypothetical and theoretical models which this same scientific methodology usually either validates, or provides the foundation for revisions in thinking.

The problem with starting with Genesis is that the literalist interpretation is not testable on a theoretical or phenomenological level. We cannot know what supernatural intersections within the universe look like--that is why we refer to it as super-natural. But without knowing what we are looking for, we also cannot know when we have validated the presupposed conclusion.

 

[Riberra]

Hi AIB,

Maybe. But just possibly consider that if that variance is constant something that is actually only at most a few years old being off by 600 years would be quite a ways off with material 6,000 years old.

You forget to take into account that the tissue sample have been heated in a oven during 3 days.
Do they talk about the result they have get on a sample who have not been heated in a oven during 3 days ?

 

[miamited]

You forget to take into account that the tissue sample have been heated in a oven during 3 days.
Do they talk about the result they have get on a sample who have not been heated in a oven during 3 days ?

Hi riberra,

Well, I didn't see the Mythbuster episode. Someone else brought that evidence forward. However, the point of the exercise, having watched a number of their episodes, was to show just how easily the evidence that we think to be foolproof, can in fact be manipulated by many natural events that we cannot possibly account for when we try to discern things today that happened thousands of years ago.

The evidence is the same with tree growth rings. You have narrow and wide bands of tree rings. The common thinking is that the weather from year to year causes this. However, one of the real eye openers is that we do have proof - we have actually been able to replicate today - that there are events that will cause a tree to grow more than one ring in a given year. Now, how will someone be able to account for this phenomenon without knowing whether or not such weather conditions did exist over the several hundred years for which a particular tree's growth rings might be counted? We have absolutely no way of knowing whether, during the life of that tree's growth, there may well have been a dozen years that were particularly dry or particularly wet.

Then we have the matching of growth ring sets to establish that another piece of wood is even older than the first. But this is all guess work. Weather is not so predictable nor widespread to effect every tree in the same way. A tree cut in the high mountains of the Sierra Nevadas may show widely different tree growth band thicknesses than a tree cut down 50 miles away. Yet both trees grew through the exact same years. Even those who use tree ring counting readily admit that it is nowhere near an exact science. There are just far too many anomalies that can change from where one tree is growing and another tree is growing to say with any real degree of certainty that two closely identical tree ring growth sets actually are trees that grew at the same time.

Now yes, we can take and cut down trees today that are close together and assume that they pretty much will have matching growth band thicknesses, but people try to use this method of dating wood from centuries ago without having any idea whether two pieces of wood were harvested within close proximity of each other. It's an assumption that says, 'if two trees have an area of similar banding, then that particular area where the bands are the same must be the same years in which both trees grew'.

It happens in all of our dating methods. We assume that everything has always been as it is today and we can, therefore, extrapolate data based on that assumption. Maybe. Maybe not. What I know, what I know to be the truth from someone who was there when it all happened, is that God says in fairly simple terms that we're wrong. We don't like to think that and we have surely convinced ourselves that we are not, but...

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I'm not suggesting that we are smart or have everything figured out. However, scientific methodology results in an extraordinary amount of testable, reproducible conclusions that not only correspond to our experience of the universe in which we live (albeit limited as it might be), but also fits squarely within hypothetical and theoretical models which this same scientific methodology usually either validates, or provides the foundation for revisions in thinking.

The problem with starting with Genesis is that the literalist interpretation is not testable on a theoretical or phenomenological level. We cannot know what supernatural intersections within the universe look like--that is why we refer to it as super-natural. But without knowing what we are looking for, we also cannot know when we have validated the presupposed conclusion.

Hi AIB,

To your first premise: Yes it does. Science has given us many, many wonderful pieces of knowledge about the here and now. Why a dog's hair is black in one area and white in another is a testable and reproducible scientific practice. I am not anti-science. But I am aware of the limitations of science when it takes things that are testable and reproducible and then applies that knowledge over a long span of time in the past. Yes, we can theorize that such and such a thing would happen, but unless we can then test and reproduce the actual thing we're talking about, we can't say that the event or thing being talked about has been proven.

