Did God Create Fossils?

[alexandriaisburning]

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

I haven't said a single word about evolution, so you are jumping to conclusions in that regard. I will also point out another instance of your biases, in the phrase "made-up story". Your modern bias toward "truth as historicity" completely prevents you from understanding the ancient mind that did not think about the world in such ways. How then can you possibly read the Genesis narratives and understand the intentions of the authors? If you do not suspend these biases (insofar as such a thing is possible), you will only read what you expect to read, and you will arrive at conclusions that are predetermined by the philosophy to which you pledge allegiance.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I mean't to quote Colter, but I'm on my phone and the quote messed up. Colter, development is not the same as God creating through means of macroevolution.

 

[Colter]

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).

We can also see the clean animal requirements of the Leviticus laws for one of the two differing Noah stories. Post Leviticus recollection? Why doesn't ANY other culture on earth remember being related to Noah except the people who wrote that story about themselves? When missionaries try to tell the descendants of the ancient Chinese dynasties that they are actually related to an 8oo year old Hebrew guy who was found passed out drunk an naked in his tent after surviving the decimation of the earth well, they kind of look at us with amused skepticism.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

When missionaries try to tell the descendants of the ancient Chinese dynasties that they are actually related to an 8oo year old Hebrew guy who was found passed out drunk an naked in his tent after surviving the decimation of the earth well, they kind of look at us with amused skepticism.

Hahaha, good point!

 

[Colter]

I mean't to quote Colter, but I'm on my phone and the quote messed up. Colter, development is not the same as God creating through means of macroevolution.

That's cool, we can just disagree and leave it at that.

 

[toLiJC]

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

if you were the system Administrator of life for the whole universe, would you play with (the lives of) the souls like a kid playing with lead soldiers?!, or would you make souls be born as monstrous terrestrial predators/reptiles eating humans kind of just as a human eats candies?!, and would you age the fossils and the underground layers thus making them appear as if their real age is millions of years when many humans could therefore believe God is inclined to muck the souls about causing them a lot of evil/harm/affliction for too long (they would thus believe that God is unrighteous or in (the image of) another(false) God)?!

1 John 1:1-10 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; ) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If(i.e. and if in such circumstances i.e. when we sin) we say that we have no sin(i.e. or if we, juxtaposing God and men, say that not the humans are sinful), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If(i.e. but if in such circumstances) we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If(i.e. yet if in such circumstances) we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Blessings

 

[alexandriaisburning]

if you were the system Administrator of life for the whole universe, would you play with (the lives of) the souls like a kid playing with lead soldiers?!, or would you make souls be born as monstrous terrestrial predators/reptiles eating humans kind of just as a human eats candies?!, and would you age the fossils and the underground layers thus making them appear as if their real age is millions of years when many humans could therefore believe God is inclined to muck the souls about causing them a lot of evil/harm/affliction for too long (they would thus believe that God is unrighteous or in (the image of) another(false) God)?!

I think the issue is not necessarily with what kind of image of God such conclusions would lead to; after all, God is perfectly free to do whatever God pleases, and in whatever God does, God is perfectly justified. No, the real issue with such conspiracies is what it must necessarily lead us to conclude about scientific methodology as a whole. That is, if God is mucking about in creation such that things are different than they appear to be, what--if any--of our conclusions can we take seriously?

I'm not saying that scientific methodology is perfect, or infallible; far from it! However, if we must necessarily undermine it in order to uphold a philosophical system, it's questionable whether we can accept those things from the same methodology with which we don't have a problem (e.g., can you accept relativity theory while also rejecting biological evolution?).

 

[Colter]

if you were the system Administrator of life for the whole universe, would you play with (the lives of) the souls like a kid playing with lead soldiers?!, or would you make souls be born as monstrous terrestrial predators/reptiles eating humans kind of just as a human eats candies?!, and would you age the fossils and the underground layers thus making them appear as if their real age is millions of years when many humans could therefore believe God is inclined to muck the souls about causing them a lot of evil/harm/affliction for too long (they would thus believe that God is unrighteous or in (the image of) another(false) God)?!

1 John 1:1-10 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; ) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If(i.e. and if in such circumstances i.e. when we sin) we say that we have no sin(i.e. or if we, juxtaposing God and men, say that not the humans are sinful), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If(i.e. but if in such circumstances) we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If(i.e. yet if in such circumstances) we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Blessings

Jesus didn't come to earth to reform Judaism or correct the imperfections of it's evolution. Jesus was divinely brilliant in avoiding direct conflict with the erroneous claims of scripture, rather he revealed new truths which left the old ideas of God to die on the vine.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Regardless of the actual age of Creation, be it young or very old, we too often forget that the underlying point of the Biblical creation story is that the universe, as we know it, was intentionally created by God. It is not the result of some random blast pattern, but something designed and intelligently planned and executed. Unfortunately too many people get way too hung up on whether creation was completed in 6 24 hour days or several billion years. While I certainly understand the arguments for literal interpretation, isn't the real point that God did it, and we owe everything that we were, are, and will be to the Him?

