Did God Create Fossils?

[James Wilson]

I'm addressing this posting to all Higher Critics' claims in this string.

When I worked at the National Lab we had mandatory training in how to be expert witnesses because more and more engineers and scientists were involved in court proceedings in the nuclear power arena.

One of the primary tactics used in court by opponents of nuclear power was to ask the expert witness a casual question like, "How would a geologist handle this issue?" If the expert witness were a geologist, the lawyer would substitute 'nuclear engineer' or some other name outside the expertise of that geologist.

Seeking to be helpful, the expert witness would attempt to answer the casual question and go outside the arena of his own expertise. Then the lawyer would declare the expert witness unreliable.

Higher Critics constantly state that textual examination, modern scholarship, and any one of a number of modern buzzwords that substitute for fabricated wisdom.

The arena of modern archeology is full of proof against failed-but-confident statements of Higher Critics. Such an abundance of failures should disqualify Higher Criticism from the consideration of simple, Bible-loving people.

I took a college level course in Higher Criticism and have seen many of their supposed errors in the Bible melt away under persistent examination.

I know the Higher Critics will squeal at this posting, but I don't really expect to convert them. Although I'm addressing Higher Critics' claims, I'm doing it for the benefit of simple Christians that just want to hold onto the Bible as the true Word of God. Higher Critics ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY! And they've shown an historical pattern of being untrustworthy!

I escaped Higher Criticism after being completely convinced of its veracity for 6 years. But I didn't escape due to my wisdom or the wisdom of people around me. I escaped because, by the grace of God, He put me within the reach of a healing revival where 3-4 people were being healed every service and I wore myself out (my Higher Critic self) trying to explain away these miracles using the typical demythologization tools of HC.

Since that time, I haven't again been in such revivals. Maybe in this life I'll only have this single exposure to such an outpouring of the miraculous. I have a good friend who has been in two such outpourings, but has since gone through a long dry spell.

If I had not seen this outpouring, I would probably still be a Higher Critic deep in sin. I'm not charging the rest of the Higher Critics of being deep in sin, but I'm saying that not until I saw the power of God did I have the ability to turn away from sin. So I say without being critical, may the Higher Critics, attacking the faith of simple believers today, experience the miracle that I did: a powerful outpouring of God's power. Nothing else would have saved me. Perhaps such an outpouring would change their ways.

 

[James Wilson]

Yes, the UB comes from celestial beings who have been on the earth and beyond from the time that life began on our evolved earth. We have the entire life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth now. Another massive revelation has occurred, it is the Bible of the next age.

The Bible says to test the spirits to see if they are from God, for even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

I read the testimony once of a man who had a familiar spirit. He said, "I thought my spirit was a good spirit for 20 years. Then I found out he wasn't." This is the predicament that the spiritually adventurous face when stepping into satanic territory without caution.

A third of Jesus' ministry involved casting out spirits. There's reason to believe that ministry today faces similar attacks, yet most people would respond with gnostic psychiatry in the face of such attacks.

It used to be that missionaries in foreign lands would state upon coming back to the United States, "Oh, I feel so free here away from the demonic attacks." Such testimony is no longer uttered when missionaries return nowadays.

Modern, seminary-educated missionaries went into the China Inland Mission full of head wisdom. An untrained native would say, "That man has a demon." "Oh no," the western-educated missionary would say, "he's insane. We don't believe in demons." "No," the native would point to another sufferer, "that man is insane, but that man," pointing to the original subject, "has a demon." Even without Bible knowledge, the natives deep in the field (that is, away from the cities) would recognize demonized behavior.

90-95% (it's been a while since I read the book on the demonic experiences of missionaries in the China Inland Mission) of the missionaries GOING to China did not believe in demons. 90-95% of those COMING BACK did believe in demons.

My pastor at a mainline church (one not known for deliverance from demons) here in Idaho Falls told me that when his wife was almost at death's door, he saw a demon in the corner of their hut on the mission field. He also witnessed an animal turn into a man and back into an animal.

A person without such real-life experiences can say, "No, my supernatural sources are not demons!" But extensive past experience shows that unless the demon-testing methods of the Bible are steadfastly applied, the person with a familiar spirit will likely not detect the deception.

Do any Higher Critics online in this string use the demon-testing methods of the Bible that they consistently attack? Just asking.

 

[Colter]

The Bible says to test the spirits to see if they are from God, for even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

I read the testimony once of a man who had a familiar spirit. He said, "I thought my spirit was a good spirit for 20 years. Then I found out he wasn't." This is the predicament that the spiritually adventurous face when stepping into satanic territory without caution.

