Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well worth the watch103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV
This one explores the fossil record and looks at what the scientific evidences prove. If you go to the following page, you can see other videos dealing with the Big Bang theory, Noah's flood and science, etc.
Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV
There is no reason a supernatural creation could not take place billions of years ago. The question is what does observation of creation tell us about its age. Not about whether observation tells us it was supernatural.
It is only your philosophic assumption that scripture must be interpreted in a historical-grammatical fashion that requires that the supernatural creation of the universe happen a mere 6,000 years ago. And it is only the assumption of that "real" age that demands decoupling age from maturity.
And the only reason you have to decouple age from maturity, is because normal observation of creation tells you it is mature and therefore old.
IOW, because you are committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture, you need to invoke not only a supernatural creation, but one that occurred recently and makes young things appear to be older than they are.
So what is the reason for adhering to an interpretation that demands an apparent age different from actual age?
What observations support a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture? i.e. what evidence does this interpretation demand as we study nature? And how does that compare with what we actually observe?
If the world is supernaturally created in a mature state, that means it is endowed with an illusion of age that it does not really possess. But it is no distortion of its reality. In itself that would not be deceptive.
How is God being deceptive? He told us He created everything supernaturally in six days FULLY MATURE!OTOH, if the world is created with an embedded history of events that never occurred, (and scripture certainly says nothing about that), then that is more than illusory--that is deceptive--for it suggests not only that the Creator wanted a mature universe ready for its human inhabitants to enjoy, but that he purposed to let them think the world is just as old as its mature state suggests.
A miracle, no doubt. But I also note that only one creature out of millions was so affected. Hardly what one would call a fundamental change in creation as a whole.
103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV
This one explores the fossil record and looks at what the scientific evidences prove. If you go to the following page, you can see other videos dealing with the Big Bang theory, Noah's flood and science, etc.
Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV
You are correct. A supernatural creation could have taken place billions of years ago. It also could have occurred last year. This has nothing to do with my point.
I also agree with your question. However, an observation of the universe only tells us it has some unknown level or quality of maturity. You have failed to explain how present observation alone can determine true "age" without subjective interpretation.
You have continued to state that maturity demonstrates age, but this is clearly false. Maturity only demonstrates maturity. Age is calculated by interpreting such maturity. This brings us back to the use of philosophical assumptions as the guide to forming conclusions.
This is not true. Maturity and age are simply not the same thing - there is nothing to "de-couple".
Maturity speaks of a state of condition.
Age speaks of a length of time.
You do realize that terms like "old" and "young" are relative, right?
This is a fallacious question. Please rephrase.
Well, a global flood that covered all dry land would demand that we observe billions of deposited and buried dead organisms all over the earth - even on top of the highest mountain.
How is God being deceptive? He told us He created everything supernaturally in six days FULLY MATURE!
There is no illusionary history if you interpret the evidence properly.
Whats you take on Romans 8:20-22?
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
hey phil,
There are more miracles in the Scriptures than two. Pick another one and find the evidence for it. You are on the right track when you conclude that if there is no evidence for #1 then there won't be any evidence for #2, but I think that you'll find that the truth is that it's a lot more overwhelming than just #1 and #2. What you'll finally wind up having to say is, "Well so there's not evidence for #1 and #3 and #4 and #6 and #7,#8,#9,#10, #11, etc. etc. there can't be any evidence for #2." When you reach that conclusion, then yes, I'll agree as it is exactly my point.
As I have said here, if you're finding it difficult to find scientific, provable evidence that Jesus turned water into wine, then pick another miracle. There are certainly plenty more to choose from. Get back to me when you've got one that you can prove with scientific evidence.
Then you wrote: The argument simply doesn't work because it's not the act of creation that we are trying to find evidence for, it is the history of the earth we are trying to find evidence for.
Right! And it's not finding the evidence of the creation of the specific wine that Jesus made. After all, anyone can show you and demonstrate how to make water into wine. You take some concentrated grape juice and mix it with three canfuls of water as though you were making regular grape juice from concentrate, but after that you add some additional sugar and yeast and you allow it to ferment for an extended period of time, oh, a month or so. So, it's not the creation of the wine that's the miracle so much as it's the time and starting ingredients that Jesus used. Anybody can make wine!
You see, friend, any one who has made wine; even scientists who can explain the fermentation process will tell you that it is impossible to take a jug of water and within a matter of moments have wine. Therefore, Jesus could not have done it that way. Simple, right? Hopefully you see the correlation, but the design and scope are much grander and powerful and majestic in the creation.
Light travels at x speed. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have made the creation as it says. Hmmmmmm. Why does this sound familiar? Anyway, pick another one and let me know when you find just one for which you have scientifically provable evidence for how it was done.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
But the TE or day-ager would have taken a middle road position. They, like the atheist, would have noted the uniformitarian process normally necessary to make wine and declared the wine also to be several months old. Thus they would also dismiss the testimony of the eyewitnesses. But in order to also show they believed in God's power, they would gleefully also declare a miracle of God has taken place.......... just several months ago.
