In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Loudmouth]

Because we 'know' no such thing. Were you there?
Was any scientist? God was.

The past leaves evidence that we can observe in the present. The evidence we use was there, and we can use it to reconstruct what happened in the past.

Also, God being anywhere is an assumption with nothing to back it. No evidence. Nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

What happened to God?

You left Him out of Rick's comment.

What about him?

ETA: Here's the thing AV, IF your god exists, then things are as we find them, and the best conclusions are those supported by evidence.

What's the point in spending so much time to devise such a trivial narrative that fits your presumptive notions of an ancient collection of redacted, copied and forged writings? Wouldn't it be so much more intellectually satisfying to accept things as they are?

Meh, 2 cents rant over.

 

[Hammster]

You can interpret it as a parable or allegory.

It still says there was light before the Sun.

 

[RickG]

Is the any reason that the original readers/hearers of Genesis woukd think creation was anything other than six days?

Absolutely, especially since we know the events did not occur as described in Genesis. It is nothing more than a story about the creation in the context of the understanding of the people of the time. Also, the story being told countless years before it was first written down surely acquired many versions. Even Jesus spoke in parables (allegories).

At face value, is that what it says? Keep in mind before you reply that they already had the Ten Commandments.

And it is the violation of the 9th commandment that troubles me most when I encounter "creation science". Why, because much of it is deliberate and misrepresentations science, which anyone with a science background in the earth sciences can easily see. And those claims that are not deliberate misrepresentations are nothing more than poor scholarship performed mostly by people who have no actual background in what they are claiming. And understand, this is not just an opinion, it is what I have experienced. I am not an internet wanta-be scientist. I have a M.S. in Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis (1977) and almost 30 years experience as a research chemist. When I see bad or misrepresented science, it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Creation science has troubled me considerably almost to the point of becoming an atheist. Why? If such deliberate misrepresentations have to be used to justify scripture, then what is the validity of those religious beliefs? Do I have to believe in out right lies to believe in God? I will not do that. As I have mentioned earlier, my God is not a deceiver.

 

[Loudmouth]

It still says there was light before the Sun.

What stories say in books has nothing to do with what is and isn't a reality. If I write a story of how the Earth has two moons, a new moon does not magically appear in the sky.

 

[RickG]

It still says there was light before the Sun.

The idea of a 6,000 year old earth encompass an extreme minority of the Christian faith. The vast majority have no problem accepting the age of the earth described by mainstream science.

 

[RickG]

Translation:

Anything not to your endorsement suggests God to be a deceiver?

Its not my endorsement, its a fact. If a God makes everything to look and verify older than actually is, then yes, that God is a deceiver. Furthermore, it is no God I wish to associate with. My God is not a deceiver, is yours?

 

[Hammster]

Absolutely, especially since we know the events did not occur as described in Genesis. It is nothing more than a story about the creation in the context of the understanding of the people of the time. Also, the story being told countless years before it was first written down surely acquired many versions. Even Jesus spoke in parables (allegories).



And it is the violation of the 9th commandment that troubles me most when I encounter "creation science". Why, because much of it is deliberate and misrepresentations science, which anyone with a science background in the earth sciences can easily see. And those claims that are not deliberate misrepresentations are nothing more than poor scholarship performed mostly by people who have no actual background in what they are claiming. And understand, this is not just an opinion, it is what I have experienced. I am not an internet wanta-be scientist. I have a M.S. in Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis (1977) and almost 30 years experience as a research chemist. When I see bad or misrepresented science, it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Creation science has troubled me considerably almost to the point of becoming an atheist. Why? If such deliberate misrepresentations have to be used to justify scripture, then what is the validity of those religious beliefs? Do I have to believe in out right lies to believe in God? I will not do that. As I have mentioned earlier, my God is not a deceiver.

You are grasping. When God gave the Ten Commandments, he stated that He created in six days. There was nothing said that indicated that it was a really long time, or there would have been other language used. So the hearers, regardless of what they may have heard before, would have been straightened out when the commandments were read. So when Moses write Genesis, there would be no reason for the Israelites to think otherwise. This is simple hermeneutics. It cannot mean what it never meant.