A third of Jesus' ministry involved casting out spirits. There's reason to believe that ministry today faces similar attacks, yet most people would respond with gnostic psychiatry in the face of such attacks.

It used to be that missionaries in foreign lands would state upon coming back to the United States, "Oh, I feel so free here away from the demonic attacks." Such testimony is no longer uttered when missionaries return nowadays.

Modern, seminary-educated missionaries went into the China Inland Mission full of head wisdom. An untrained native would say, "That man has a demon." "Oh no," the western-educated missionary would say, "he's insane. We don't believe in demons." "No," the native would point to another sufferer, "that man is insane, but that man," pointing to the original subject, "has a demon." Even without Bible knowledge, the natives deep in the field (that is, away from the cities) would recognize demonized behavior.

90-95% (it's been a while since I read the book on the demonic experiences of missionaries in the China Inland Mission) of the missionaries GOING to China did not believe in demons. 90-95% of those COMING BACK did believe in demons.

My pastor at a mainline church (one not known for deliverance from demons) here in Idaho Falls told me that when his wife was almost at death's door, he saw a demon in the corner of their hut on the mission field. He also witnessed an animal turn into a man and back into an animal.

A person without such real-life experiences can say, "No, my supernatural sources are not demons!" But extensive past experience shows that unless the demon-testing methods of the Bible are steadfastly applied, the person with a familiar spirit will likely not detect the deception.

Do any Higher Critics online in this string use the demon-testing methods of the Bible that they consistently attack? Just asking.

I have no faith in Satan, God the Son defeated Satan while he was on earth incarnate as Jesus. They never had the power to enter into the minds of healthy people. The fears of man has greatly exaggerated the demon issue, they don't exist anymore anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

If the flood did not produce the fossil record, then what did in context of a young earth view?

The descriptions of Creation do not describe a young world.
Only the pasting together of various genealogies suggest
a young earth. And that's not the intended use of the
genealogies.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Gods created the primitive life that evolved into life as we know it.

There is no evidence that life was ever simple or primitive.

 

[SkyWriting]

satan is rather the one that has materialized the prehistoric fossils in order to mislead the worshipers that there is ostensibly no true God

Satan doesn't create.

 

[James Wilson]

The descriptions of Creation do not describe a young world.
Only the pasting together of various genealogies suggest
a young earth. And that's not the intended use of the
genealogies.

Unless 'Berean' is part of your given name, it speaks to me of someone who searches the Scripture.

The statement that the dating of the earth was an act of "pasting together of various genealogies" is an oversimplification. It took almost 1,000 pages in "Annals of the World" for Bishop Ussher to prove his point, including an intense compilation and unification of world histories to find the links between secular history and biblical history. He was a stellar scholar in his day, speaking many languages, serving in positions of great intellect at a younger age than others of his time.

If you're true to the name 'Berean', you know that Moses was excluded from the Promised Land because he hit the rock instead of speaking to it. God is into the details. He teaches lessons in the actions of men throughout the ages. How do you know that the genealogies were untrue statements?

At one time, the Roman Catholic Church wanted to tie into the respected wisdom of the world. They chose Aristotle as their source of wisdom. It was the mistakes of Aristotle that forced the Catholic hierarchy to make some of the decisions that have been such a burden to them. Now you want the Bible to be tied into the evolving and changing history of dating the earth?

Evolutionists used to say that our mother was a pool of oil and our father a lightning bolt. They have corrected that. Now they believe life evolved in clay. They're getting closer to the truth.

Evolutionists recently dropped about a billion years off the age of the universe. Oops! At least they're heading in the right direction, though they're still far afield.

Science is the study of observations. Yet for many years they have cast aside any observations that do not support evolution, including those observations from within their own ranks. It has been revealed recently that Smithsonian has been destroying the bones of giants found in several sites because the bones agree with the Bible, not evolution. Don't filter the data, Smithsonian. Just give us the truth!

If you care to look earlier in this string you'll find many examples of scientists filtering the data to back up evolution.

Search the Scriptures and then grow quiet in the Presence of the Lord. Let Him speak to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

The statement that the dating of the earth was an act of "pasting together of various genealogies" is an oversimplification. It took over 1,000 pages in "Annals of the World" for Bishop Ussher to prove his point, including an intense compilation and unification of world histories to find the links between secular history and biblical history.