 

[BukiRob]

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?

Part of the problem is when you are taught science you aren't getting the entire picture.

Things have been discovered that do not fit the accepted notion of the history of the earth and as a result these discoveries are set to the side as Ooparts ( Out of place artifacts) which are completely ignored by the scientific community.

Things like the London Hammer. The Bell found in a lump of coal in 1944.

The Morrisonville, Illinois Times, on June 11, 1891, reported how Mrs. S. W. Culp found a circular shaped eight-carat gold chain, about 10 inches long, embedded in a lump of coal after she broke it apart to put in her scuttle. The chain was described as “antique” and of “quaint workmanship.”

Displayed in a museum at Glen Rose, Texas, is a cast iron pot reportedly found in a large lump of coal in 1912 by a worker feeding coal into the furnace of a power plant. When he split open the coal the worker said the pot fell out, leaving its impression in the coal.

Were these "one off" discoveries it would be odd and acceptable to dismiss them but literally, THOUSANDS of them have been discovered.

 

[Saucy]

The lie here is that rock formations, coal, and oil take millions of years to form. You can go to Mt. St. Helens and find all kinds of rock formations that formed in the 30+ years since that eruption...things scientists would say took millions of years. As someone else mentioned in here, they have found human artifacts encased in coal. Hammers, jewelry, etc. Oil can also be created almost instantly from organic material. None of these things take an inordinate amount of time to form.

 

[BukiRob]

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.

Well, unfortunately there is ample evidence of a global flood. As much as the scientific world tries to distort or hide the facts they are there none the less.

1 Evidence of fossilized marine life is found at a mile above sea level in the walls of the grand canyon. Additionally there is ample evidence of fossilized shell fish in the Himalayas.

2 We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

3 Rapid deposits the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

4 Rapid or no erosion between Strata evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion.Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.



Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

 

[BukiRob]

Jesus didn't come to earth to reform Judaism or correct the imperfections of it's evolution. Jesus was divinely brilliant in avoiding direct conflict with the erroneous claims of scripture, rather he revealed new truths which left the old ideas of God to die on the vine.

Untrue, and unscriptural.

Amos 3:7 Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His counsel to His servants the prophets.

If a teaching or doctrine is not verified in the OT it is not a scripturally sound teaching.

Messiah says himself Matthew 5:17 "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

The Greek word translated as fulfill is pleroo. Strong's defines it as: to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize; α. of matters of duty, to perform, execute.

A modern understanding of what Messiah is saying here is as follows;
Matthew 5:17"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to carry into effect the Law so as to perform it as it should be. 18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter[a] or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished as prophesied by the prophets.

You are trying to present that G-d has changed when scripture declares he has not changed.

Furthermore, the new covenant is CLEARLY shown by the prophets IN the Old Testament.

There is a reason that G-d says in Revelations "Come out of her MY PEOPLE...."

 

[BukiRob]

The lie here is that rock formations, coal, and oil take millions of years to form. You can go to Mt. St. Helens and find all kinds of rock formations that formed in the 30+ years since that eruption...things scientists would say took millions of years. As someone else mentioned in here, they have found human artifacts encased in coal. Hammers, jewelry, etc. Oil can also be created almost instantly from organic material. None of these things take an inordinate amount of time to form.

Yep. A mini grand canyon was formed as a result of the eruption of Mt St Helens that formed in a matter of months.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/

 

[toLiJC]

I think the issue is not necessarily with what kind of image of God such conclusions would lead to;

Romans 1:18-25 (WNT) "God's anger is being revealed from Heaven against all impiety and against the iniquity of men who through iniquity suppress the truth. God is angry: because what may be known about Him is plain to their inmost consciousness; for He Himself has made it plain to them. For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections—namely His eternal power and divine nature—have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse. For when they had come to know God, they did not give Him glory as God nor render Him thanks, but they became absorbed in useless discussions, and their senseless minds were darkened. While boasting of their wisdom they became utter fools, and, instead of worshipping the imperishable God, they worshipped images resembling perishable man or resembling birds or beasts or reptiles. For this reason, in accordance with their own depraved cravings, God gave them up to uncleanness, allowing them to dishonour their bodies among themselves with impurity. For they had bartered the reality of God for what is unreal, and had offered divine honours and religious service to created things, rather than to the Creator—He who is for ever blessed. Amen."

after all, God is perfectly free to do whatever God pleases, and in whatever God does, God is perfectly justified.

but He is absolutely righteous and whatever He does is (perfect) righteousness, considering that righteousness means equality as to the importance of every human being provided with abundant and everlasting life

No, the real issue with such conspiracies is what it must necessarily lead us to conclude about scientific methodology as a whole. That is, if God is mucking about in creation such that things are different than they appear to be, what--if any--of our conclusions can we take seriously?

and why must God create hell on earth?!, what if some gigantic terrestrial dinosaurs weighing (even hundreds of) tons consume each other as well as eating humans - what's the point?!, why would/should He do that?!

