My Layer Challenge

[Jo555]

On the third day of the creation week, Earth consisted of one giant ball of seawater.

Let's call it Terra Aqua, for lack of a better term.

View attachment 361158

Then God commanded the atoms to get together and form land.

Then He commanded the waters to stand aside and let the land come to the surface.

View attachment 361159

Here's my question:

Are we expected to believe that that land consisted of millions and millions of years' worth of layers of fossils?

Including fossils of plants, which said plants weren't even created until later in the day?

I contend that God created only ONE LAYER, and calls that layer "Earth."

Not Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, or any other kind of "zoic".

"Earth"

What say you?

I believe that the account of creation in Genesis is just too much of a summary to make a valid argument that the Earth has not existed for many, many years.

It just doesn't provide much details and when that happens, to me it tells me God did not find it that important for us to know. He doesn't tell us everything. I would not be surprised if life exists on other planets way out there.

Even from verse 1 to 2, I can see where there may have been many, many years involved. And we know God does not see time like we do. The account of light first entering into the picture we are also told later, speaks of his Son. So was this darkness that had existed prior just that light was missing, or was there more to it. We know satan and a third of the angels were casts down to Earth, and he does show up in the garden to tempt Eve.

There is just not enough details to say for sure how old the Earth is, imo, and it is apparent He did not find it beneficial for us to know, otherwise He would have gone into more details.

Just reading it, to me at least, you can see it is a summary without too many finer details. Science may have more details in that department, but we know science is not infallible.

I do not believe I am a result of the evolutionary process, but even if there was solid, "beyond a shadow of doubt" physical evidence (not told everything thing), it would do nothing to cast doubts on my faith in God because I have a personal relationship with Him and He's shown Himself real to me. He has spoken to me. He has showered his presence on me and his love. I can feel his Spirit expressing Himself through me, and I can say, which I believe scripture supports, God's love is not the same as human love. You can feel the difference.

So I know many know what I'm talking about. I'm just saying that Genesis is just a summary and our faith should not rest on how old the Earth is, or humanity for that matter.

And not saying you are saying that. I'm just saying I don't feel Genesis provides enough details to prove one way or another how old the Earth is and our faith needs to be grounded in much more than that.

 

[Aaron112]

Plenty of people in Jordan's church exercising anti-faith to embrace evolution?

Is that what you're saying?

believe in evolution over what Jesus said.

 

[AV1611VET]

WW!

 

[Kylie]

Then you'll go through life wondering why Bible believers won't buy into academia's teaching about land consisting of millions and millions of years' worth of layers of fossils, won't you?

You can stick to your logic and play games, but in the end, who loses?

The ones who ignore the evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Well I attempted to alleviate that wonder, but academians are trained to reduce everything down to formulas and equations, then wonder at everything and trust nothing.

But I tried.

Why would reality be afraid of investigation?

 

[Blaise N]

That trying to understand the geological history of the Earth through myths and fables instead of what we can plainly see through observation and understanding of the processes involved is not conducive to a proper understanding of reality.

If the Holy Bible was a “myth and fable” in your terms. Then why did the book of Job, the oldest book in the entire Bible, dating back thousands of years into the B.C. Era, accurately predict and explain how earth is balanced, stable, and fixed in orbit in the solar system?

“
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7

Galileo didn’t invent his revolutionary telescope until the 17th century, which proved this prediction thousands of years later.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If the Holy Bible was a “myth and fable” in your terms. Then why did the book of Job, the oldest book in the entire Bible, dating back thousands of years into the B.C. Era, accurately predict and explain how earth is balanced, stable, and fixed in orbit in the solar system?

“
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7

Galileo didn’t invent his revolutionary telescope until the 17th century, which proved this prediction thousands of years later.

Because the people that wrote it standing on the Earth noticed is was balanced and stable and that from their POV the sky "orbited" it regularly? Do you think they had special knowledge that couldn't be gleaned from literally just looking around? Add that with some creative embellishment and you can come up with a good narrative for any god.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the Holy Bible was a “myth and fable” in your terms. Then why did the book of Job, the oldest book in the entire Bible, dating back thousands of years into the B.C. Era, accurately predict and explain how earth is balanced, stable, and fixed in orbit in the solar system?

“
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7

Galileo didn’t invent his revolutionary telescope until the 17th century, which proved this prediction thousands of years later.

Because it doesn't.

The earth does not "hangeth upon nothing". It orbits due to a balance of the inertia and the tug of gravity on the path of the Earth.

 

[Blaise N]

Because it doesn't.

The earth does not "hangeth upon nothing". It orbits due to a balance of the inertia and the tug of gravity on the path of the Earth.

I meant exactly that when I said “balanced stable and fixed in orbit” I know the whole science behind that, sorry I didn’t articulate further

 

[Blaise N]

Because the people that wrote it standing on the Earth noticed is was balanced and stable and that from their POV the sky "orbited" it regularly? Do you think they had special knowledge that couldn't be gleaned from literally just looking around? Add that with some creative embellishment and you can come up with a good narrative for any god.

Whom do you take scientific evidence and conclusions from? Newton? Pascal? Galileo?
Gosse? If so you take knowledge and place faith in the studies and conclusions of men of faith.

Pardon my bluntness, but Darwin never intended his studies to combat Religion. It was only later after his death that successors to the Darwinian field utilized it to defend and promote Evolutionary, Thiest-attacking causes. And hawking was an arrogant, and IMO deep down, a bitter angry man, who, no doubt indeed was intelligent and bright in many fields and respects, but also at the same time was a very foolish man.

But from a morality perspective ask yourself this, for what reason would someone, in your own words, “Add that with some creative embellishment” do this for? What would they gain from a lie? Notoriety? Fortune? Power? Ask yourself what would’ve the writer of the book of job gain from a lie? Moreover if it’s so important, why are you so passionate about proving it’s wrong? Could it be perhaps you see us Christians as inferior or “dim witted?” Do you think, in your own words “you can come up with a good narrative for any god.” The writer of the book of Job simply made this “assumption” to lie to the masses to gain some sort of power?

What I did was took an ancient prediction,and quite frankly, TRUE ancient factual prediction and backed it up with the first revolutionary Creative-astronomers conclusions.

Where in any other religion does such a prediction or factual statement seem present? Not anywhere in Hinduism or Islam to my knowledge.

To summarize your reply, you seem to think it’s all “coincidence”
You think everything in this world is coincidental? Therefore that must mean you don’t think anything is preplanned . Probabilistic perhaps?
After all the belief of evolution is entirely probabilistic.


IOW, is the narrative in Job a coincidence?

 

[SelfSim]

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place ..
Job 26:7

The 'stretcheth out the north' there, certainly looks like the beginnings of supernatural folk lore to me(?)

 

[Blaise N]

The 'stretcheth out the north' there, certainly looks like the beginnings of supernatural folk lore to me(?)

What is the top of the earth and what is the bottom? The top is the northern pole and the south, respectively, the southern pole.

How do you hang an ornament on a Christmas tree? By its top.

Yet as we know by satellite imagery, astronomy, and science earth is balanced and fixed in orbit via gravity as if “hanging” if you could say, in orbit.

 

[SelfSim]

What is the top of the earth and what is the bottom? The top is the northern pole and the south, respectively, the southern pole.

How do you hang an ornament on a Christmas tree? By its top.

Yet as we know by satellite imagery, astronomy, and science earth is balanced and fixed in orbit via gravity as if “hanging” if you could say, in orbit.

Goodness gracious me!
There's a whole bunch of humanity who live in the Southern Hemisphere who think they live on the top of the Earth .. have you just sort of excluded their existence and opinions altogether? If so, why? Their opinions count too don't they?

 

[SelfSim]

What is the top of the earth and what is the bottom? The top is the northern pole and the south, respectively, the southern pole.

How do you hang an ornament on a Christmas tree? By its top.

Yet as we know by satellite imagery, astronomy, and science earth is balanced and fixed in orbit via gravity as if “hanging” if you could say, in orbit.

.. anyway my point was that stretchething out the north there, must be some kind of supernatural act for establishing some kind of folk lore, for what follows, no?
Ie: isn't the retelling of such a story, to make a point about the 'power' of something that could do that?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I meant exactly that when I said “balanced stable and fixed in orbit” I know the whole science behind that, sorry I didn’t articulate further

But 'Job' doesn't say that and you won't find anyone claiming that's what the passage meant until at least Copernicus or more likely Newton. Your personal post facto reinterpretation tells us nothing about what the passage meant to the writer.

 

[SelfSim]

If the Holy Bible was a “myth and fable” in your terms. Then why did the book of Job, the oldest book in the entire Bible, dating back thousands of years into the B.C. Era, accurately predict and explain how earth is balanced, stable, and fixed in orbit in the solar system?

"7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7

I mean, where does it say anything about 'the solar system', also?

How could anyone claim it 'accurately predicts' anything?

 

[Perpetual Student]

What say you?

That you are wrong.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are factually wrong.
The moment you want to see these ideas tought in the classroom, that is when the knives are sharpened, the ink bottles opened and the dust is removed from the keyboard.
That is when the backlash is needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

That you are wrong.

Fair enough -- your opinion is noted.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are factually wrong.

Fair enough -- your opinion is noted.

The moment you want to see these ideas tought in the classroom, that is when the knives are sharpened, the ink bottles opened and the dust is removed from the keyboard.

That's too bad.

But for the record, we teach our information in Sunday school, using the Bible as our textbook.

That is when the backlash is needed.

I welcome it.

This is a creation test I once made up; see how you do:

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?

 

[Kylie]

But for the record, we teach our information in Sunday school, using the Bible as our textbook.

The trouble is that so many want it taught in the science class as well.

 

[SelfSim]

I welcome it.

This is a creation test I once made up; see how you do:

1. Define Embedded Age.
2. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
3. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
4. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
14. What was the first object in the universe that had mass?

I'd either:

i) screw it up, throw it into the nearest bin and walk straight out of the examination room or;
ii) re-write the questions so that they made sense .. and then answer them.

When the results came back, I'd probably proceed to lay a law suit on the examiner for being unfit to continue holding that position!

Is that welcomed?