That is exactly the point. The concept of doing such work displays that "Young" is a fabrication.
All the primary truths of scripture are covered multiple times from a variety of viewpoints.
Agree?
This is not one of those.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you care to look earlier in this string you'll find many examples of scientists filtering the data to back up evolution.

I'm not concerned with what they do.
I'm filtering Genesis into plain and everyday experience.

In the Garden of Eden there was dirt.
Normally, how old is "dirt?"

Now if Gardens grew in Manna, and Eden was formed from Manna, that would be a different story.

 

[toLiJC]

Satan doesn't create.

isn't it a creator of the lie?!

Blessings

 

[Colter]

It's true that

Unless 'Berean' is part of your given name, it speaks to me of someone who searches the Scripture.

The statement that the dating of the earth was an act of "pasting together of various genealogies" is an oversimplification. It took almost 1,000 pages in "Annals of the World" for Bishop Ussher to prove his point, including an intense compilation and unification of world histories to find the links between secular history and biblical history. He was a stellar scholar in his day, speaking many languages, serving in positions of great intellect at a younger age than others of his time.

If you're true to the name 'Berean', you know that Moses was excluded from the Promised Land because he hit the rock instead of speaking to it. God is into the details. He teaches lessons in the actions of men throughout the ages. How do you know that the genealogies were untrue statements?

At one time, the Roman Catholic Church wanted to tie into the respected wisdom of the world. They chose Aristotle as their source of wisdom. It was the mistakes of Aristotle that forced the Catholic hierarchy to make some of the decisions that have been such a burden to them. Now you want the Bible to be tied into the evolving and changing history of dating the earth?

Evolutionists used to say that our mother was a pool of oil and our father a lightning bolt. They have corrected that. Now they believe life evolved in clay. They're getting closer to the truth.

Evolutionists recently dropped about a billion years off the age of the universe. Oops! At least they're heading in the right direction, though they're still far afield.

Science is the study of observations. Yet for many years they have cast aside any observations that do not support evolution, including those observations from within their own ranks. It has been revealed recently that Smithsonian has been destroying the bones of giants found in several sites because the bones agree with the Bible, not evolution. Don't filter the data, Smithsonian. Just give us the truth!

If you care to look earlier in this string you'll find many examples of scientists filtering the data to back up evolution.

Search the Scriptures and then grow quiet in the Presence of the Lord. Let Him speak to you.

It's true that science observes the facts in evidence to conclude an obviously old earth and the layers of life that lived in different ages. There was no science in the age of the creation of the Bible books. Genesis wasn't written by scientist or historians or philosophers, it was written by Hebrew holy men who created a made for Hollywood like screen play of their origin and destiny. They wrote in preacher speak, making no claim of divine inspiration. The audience was the common scattered Israelite, the motive was to preserve their culture and remain faithful to a promise that they did not altogether understand.

 

[Colter]

isn't it a creator of the lie?!

Blessings

You could say that, yes, the lie was that there was no unseen Father, that the Sons of Paradise were foisting a fraud on the universe by ruling in the name of a fictitious Father. Atheism is the product of Lucifer's work.

 

[James Wilson]

The descriptions of Creation do not describe a young world.
Only the pasting together of various genealogies suggest
a young earth. And that's not the intended use of the
genealogies.

And also from another SkyWriting post:
In the Garden of Eden there was dirt.
Normally, how old is "dirt".

Other than the meaning of the Hebrew word, 'create'. God created out of nothing. So, seven days after He started creating, the dirt was 7 days old.

The desire to stretch the days of creation into a billion years/day is an attempt to reconcile the God-given wisdom of creation for man's uncertain understanding of the creation of the earth.

As I pointed out before, the 4.3 billion year old earth is a product of taking 140 pieces of zircon, with the researcher(s) committing the following errors:
First, rather than determining a statistical value for the 140 pieces, they picked the oldest one, though the others were all over the map. Obviously, they didn't get an old enough date using statistics, so they wrote a new chapter for statistics in the name of evolution.
Secondly, the reason they were dating zircon is because, 4.3 billion years ago the earth would have been molten (according to their world view, and I guess, yours too). Unfortunately, gaseous products in magma are KNOWN to gather on flat surfaces like zircons and most of the radioactive daughters are gaseous in magma. So the zircons could have stored up radioactivity from 'other mothers' (speaking in a radioactive sense). That's the reason that the 140 zircons had dates all over the map.
Thirdly, another study was done with diamonds, getting values about 2 billion years older. Finally, the old-earthers decided, "Let's be a little reasonable and not try to push back the date of the earth that far... yet." Stay tuned, the evolutionists' mantra is "a few billion here and a few billion there and pretty soon we'll get a nice round number".

Another minor issue here is if we take the known catastrophes and spread them over billions of years, we end up with a fairly quiet planet. If the earth is indeed younger, it would crowd the catastrophes together. Look at earthquake science, with the occurrences and consequences both getting larger than expected. The earth staying molten even though we should have passed through a couple half-lives by now. What difference does it make? You might think twice about living this close to the Yellowstone Caldera if you live anywhere in the... let's see... anywhere in the United States!

 

[toLiJC]

You could say that, yes, the lie was that there was no unseen Father, that the Sons of Paradise were foisting a fraud on the universe by ruling in the name of a fictitious Father. Atheism is the product of Lucifer's work.

if you mean the human(666) religion/spirituality by "atheism", then yes, it is so, but the irreligious and non-occult people do not commit spiritual wickedness, because they even do not believe there is a God, for they even don't know there is a God

Blessings

 

[SkyWriting]

The desire to stretch the days of creation into a billion years/day is an attempt to reconcile the God-given wisdom of creation for man's uncertain understanding of the creation of the earth.

I have no such desires.
Getting back to scripture:
How old is dirt?
How old are fruiting trees?
How old are rivers?
How old was Adam?
How old was Eve?
How old is a Garden?

 

[SkyWriting]

isn't it a creator of the lie?!

Blessings

I'm not sure.
Research it.

 

[toLiJC]

I'm not sure.
Research it.

John 8:44 "the devil... He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Blessings

 

[Colter]

I have no such desires.
Getting back to scripture:
How old is dirt?
How old are fruiting trees?
How old are rivers?
How old was Adam?
How old was Eve?
How old is a Garden?

Dirt is very old, it is the product many factors of an ageing earth not the least of which is life, it's death and decay cycle.

Adam and Eve were incarnate adults from another place. They were educated and spoke the same language as the fallen prince. We could speculate about their years on the earth after they lost the life sustaining powers of the tree of life.

 

[James Wilson]

It's true that

It's true that science observes the facts in evidence to conclude an obviously old earth and the layers of life that lived in different ages. There was no science in the age of the creation of the Bible books. Genesis wasn't written by scientist or historians or philosophers, it was written by Hebrew holy men who created a made for Hollywood like screen play of their origin and destiny. They wrote in preacher speak, making no claim of divine inspiration. The audience was the common scattered Israelite, the motive was to preserve their culture and remain faithful to a promise that they did not altogether understand.

In the interest of truth in advertizing, we should announce to all readers of this string that your UB wisdom came from celestial beings whom you've never tested with Bible-endorsed checks to make sure they are not demons.

"Science observes" is another one of those faith statements. If science were as black-and-white as you say, answer the following:
When Dr. Halton Arp withdrew his estimate of the age of the universe because he had assumed the answer, why was he fired? Why is science still using his assumption that red-shifted stars are fleeing the earth at near light speed? Science is still using the techniques that he poked holes in.
Why did geologists argue for 10 years when the Alvarez father-son team discovered the meteorite that ended the age of the dinosaurs? They did it because they were trying to codify (or turn into fact) the assumptions of uniformitarianism-evolution, an antiquated theology/philosophy whose demise was hastened by this argument.
When Leakey's 1470 skull destroyed evolution using the same techniques (Potassium-argon dating) used by many of the other findings of evolution, why did evolutionists vilify Leakey instead of the techniques? BTW, I once spoke with a potassium-argon dating technician who said, "We throw out half of the determinations because they are too incredible." I asked if I could quote him and he said, "What? You want me to lose my job?" So, when you say that science does not support creationism, you'd first have to check the data thrown on the floor of the potassium-argon dating lab.
I could go on, but you get the point: science is not as black-and-white as proponents would like to claim.

 

[Riberra]

Science is the study of observations. Yet for many years they have cast aside any observations that do not support evolution, including those observations from within their own ranks. It has been revealed recently that Smithsonian has been destroying the bones of giants found in several sites because the bones agree with the Bible, not evolution. Don't filter the data, Smithsonian. Just give us the truth!

Have you gone to check the Bible about the origin of these giants .... I am sure that even if one day you discover the thruth about the origin of these giants,you would not believe it even if it is written in black on white in the Bible!

Genesis 6