I'm not saying that scientific methodology is perfect, or infallible; far from it! However, if we must necessarily undermine it in order to uphold a philosophical system, it's questionable whether we can accept those things from the same methodology with which we don't have a problem (e.g., can you accept relativity theory while also rejecting biological evolution?).

as for science, it would be much more "scientific" if we take into consideration not chiefly what is usually propagandized, but first of all the things of God that are repugnant to the popular scientific concepts(-ions)

Blessings

 

[toLiJC]

Jesus didn't come to earth to reform Judaism or correct the imperfections of it's evolution. Jesus was divinely brilliant in avoiding direct conflict with the erroneous claims of scripture, rather he revealed new truths which left the old ideas of God to die on the vine.

this is valid only if we make a distinction between the true God and the other(s)

Blessings

 

[Colter]

Well, unfortunately there is ample evidence of a global flood. As much as the scientific world tries to distort or hide the facts they are there none the less.

1 Evidence of fossilized marine life is found at a mile above sea level in the walls of the grand canyon. Additionally there is ample evidence of fossilized shell fish in the Himalayas.

2 We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

3 Rapid deposits the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

4 Rapid or no erosion between Strata evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion.Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.



Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

There are seashells high in the mountains because the mountain top land was once ocean floor that rose by way of subduction over long periods of time. The continents broke apart, reconstituted and broke apart again a number of times.

Rock bends and deforms under emmence pressure and heat over time as well.

The earth is roughly 4.7+/- billion years old. Life is around 550,000,000 years old.

 

[seeking633]

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but as far as I'm concerned Genesis does not explicitly say that God created the universe and earth in six solar days, nor does it say that there were no humans before 6000 years ago.

Why wrestle with these matters when there are so many other more important issues, challenges, and problems that are facing Christians today?

What about the nature of man at the end-time (2 Tim 3 and 4)? What about finding a way to properly answer Muslims in the face of all that Islam tells them? What about the prevalence of that apostasy called the "Word of Faith" or "Prosperity" gospel? What about the western part of the church having a Laodecian nature? What about the total lack of recognition of healing by some high-profile teachers (MacArthur)?

Does any of this bother anybody?

Why plague the church with this type of discussion that is bound to bring in dissension among believers? Is it not obvious that just as some believers insist on abstinence from alcohol, which we must respect by abstaining when in their company, there are those who have trouble accepting any creation interpretation except "Young Earth"?

I for one cannot accept "Young Earth" in the face of all that science has discovered. In my view science doesn't have a problem with religion until religion begins to question its methods of observation, theory, and proof. Science was never meant to prove God's existence and it makes no assumption on that either way. The real problems are rooted in attitudes planted when science is used to try to exclude God, a practice that I consider entirely despicable and cowardly.

But as I said. I apologize if this offends anyone.

 

[Winter_Rose]

Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible as the first remains were found in the 1800s.

 

[Winter_Rose]

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but as far as I'm concerned Genesis does not explicitly say that God created the universe and earth in six solar days, nor does it say that there were no humans before 6000 years ago.

Why wrestle with these matters when there are so many other more important issues, challenges, and problems that are facing Christians today?

What about the nature of man at the end-time (2 Tim 3 and 4)? What about finding a way to properly answer Muslims in the face of all that Islam tells them? What about the prevalence of that apostasy called the "Word of Faith" or "Prosperity" gospel? What about the western part of the church having a Laodecian nature? What about the total lack of recognition of healing by some high-profile teachers (MacArthur)?

Does any of this bother anybody?

Why plague the church with this type of discussion that is bound to bring in dissension among believers? Is it not obvious that just as some believers insist on abstinence from alcohol, which we must respect by abstaining when in their company, there are those who have trouble accepting any creation interpretation except "Young Earth"?

I for one cannot accept "Young Earth" in the face of all that science has discovered. In my view science doesn't have a problem with religion until religion begins to question its methods of observation, theory, and proof. Science was never meant to prove God's existence and it makes no assumption on that either way. The real problems are rooted in attitudes planted when science is used to try to exclude God, a practice that I consider entirely despicable and cowardly.

But as I said. I apologize if this offends anyone.

Don't worry.