Because you interpret the text in a historical-grammatical manner.
But why do you do use that interpretative model?
This seems to be our major point of conflict. I'll attempt to clarify my position one last time.Maturity implies there has been time to mature---unless the condition of maturity was given supernaturally. Only in that case are age and maturity uncoupled from each other. That is what makes the apparent age, in such a case, illusory.
It is not my fault that you are not convinced by the arguments made by creation scientists. However, truth is not dependent on your comprehension.I really do not comprehend how a flood explains these facts. A flood should deposit things that live together all jumbled up in the same layer of sediment, should it not?
So you believe that sin affects creation indirectly through the acts of humans? Interesting.However, I do emphatically agree that human sin does have a fundamental effect on creation. Human sin has destroyed and polluted a great deal of God's creation, is destroying thousands of God's creatures and is now culminating in a severe change to the climate itself, which may render the earth nearly uninhabitable if it reaches catastrophic proportions.
The location of the the fossils in the sedimentary layers is solely contingent on the ability of the creatures to survive a catastrophic flood. This would obviously cause a regular distribution within the layers but irregularities can be acceptable.I really do not comprehend how a flood explains these facts. A flood should deposit things that live together all jumbled up in the same layer of sediment, should it not?
The location of the the fossils in the sedimentary layers is solely contingent on the ability of the creatures to survive a catastrophic flood. This would obviously cause a regular distribution within the layers but irregularities can be acceptable.
Gluadys,
It has
been nice dialoguing with you, but I simply do not have the time to continue past this post.
Because...
I am philosophically committed to the truth of the Bible and it's claims. I believe the Bible was written in normal human language that can be interpreted plainly in light of its own historical setting and literary context.
This seems to be our major point of conflict. I'll attempt to clarify my position one last time.
To say that the universe "appears" old is nonsensical unless one subscribes to a philosophical worldview that requires such a perception.
For instance, your philosophical assumptions requires that the universe be billions of years old.
My philosophical assumptions do not require that the universe be billions of years old.
It is not my fault that you are not convinced by the arguments made by creation scientists. However, truth is not dependent on your comprehension.
So you believe that sin affects creation indirectly through the acts of humans? Interesting.
I disagree, however. This would mean that only a very small part of creation is affected by sin. The Bible is clear that the "whole creation" is affected, not just earth.
Actually, that is just not true. As a TE, I have no problem with the wine at Cana being minutes old thanks to an instantaneous miracle. Nor do I know of any TE who has a problem with instantaneous miracles.
You are simply barking up the wrong tree with this pseudo-objection to TE.
Since this has come up in a few threads I have tried to explain it better in a new thread.This is so true, and well explained. If an atheist, a TE and a creationist were transported back in time to observe the wine Jesus made after the fact, they would undoubtable interpret the existence of the wine differently. Assuming they approached the evidence with the same presuppositions they approach the issue of origins, here would be their respective conclusions.
The atheist would flat out dismiss the testimony of the witness that this was the product of an instantaneous miracle, claiming that wine has a very natural plausible explanation. It must have been started several months ago, in order for there to have been enough time elapsed for fermentation to take place. No miracle necessary.
The creationist, OTOH, would have had no problem with the testimony claiming that God is perfectly able to skip over processes that men can't. They would have declared the evidence perfectly compatible with the miracle reported by the witnesses.
But the TE or day-ager would have taken a middle road position. They, like the atheist, would have noted the uniformitarian process normally necessary to make wine and declared the wine also to be several months old. Thus they would also dismiss the testimony of the eyewitnesses. But in order to also show they believed in God's power, they would gleefully also declare a miracle of God has taken place.......... just several months ago.
Only if people actually did eat trilobytes and only if they were eating them during the flood rather than trying to get away from it. Makes sense doesn't it?Can you explain this in more detail please? Especially in regard to the relative placement of plants or of any animals which are thought to have been contemporaneous with humans. Note that it doesn't matter that trilobites were marine animals. So are fish, yet we find fish bones in terrestrial garbage dumps because they have been caught and eaten by people. So we ought to expect the remains of trilobite dinners to be found where people were living for the same reason.
Only if people actually did eat trilobytes and only if they were eating them during the flood rather than trying to get away from it. Makes sense doesn't it?
gluadys:
Tell me if you can find any evidence of a rubbish dump on tsunami ravaged Japan.
And that was just a splash compared to the big one: Sometimes you have to be practical as well as right you know.
As for the different final resting places for trilobytes and whales -well it surprises me frankly that you are not aware of the differing abilities of the two to survive. Just to let you know that whales survived and trilabytes didnt so I quess that says a lot about why they are not found together in the "fossil record"
Since the YECs who responded in the other thread I tried to make are ignoring my followup question, I'll try to be a little more direct.
If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?