Not to mention, Jesus speaks of Genesis as literal. So does John, Paul, and Peter. So you may dismiss the Genesis account as allegory, but the writers of the bible sure did not.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Unless Shekinah energy gets the job done.

I'm pretty sure that word is not in KJV, so why do you use it?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are grasping. When God gave the Ten Commandments, he stated that He created in six days.

There is no evidence that God did write the Ten Commandments, or even what the originals said. All we have is stories written in books by humans.

There was nothing said that indicated that it was a really long time, or there would have been other language used. So the hearers, regardless of what they may have heard before, would have been straightened out when the commandments were read. So when Moses write Genesis, there would be no reason for the Israelites to think otherwise. This is simple hermeneutics. It cannot mean what it never meant.

Then you have a pretty serious problem. The facts demonstrate that a literal Genesis is false. Your choices seem rather limited.

1. Genesis is not meant to be a literal history.
2. God created fake evidence just to fool us.

Personally, option #1 seems a lot more palatable.

Not to mention, Jesus speaks of Genesis as literal.

Jesus spoke in parables all of the time.

 

[Hammster]

The idea of a 6,000 year old earth encompass an extreme minority of the Christian faith. The vast majority have no problem accepting the age of the earth described by mainstream science.

Extreme minority? Evidence of that?

 

[Hammster]

There is no evidence that God did write the Ten Commandments, or even what the originals said. All we have is stories written in books by humans.



Then you have a pretty serious problem. The facts demonstrate that a literal Genesis is false. Your choices seem rather limited.

1. Genesis is not meant to be a literal history.
2. God created fake evidence just to fool us.

Personally, option #1 seems a lot more palatable.



Jesus spoke in parables all of the time.

I'm sure some alleged Christians will agree with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure some alleged Christians will agree with you.

I suspect that you haven't learned the lesson that previous generations have already learned.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Was Galileo an "alleged" Christian for daring to follow the facts pointing to Heliocentrism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying that rocks date old by radiometric dating because of this embedded age?

I didn't say a word about radiometric dating.

I just go with the conclusions that scientists come to, as long as they don't violate the Scriptures.

Radiometric dating is a process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded Age, as you present it, is no different than Last Thursdayism.

No it isn't.

I have always presented Embedded Age by using three words: maturity ... without ... history.

Others, who have forgotten that, have tried to say I called it: maturity with age, or age without history; and I have always corrected them.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim that this history was put into those rocks by God as part of the creation event.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

 

[Hammster]

I suspect that you haven't learned the lesson that previous generations have already learned.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Was Galileo an "alleged" Christian for daring to follow the facts pointing to Heliocentrism?

What scriptures were used to geocentrism?

 

[RickG]

You are grasping. When God gave the Ten Commandments, he stated that He created in six days. There was nothing said that indicated that it was a really long time, or there would have been other language used. So the hearers, regardless of what they may have heard before, would have been straightened out when the commandments were read. So when Moses write Genesis, there would be no reason for the Israelites to think otherwise. This is simple hermeneutics. It cannot mean what it never meant.

Then I question the bible and its entire contents, after all, it was written and complied by man deciding what would and what would not go in it. Nicaean Councils.

Not to mention, Jesus speaks of Genesis as literal. So does John, Paul, and Peter. So you may dismiss the Genesis account as allegory, but the writers of the bible sure did not.

You are aware that nothing that was written about Jesus that is contemporary of his time don't you. The first writings (4 gospels) were written a full generation or more after his death, and one of them mentioned nanything about his Resurrection. And while you are on Moses, are you aware with all the historical information left by the Egyptians there is no mention of Moses or anything he was associated with in scripture by them. Furthermore, there is absolutely no archeological evidence that any Hebrews were in Egypt during the reign of Rameses. Not denying, just stating known facts.

 

[RickG]

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

Embedded age shows history.

 

[RickG]

I just go with the conclusions that scientists come to, as long as they don't violate the Scriptures.

That is what is called cherry picking.