Did God Create Fossils?

[toLiJC]

I would not define that as "evidence." It is a scripture regarding the Antichrist, and there is no mention here about him creating fossils deep beneath the earth. Believing in fossils doesn't make you an atheist: There are many Christians who see the fossil record as being put in place by the flood, as do I.

without judging any person by speaking this way, i can say, to claim the prehistoric fossils have been since the flood means to support the conception of the palaeontology that the prehistoric fossils are remains of prehistoric animals lived even (hundreds of) millions of years ago (because you know how the science has have a lead as to this matter, and many people has been inclined to believe the scientists - here is how even you believe their discoveries somehow, for exactly they have dug the fossils and determined they are of prehistoric animals), while, according to what is written in the Bible, the universal creation was made about 5-6 millennia ago, because the beginning of this eternity was then

then in the Bible there is talk of many antichrists and angels of satan (1 John 2:18, Revelation 12:7), and it is not necessary that it be written how they materialized fossils or other things, but it is enough when it is written how they could show/perform great signs and wonders:

Matthew 24:24 (KJB) "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.",

(NIV) "false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."

there is no more correct explanation, because if God made there be prehistoric fossils, then He would be responsible for that

Blessings

 

[ClothedInGrace]

there is no more correct explanation, because if God made there be prehistoric fossils, then He would be responsible for that

Blessings

To believe in fossils doesn't require you to believe they are millions of years old. I'm a young earth creationist, yet I don't believe they were created by satan.

 

[AskGoddotBiz]

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?

Ahem, cough, cough The Gap Theory is your answer. http://www.thegaptheory.com/

 

[toLiJC]

To believe in fossils doesn't require you to believe they are millions of years old. I'm a young earth creationist, yet I don't believe they were created by satan.

and do you realize the fact that if God created those giant predators/reptiles or remains/fossils of such, then He would be responsible for the human belief that God is not fully rational and righteous (especially if it was reached by being proceeded from that fact)?!

Blessings

 

[ClothedInGrace]

and do you realize the fact that if God created those giant predators/reptiles or remains/fossils of such, then He would be responsible for the human belief that God is not fully rational and righteous?!

Blessings

I think your logic is faulty to be honest. How does God creating dinosaurs make him irrational and unrighteous?

 

[Armoured]

There is no evidence that the devil created or even can create fossils. They are there as a result of the global flood: There is no other biblical explanation. We know that fossils are only created when the body is covered quickly, so the fact that there are so many fossils is actually an evidence for a global covering of dead animals.There are also plenty of Christian science organizations that dedicate their lives to answer questions like these.

Answer how all the different types of organisms are found at the exact same deposit level across the world from a single flood, and sure, let's talk.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Answer how all the different types of organisms are found at the exact same deposit level across the world from a single flood, and sure, let's talk.

I never said I wanted to talk
I'm no expert in this field .

 

[James Wilson]

But coal comes from organic remains, pressurized over long periods of time.

You can only continue believing this assumption (that coal is created over long periods of time) if you don't pay attention to modern observations:

Coal mined in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old. That seemed to be pretty undeniable. But in 1944 a ten year old boy named Newton Anderson broke open a lump of coal from that seam and found a copper-alloy bell. Is Man that ancient? Science says no. In my agnostic years I thought, “Maybe there’s some mistake or deception somewhere.” But the counter-evidence continues piling up.

An intricate gold chain and a cast iron pot were also found embedded in coal! (What’s going on here? There’s no way manmade artifacts, even on an evolution-scale of one to two million years, should be found cast-in-place in 100-million-year-old coal!) Then I found disagreement between dating systems! Radiocarbon Journal took coal from the 100 million year old level of the geologic chart and found it to be 1,680 years old, using Carbon-14 dating!

The scientists who had assured me of the 100 million years necessary to create coal only left out this one, ‘insignificant’ assumption: It takes that long with dry earth when no heat other than the compression due to depth. When geothermal water is present, the time required can be reduced to as little as two weeks! It would take a much longer article than this to review all the ‘scientific evidence’ that God used to lead me to reject the scientifically accepted, contrary evidence.

For those of you who aren't locked into supporting evolution's assumptions, see my linkedin blog, New Creation Ideas.

-- Nuclear Engineer/Scientist retired after 26 years of predicting the future for the US government at a national lab.

 

[Colter]

Both of you are wrong. If the Genesis account was simply a made up story then why does God make reference to it in the Old and New Testaments? Why did the Jews believe it was inspired and given by Moses? Don't either of you realize that evolution is a lie? It simply doesn't work, and any "God" who uses it is an dunce in my opinion.

You call God a dunce for creating life using the technique of evolution? That's the first time I've ever heard God called a dunce! Wowza!

 

[jasonwrites]

Ahem, cough, cough The Gap Theory is your answer. http://www.thegaptheory.com/

I can't tell if you are positing this "Gap Theory" seriously or sarcastically. I read over that page, and, wow... It reeks of "Let's make something up that somehow smashes together literal creationism with scientific evidence, with no firm basis in either, at the same time insulting believers in both." The "diagram" even throws Atlantis into it-- do we want to include ancient aliens next?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You call God a dunce for creating life using the technique of evolution? That's the first time I've ever heard God called a dunce! Wowza!

Yes, because evolution is stupid. God created life: He didn't evolve it. Any "God" who has to "start" life and then let it somehow morph into infinitely more complex creatures through millions of years of death and mutation is no "God" in my book. In case you were wondering, my book is the Bible.