For example: We know that light travels at a given speed. Some say that this changes under certain conditions. I don't know. So, we can turn on a light bulb today and know that in so many billionths of second the light from that bulb will flood a room. However, when it comes to the creation event, I believe that it was a miracle. There is not a single miracle mentioned in all of the Scriptures for which the natural laws and properties of things apply. A jug of water cannot just instantly turn into fine wine. It can't happen! I don't care how many times you try it. All the laws of wine making and fermentation would tell you with proof positive that it can't happen! Water by itself won't turn into fine wine even if you leave it out for a billion years to do so. It must have sugar added to it and yeast and some sort of flavoring, usually grape juice. You can take a plain jug of water and give it to any scientist of your choosing and he will not be able to turn that jug of water into fine wine within 60 seconds. It can't happen! It's absolutely, unequivocally impossible based on every law of physics and natural properties that we know of. But Jesus did it~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, why should I believe that science has proven to me that the universe must be so many trillions of years old based on the natural law of light! God did it!!!!!!!!!!!! When God does things all the natural laws go out the window! Sure, we try to measure and figure and study up on what we see today and extrapolate that knowledge back over a time that not a one of us has even a small measure of knowledge about. But just as Jesus made that wine in a mere moment. God can make light spread across the entire universe in the same amount of time. He is the God of the impossible! He has given us His testimony of how and when He created this realm, but because we'd rather trust the tried and proven 'theories' of the science of men, we're going to stand toe to toe with God and say, "No you didn't!"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It happens in all of our dating methods. We assume that everything has always been as it is today and we can, therefore, extrapolate data based on that assumption. Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't think any reputable scientist assumes any such thing. The part you are missing is that the various methods utilized for dating phenomena aren't established on the basis of any individual sample. No, the methods are the result of the analysis of an extremely high number of experiments, measurements, and comparisons that occur all around the world, by scientists of all sorts of different philosophical biases. Are the dating methods perfect? Of course not. Is there a degree of inaccuracy in them? Absolutely. But the goal is not perfection, nor even near-perfect precision. Rather, the goal is to create a relatively accurate measure that can be applied predictably. Will there be outliers when using this process? Obviously. But that is what repetition is used for, to weed out the extremes in order to be able to craft theoretical models that most accurately describe observation.

And again, this is the major failing with starting with a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Because you have no criteria by which to analyze physical phenomena, there is absolutely no way in which to establish the legitimacy of the interpretation in correlation to the observations.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

To your first premise: Yes it does. Science has given us many, many wonderful pieces of knowledge about the here and now. Why a dog's hair is black in one area and white in another is a testable and reproducible scientific practice. I am not anti-science. But I am aware of the limitations of science when it takes things that are testable and reproducible and then applies that knowledge over a long span of time in the past. Yes, we can theorize that such and such a thing would happen, but unless we can then test and reproduce the actual thing we're talking about, we can't say that the event or thing being talked about has been proven.

This applies to the interpretation of Genesis literally, as well. Since it's not possible (given the constraints of human epistemology and the boundary-limited nature of science itself) to test that the interpretation matches with reality, you equally have no basis upon which to reject those findings which contradict the interpretation.

However, when it comes to the creation event, I believe that it was a miracle. There is not a single miracle mentioned in all of the Scriptures for which the natural laws and properties of things apply. A jug of water cannot just instantly turn into fine wine. It can't happen! I don't care how many times you try it. All the laws of wine making and fermentation would tell you with proof positive that it can't happen! Water by itself won't turn into fine wine even if you leave it out for a billion years to do so. It must have sugar added to it and yeast and some sort of flavoring, usually grape juice. You can take a plain jug of water and give it to any scientist of your choosing and he will not be able to turn that jug of water into fine wine within 60 seconds. It can't happen! It's absolutely, unequivocally impossible based on every law of physics and natural properties that we know of. But Jesus did it~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe creation is a miracle as well, but that has literally nothing to do with the age of the universe or the earth. Since we cannot test a miracle, the only thing we can do is to experiment and observe within the universe in which we live, and create theoretical models that best describe these observations and analyses. The conclusions of these observations, however, have no impact on whether or not God created the universe, as such a claim is completely beyond the realm of phenomenological investigation.

So, why should I believe that science has proven to me that the universe must be so many trillions of years old based on the natural law of light!

You don't have to "believe" it, but this conclusion (billions, not trillions) is currently that which best fits with the evidence that we have and the observations of the universe that we are able to make. That age may shift (up or down) as the number and quality of the observations increase; however, such a "change" really only illustrates the beneficial safeguards that are built into the scientific method. Juxtapose this with your viewpoint, which is rigid, dogmatic, and incapable of being altered regardless of the evidence that may be presented to you...

God did it!!!!!!!!!!!! When God does things all the natural laws go out the window!

That's fine, but it's also irrelevant to the conversation. If we presume supernatural involvement, we should refrain from making observations of the universe whatsoever, as we could have absolutely no confidence in any observations that we make.

Sure, we try to measure and figure and study up on what we see today and extrapolate that knowledge back over a time that not a one of us has even a small measure of knowledge about.

From your viewpoint, such an endeavor should be blasphemous. If we cannot explain the universe beyond the assertion that "God did it", making *any* observations about the universe is tantamount to saying that we have deciphered God. But of course, the fact that you're on a computer that is networked to other computers and are able to communicate your thoughts goes a significant distance to undermining the futility of your assertions.

