Earth's age and Adam's age

[dcalling]

Your just picking around out there in your own private alternate universe, come on in where Christians are speaking about Christian beliefs and matters not the Scientific mumbo jumbo you keep rattling off about.

No I am not. You are trying to put what the Catholic church did as "The Church", all I am telling you is that humans corrupt, and at one point in time the Catholic church did forbid people from owning Bibles (so they can rule un-checked over common people).

Those are the facts, not mumbo jumbo or my own private alternate universe.

 

[nolidad]

Forgive my density, but I think you only added to my point. (Well, except for the part about the singularity flinging matter and energy that didn't exist before, somehow --i.e. the stuff did come from somewhere, logically, and I say, probably God, unless there can be proven a whole different sort of existence that God caused before the bb.)

All that aside, I see many contradictions with the descriptions I hear of the bb and of quantum physics, primary of which is the logical fallacy of attributing anything to the rule of chance.

To me, First Cause, and that necessarily with intent, i.e. God, is the only logical cause of existence. I believe in the Creator.

I also believe god is creator - not evolver!

I know the stuff came from nowhere! God called it into existence by the Word of His power! but the evolutionary cosmologists have two consensus.

1. Matter existed for all eternity in a hyper dense state (which would forbid it from ever exploding- it would have gone to energy death long before the big bang)

2. Matter did not exist and through some kind of quantum flux there was the big bang and the initial matter of the universe came to be!

Of course they cannot prove either and both run into unsolvable scientific problems.

As for the big bang- why should we take the word of men who were not there who interpret things through failed methods over the Word of God who was there and gave a perfectly coherent account of how creation began!

 

[nolidad]

Well we're assuming that...for whatever reason.

There's no issue with rocks, plants, trees, water, etc., being created with an age older than 1.

Even if the age is "1". God could still have created it in a way where testing shows and older age.

Then god would be purposely deceptive which I cannot see Him being!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I highly doubt Adam had fake memories of a childhood that didn't exist. Why would he need to?? That really doesn't disprove the theory of apparent age at all.

It was a comparison.

That viewpoint also does not imply that the stars didn't exist, but merely that the light was advanced along it's course more than it would have been if the stars had just been created. So basically, God created the stars and their "light history" at the same time.

Which doesn't resolve the problem, it is still about creating a false history.

No one is saying the fossils don't exist. Merely that they were never living animals and God essentially just created artifacts along with living Creation. Like the wine Jesus created had fermented grape juice from grapes that never really lived (possibly).

Fossils of things that didn't exist is still false history. Comparing this to Christ's miracle at Cana does not work. Let's offer two scenarios to help explain this issue:

Christ turns water into wine vs Christ turns water into wine that can be shown that was produced at a specific vineyard and its vintage is marked clearly as being 5 years old.

The latter would be a problem, if that vineyard did not exist and the wine wasn't actually that vintage.
The former is not a problem, because no false history for the wine is given.

It also does NOT make God a blasphemer or a deceiver. He never told Adam that he was a baby once... He also never told anyone that the earth was a "baby".

God has shown forth the history of His creation in the creation itself. If that history, if the things in creation themselves are not true, then God who is the Author of creation is a deceiver.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

HI viacrucis,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote


Yes, that's how fast light travels when there is nothing but the natural properties of the creation to work upon such things. However, if we allow that everything can only work at all times, including whatever time the creation event took, according to what the natural properties of such things allow, then please explain to me how the water stood on both the right hand and the left hand of the Israelites. Tell me, how did the shadow cast by the sun go back 10 steps.

You see, in all of your explanation, while it is absolutely true so long as there is no interference to act upon such things, i.e., the hand of God, then all of your testimony is true. However, when God sets His hand to do something, well, uh, there is nothing that is impossible for God to do with the physical properties of the earth.

If it is God's desire that His purpose for creating the stars in the heavens were to be for seasons and signs for mankind and that He wanted Adam to observe those seasons and signs as much as He wants you and I to observe those seasons and signs, then God can stretch or set aside or in any way He would like, cause the light from all of those billions of stars that He created to be immediately, yes immediately, to be visible upon the face of the earth.

That's the God I know and so, I'm not willing to say that God's testimony as to the time of the creation event isn't true because we know that the light from the stars can only travel at a certain speed. The God I know can play with the natural properties of this physical realm as easily as a cat plays with a ball of yarn.

And there are at least a dozen other examples to show that God can do things with His creation that are, in fact, impossible...except that God can do it.

Turning water into wine in a mere moment. A process that through natural processes takes months. He can cause an entire river to run with blood, while the rest of the world enjoys fresh clean drinking water. Even people downstream from the very river that He caused to flow with blood. He can cause fire to fall from heaven to burn up a sodden fire pit. And many, many other things.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Nobody denies God's absolute power over His creation.

That isn't my problem. My problem is with a view that says that God's absolute power involves massive deception by embedding in creation false histories and false memories.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here we have the root of the problem that is displayed in most cases where the idea of a young earth is ridiculed.

You simply do not believe the scriptures to begin with and it translates not only to the idea of an old universe. It also translates over into a complete denial of the creation account concerning the origins of mankind and the entry of sin and it's consequences into God's perfect creation.

False accusation, as I believe the Scriptures. I just reject that interpretation of Scripture that requires me to blaspheme God and deny all else that Scripture says. I reject Young Earth Creationism because I believe the Scriptures. For it is written, "God is not man, that he should lie,"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Yekcidmij]

i.e. if you define moon as the center, earth is circulating moon and sun is moving around in a different motion (check out fourier transform).

No, they still follow Kepler and Newton's laws of motion. You keep suggesting multiple laws of motion based on whatever reference frame you're using.

I can use an ECI inertial reference frame and describe the orbital elements of an object orbiting earth. I can also use an ECEF rotating frame and describe the position and velocity of my car or myself walking around. But if I use an ECEF frame, it doesn't follow that I'm therefore stationary in some absolute sense, which you seem to be suggesting. There is no absolutely stationary reference frame. I'm still in motion with respect to other objects not in my ECEF frame.

When it comes to celestial objects, you can decide to use a non-inertial reference frame centered on the center of mass of the moon if you so wish. But celestial objects are still in motion with respect to each other and still follow Kepler and Newton's laws. Your non-inertial frame of choice centered on the moon is only a matter of convenience in describing position and velocity, but position and velocity will still be calculated from the laws of motion which take into account for relative masses, positions and velocities.

(although current scientific discoveries found all celestrial bodies near and far are moving away from earth at high speed....)

No, celestial bodies near and far are not moving away from earth at high speed. The moon and Jupiter seem to maintain consistent orbits. Earth also hasn't been flung out from the sun. Galaxies are moving away from each other at high speeds, but there's not a "central" galaxy from which everything else moves away at high speed - they're all in motion away from each other.


https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8C38432V0KDE&keywords=fundamentals+of+astrodynamics&qid=1564513568&s=gateway&sprefix=fundamentals+of+astro,aps,168&sr=8-1

.

 

[dcalling]

No, they still follow Kepler and Newton's laws of motion. You keep suggesting multiple laws of motion based on whatever reference frame you're using.

I can use an ECI inertial reference frame and describe the orbital elements of an object orbiting earth. I can also use an ECEF rotating frame and describe the position and velocity of my car or myself walking around. But if I use an ECEF frame, it doesn't follow that I'm therefore stationary in some absolute sense, which you seem to be suggesting. There is no absolutely stationary reference frame. I'm still in motion with respect to other objects not in my ECEF frame.

When it comes to celestial objects, you can decide to use a non-inertial reference frame centered on the center of mass of the moon if you so wish. But celestial objects are still in motion with respect to each other and still follow Kepler and Newton's laws. Your non-inertial frame of choice centered on the moon is only a matter of convenience in describing position and velocity, but position and velocity will still be calculated from the laws of motion which take into account for relative masses, positions and velocities.

It is like you got stuck on something I already told you I am not arguing (and this is not about) laws of motion. With the same laws of motion, based on different observation points, you see things differently.

For example, if I stand here and you move around me in circles, if I used myself as world center, you are circling around me. But if I use you as world center, I am circling around you, even though I am not moving. Got it?

No, celestial bodies near and far are not moving away from earth at high speed. The moon and Jupiter seem to maintain consistent orbits. Earth also hasn't been flung out from the sun. Galaxies are moving away from each other at high speeds, but there's not a "central" galaxy from which everything else moves away at high speed - they're all in motion away from each other.


https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8C38432V0KDE&keywords=fundamentals+of+astrodynamics&qid=1564513568&s=gateway&sprefix=fundamentals+of+astro,aps,168&sr=8-1

.

The universe is expanding and it is a well know fact. Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? - Universe Today

 

[JIMINZ]

With the same laws of motion, based on different observation points, you see things differently.

With all my moving around this thread, I can assure you things are sure different from this observation point.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The universe is expanding and it is a well know fact. Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? - Universe Today

You previously said everything "near and far" was moving away from the earth at high speed. That statement is not correct.

 

[dcalling]

You previously said everything "near and far" was moving away from the earth at high speed. That statement is not correct.

I was talking about galaxies, and you are talking about moons etc in your statement "No, celestial bodies near and far are not moving away from earth at high speed" ....

 

[miamited]

Nobody denies God's absolute power over His creation.

That isn't my problem. My problem is with a view that says that God's absolute power involves massive deception by embedding in creation false histories and false memories.

-CryptoLutheran

Hi viacrucis,

Well, I don't think my view supports God promoting some massive deception. Just because things were created as things were created isn't a deception. The problem is not with God, the problem is with us. We think to ourselves that if God created something and we can't figure it out, but we make all kinds of guesses about how it was done that aren't right, then God is deceiving us.

God can make the shadow of the sun go backwards. We can't possibly figure that out, but we know that we know that there isn't any way that the sun can cast a shadow that moves in the opposite direction of the natural movement of the sun across the horizon. Is God deceiving us? He has told us that He caused a shadow to go backwards. All the natural properties of the universe would tell us that such an event cannot possibly happen. Is God deceiving us?

Your position is that all the natural properties of the universe would tell us that the stars must be billions of years old and the rocks must be millions of years old based on every evidence that we have of the natural properties of things. We think to ourselves that if God did do it the way that He has told us, then He's deceiving us. Is God deceiving us?

Is it not rather that we are deceiving ourselves to believe the 'truth' of science based on the natural properties of things over and above the truth of God?

You are, of course, free to accept what you will as evidence of the truth. For me, God's word is the truth. The 'truth' of man is always subject to question.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jonaitis]

In the LXX Methuselah survives the flood but isn't on the ark.

The Alexandrian copy of the LXX has Methuselah dying before the flood, Brenton makes note of that variant in his translation.

As a consequence, these chronologies should not be understood literally, but teleologically. And as a further consequence, there isn't really a justification for a young earth position.

Chronogenealogies that mark the birth and death of each successive individual should not be taken as anything but literal. Young earth is the orthodox and most conservative position in the Church, and the only conclusion of the plain reading of the text. There really is no debate about it.

 

[JIMINZ]

you are not following me, in no way I say they don't follow the laws of physics. We are all affected by it.

What I am saying is that in mathematical terms (or in relative terms), you can define anywhere as center, and all the motions can be calculated to that center. that is how computer graphics works. i.e. if you define moon as the center, earth is circulating moon and sun is moving around in a different motion (check out fourier transform). They still follow laws of physics but relative motion is the same.

The one thing you seem to be missing in all of you mathematical equations is, earth is what we are talking about, and where earth is, is the only perspective that counts in relation to the things which are being spoken about.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Alexandrian copy of the LXX has Methuselah dying before the flood, Brenton makes note of that variant in his translation.

Good point.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Chronogenealogies that mark the birth and death of each successive individual should not be taken as anything but literal.

I'm not sure why, especially since the authors don't seem to have used them in that manner.

Young earth is the orthodox and most conservative position in the Church, and the only conclusion of the plain reading of the text. There really is no debate about it.

Of course there's debate about it. There are markedly different chronologies across the extant OT manuscripts which naturally leads to why those marked differences exist. I don't think just declaring your position "orthodox" and that there is "really no debate" doesn't mean the obvious questions just disappear.

I'm also not sure that the assumption of literalism is justified as it doesn't seem to adequately account for the manuscript evidence and author's intent. I think the evidence warrants us to think that the genealogies are being used teleologically.

 

[Yekcidmij]

God can make the shadow of the sun go backwards. We can't possibly figure that out, but we know that we know that there isn't any way that the sun can cast a shadow that moves in the opposite direction of the natural movement of the sun across the horizon. Is God deceiving us? He has told us that He caused a shadow to go backwards. All the natural properties of the universe would tell us that such an event cannot possibly happen. Is God deceiving us?

A couple of my thoughts on this one.

(1) This doesn't have anything to do with observational deception as we're talking about with "Last Thursdayism." Presumably in your view, the thing Joshua observes occurring actually occurred and wasn't just perceived as occurring. Joshua observes the sun stopping because the sun really stopped.

But in your view regarding creation, the thing observed didn't really occur, but is only perceived as occurring. If Joshua observed the stars in the distance emitting light, he's not observing them because they're really there emitting light. He's only observing a figment of his mind.

So the analogy does not address the same problem.

(2) There are other views regarding Joshua 10 that don't see it the way you do.

I will reference two alternate views here:

(a) Biblical Credibility and Joshua 10: What Does the Text Really Claim? - Articles

(b) Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs

 

[miamited]

Hi yekcidmij,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote:

Presumably in your view, the thing Joshua observes occurring actually occurred and wasn't just perceived as occurring. Joshua observes the sun stopping because the sun really stopped.

Joshua wasn't even alive at the time of this event that I'm questioning, so no, it isn't some perception of the sky that would make one think such a thing happened.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're referencing as 'last thursdayism'. I don't think that term has been brought up in this discussion between you and I. You made the claim that if the observable 'scientific' evidence that we have doesn't give us the truth of the 'how' and 'when' of the creation, then God would be a deceiver. I'm telling you that if that's your understanding of a deception, God has deceived us on a number of occasions. The birth of Jesus is a deception. It cannot possibly happen by all observable 'scientific' understanding, that a woman can be pregnant without the aid of human sperm introduced into her womb. Yet, as believers, we know that it did. Despite all the natural scientific and medical evidence of 'how' a woman becomes pregnant, Jesus was born and died for our sin. God has deceived us once again...according to your understanding.

But in your view regarding creation, the thing observed didn't really occur, but is only perceived as occurring. If Joshua observed the stars in the distance emitting light, he's not observing them because they're really there emitting light. He's only observing a figment of his mind.

Huh? I honestly have no idea where this idea that Joshua is only observing a figment of his mind is from. Nothing I said, I assure you. I haven't even mentioned Joshua in any of my posts. You also need to be a bit more clear as to what exactly you're referencing as 'the thing observed didn't really occur, but is only perceived as occurring'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

Secondly, I have no idea what you're referencing as 'last thursdayism'.

It's a term that's been used multiple times on this thread. I'm not going to go back and link you to every one of them.

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

I haven't even mentioned Joshua in any of my posts.

You mentioned the sun going backwards. I assumed you were referencing Joshua 10.

 

[miamited]

HI yekcidmij,

You mentioned the sun going backwards. I assumed you were referencing Joshua 10.

I never said anything about the sun going backwards. What I said was that a shadow cast by the sun went backwards the distance of ten steps.

I honestly have no idea what 'last thursdayism' means or references, and I'm quite sure you won't find it in any of my posts. I'm not in the habit of using words that I don't know the meaning of.

God bless,
In Christ, ted