 

[jasonwrites]

Did God create fossils? It depends on your definition of "creation." There is "special creation" and then there is the more abstract sense of creation as on ongoing process, not something that began and ended in six days. For example, we can, right now, witness new islands being created from volcanic activity. We can see viruses mutate into new strains, which is the creation of new lifeforms (their genome is different from their predecessors). If you're willing to believe that God is the eternal Creator who set the mechanisms of creation into motion at the beginning of time-- whether that's 6,000 or 13.7 billion years ago-- then you can say that literally everything is God's creation no matter how much time has passed. Things like fossils can arise from the natural processes that were ultimately created by God. It's when you believe that God has to say, "here is a mountain! here is a lake! here is a duck-billed platypus!" that you get such problematic discrepancies. I think this is a case of, once again, we have to not put God in a box!

 

[jasonwrites]

Yes, because evolution is stupid. God created life: He didn't evolve it. Any "God" who has to "start" life and then let it somehow morph into infinitely more complex creatures through millions of years of death and mutation is no "God" in my book. In case you were wondering, my book is the Bible.

You are putting God in a box. Who are we to pass judgment on how God chooses to create? To say that, as inherently flawed and limited mere mortals, we can presume to say definitively how God did and did not do it? Pride is the foremost sin for a reason.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You are putting God in a box. Who are we to pass judgment on how God chooses to create? To say that, as inherently flawed and limited mere mortals, we can presume to say definitively how God did and did not do it? Pride is the foremost sin for a reason.

I believe God's word. I'll say it again: Evolution is stupid. To make things clear, I am of course talking about macroevolution, not variation within a kind. This is not pride: It's logic and faith in God's word. People did not even believe in evolution 200 years ago, so why should I--as a Child of God--accept man's theories over God's word? In 6 days God created the world and everything in it, and He rested on the 7th day. That's the Bible: That's truth.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

So apparently me thinking that something is either true or not is a Western bias of mine?

No. The biases emerge in the criteria that you utilize to adjudicate the truthfulness of something.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

No. The biases emerge in the criteria that you utilize to adjudicate the truthfulness of something.

And your bias is that you believe evolution is true, so therefore the Genesis account was a made-up story in your mind.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

In principle we agree, but only so far as the motivation of the authors was not one of factual, historical or philosophical consistency. The writing of Genesis, the complete recasting of Hebrew history from an ordinary secular to a miraculous fiction was the result of the devastating pressure brought about by the loss of Jerusalem, re-captivity and overall blow to the Israelites national ego. The vantage point was Babylon. The priestly redactors went to the other extreme, and while it may have served a purpose for the preservation of the Jews it also set the stage for future confusion and misidentification of the Son of God and the purpose of Gods guidance over Israel from Abraham ..........to-----> Jesus.

I didn't raise any argument about this point. To a large extent, I agree. The creation mythologies in the Israelite consciousness certainly predated this period, but the redactors certainly had their own motivations in how they molded the narratives to fit their social/political/religious ends.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

As for the flood, there wasn't one on the scale depicted in the Noah story. When the Hebrew authors were attempting to trace their bloodlines (authority) back to a much older Adam and Eve, they couldn't. So they exploited a local flood legend as a genealogical device. It was acceptable to the minds of the age but not to contemporary man. That's why we don't find human skeletons or their settlements along side dinosaurs, because the dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years before man evolved to will consciousness roughly 1 million years ago.

This may be part of it, however, the "flood motif" is certainly not unique to biblical literature; therefore, it likely has origins in the common mythologies of the ANE peoples as a whole. We see a similar development in the genealogies themselves in re: their marked correlation to "kings lists" in other literature of the time (for example, Sumerian).

 

[Colter]

You can only continue believing this assumption (that coal is created over long periods of time) if you don't pay attention to modern observations:

Coal mined in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old. That seemed to be pretty undeniable. But in 1944 a ten year old boy named Newton Anderson broke open a lump of coal from that seam and found a copper-alloy bell. Is Man that ancient? Science says no. In my agnostic years I thought, “Maybe there’s some mistake or deception somewhere.” But the counter-evidence continues piling up.

An intricate gold chain and a cast iron pot were also found embedded in coal! (What’s going on here? There’s no way manmade artifacts, even on an evolution-scale of one to two million years, should be found cast-in-place in 100-million-year-old coal!) Then I found disagreement between dating systems! Radiocarbon Journal took coal from the 100 million year old level of the geologic chart and found it to be 1,680 years old, using Carbon-14 dating!

The scientists who had assured me of the 100 million years necessary to create coal only left out this one, ‘insignificant’ assumption: It takes that long with dry earth when no heat other than the compression due to depth. When geothermal water is present, the time required can be reduced to as little as two weeks! It would take a much longer article than this to review all the ‘scientific evidence’ that God used to lead me to reject the scientifically accepted, contrary evidence.

For those of you who aren't locked into supporting evolution's assumptions, see my linkedin blog, New Creation Ideas.

-- Nuclear Engineer/Scientist retired after 26 years of predicting the future for the US government at a national lab.

The coal and bell thing is a fraud! Even the clowns at AIG have that story on their list of stories to avoid.

Yes, because evolution is stupid. God created life: He didn't evolve it. Any "God" who has to "start" life and then let it somehow morph into infinitely more complex creatures through millions of years of death and mutation is no "God" in my book. In case you were wondering, my book is the Bible.

The Bible and the people in it developed over time, No? Are things on earth now the way they will be after the return of Christ? Man lives in time and space, the eternal God transcends both.

 

[Armoured]

I never said I wanted to talk
I'm no expert in this field .

Well, if you can find anyone who can explain it, let me know. Until then, I'd maybe be careful making claims about what Christian "science" organisations can answer.