But just as Jesus made that wine in a mere moment. God can make light spread across the entire universe in the same amount of time. He is the God of the impossible! He has given us His testimony of how and when He created this realm, but because we'd rather trust the tried and proven 'theories' of the science of men, we're going to stand toe to toe with God and say, "No you didn't!"

Sure, God can do anything which God desires to do. And one of these things that God can do is to create a universe that acts like a universe, subject to internally consistent laws and physics. No one is disputing whether or not God can or cannot do something; the question is what we believe the relationship is between God and creation, and whether this relationship is such that making any observations of the universe and trying to understand it is even worthwhile. According to your position, such an endeavor is tantamount to blasphemy (at least when it steps on certain dogmatic "toes"), but I would disagree.

 

[miamited]

I don't think any reputable scientist assumes any such thing. The part you are missing is that the various methods utilized for dating phenomena aren't established on the basis of any individual sample. No, the methods are the result of the analysis of an extremely high number of experiments, measurements, and comparisons that occur all around the world, by scientists of all sorts of different philosophical biases. Are the dating methods perfect? Of course not. Is there a degree of inaccuracy in them? Absolutely. But the goal is not perfection, nor even near-perfect precision. Rather, the goal is to create a relatively accurate measure that can be applied predictably. Will there be outliers when using this process? Obviously. But that is what repetition is used for, to weed out the extremes in order to be able to craft theoretical models that most accurately describe observation.

And again, this is the major failing with starting with a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Because you have no criteria by which to analyze physical phenomena, there is absolutely no way in which to establish the legitimacy of the interpretation in correlation to the observations.

Hi AIB,

I'm not willing to beat this poor dead horse any longer, but...

Yes, I get that we take a million samples from the here and now and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of those million samples. Let me ask you a question. If I take a piece of wood and submit it to radiometric or any other method of dating and the results come back that it is 1,500 years old. How will I know that my results are even in the ballpark so to speak?

As to your second paragraph, I don't have to prove God's word, God just asks me to believe His word. I do. Without a doubt. God has told me that He created this realm of existence in six days and accounted through the genealogies of Adam about when that six day period was. Then God repeated in the law that He made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. I don't have to prove that to be correct. God just asks that I believe Him. He accounted Abraham as righteous because he believed God. I believe God. I don't need science to bolster and support and prove or disprove what God says.

I believe that we live in a created realm. A realm that was created miraculously and near instantly by a God whose desire was to create man That to create man, God had to create a 'place' in which man could live. A universe with stars to tell times and seasons. An atmosphere that would hold oxygen and water that would allow man to breath and plants to grow for food. God made this realm for the express and singular purpose of being a home for man. It didn't take billions or trillions of years. God just said, 'let it be so!', and it was so. That's what God has told me that He has done and that's what I believe.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi AIB,

Just quickly in response to your post #358.

You're still stuck on the testing and proving. I'm beyond that. I have God's word, the testimony of the one who made all things, and that's really all the 'proof' I need. No, I can't prove that God made the universe and the earth in six days. But I don't have to. It's here and I'm living in it and I can have and hold all that God has for me without having to 'prove' a wit of it.

It has everything to do with the age of the earth and the universe. You don't see that of course. God has made a claim. Do you believe Him? For in six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Do you believe that?

Yes, it best fits with the evidence, if I throw out the evidence of God's testimony. If I throw out God's claim that in six days He made the heavens and the earth and all that is them, then yes, a billion trillion year old universe and earth does best fit the evidence of science. But I'm a child of God. I believe God. Children of the world believe the world.

Well, let's just for argument's sake say that the plain and literal explanation of the Scriptures is correct. That God did say and did mean that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. That the genealogies of Adam were given to us by God as a marker by which we can still, some 6,000 years later, make a fairly accurate accounting of the time in which that six day period was.

If you're God and your whole measure of faithfulness is whether a person believes you or not. Would those who work to give people what seems to them to be a sound and seemingly completely logical and reasonable reason to deny the truth of what you have told those that you created, be blasphemers? Your question is going to depend on just exactly what God expects from us. Does God expect His children to believe Him over and above what man would say? In the Revelation there is a number. That number is 666 and it is explained that it is the number of man. Is it at all possible that those who have believed man over God are already marked with that number?

But He doesn't have to use the natural laws and properties of the universe in the creating of the universe. Those are the things which God established after the universe was created in order that it endure for all time.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Can you tell us by which method of calculation you arrive at a 6,000 years old age for the Earth and the Universe ?
Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There is no mention about when that beginning -begin -...

Hi riberra,

Keep reading.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted