My Personal Views

[AV1611VET]

A brother sent me this [edited] PM, and I thought I would share my thoughts on it, since many here do seem to misunderstand where and what I stand for.

Pertaining to creation, evolution, the age of the earth, the visual age of the earth, etc. What is your opinion on any of these, what arguments do you normally face to any of these, and what solutions / counter-arguments besides "Goddidit," ... do you have, if any?

CREATION

My Opinioin: God created the earth as outlined in Genesis 1. The earth was created ex nihilo, and is the first object that appeared in the universe with mass. In fact, the amount of mass/energy in existence just prior to the Creation Event was zero, then was raised to its current level today over a period of six days. Although the earth is not geocentric, it is certainly geoprominent -- meaning that God created the earth first, then created the universe around it.

Arguments: (1) Mainly that Genesis 1 is to be taken allegorically, not literally. (2) The Laws of Thermodynamics would prevent mass/energy from being increased.

Counter-arguments: (1) Even Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally. The Bible doesn't start out, 'Once upon a time...' And the literal method is the best, as it forces even those opposed to the Scriptures to admit to what It says. They may not agree with It, but they can't say It doesn't say that. (2) The Laws of Thermodynamics did not exist as yet. God did not use science to create the universe.

EVOLUTION

My Opinion: I believe in evolution -- to a point. God is a God of boundaries, and He has set a boundary that even evolution cannot cross. When evolution of a species approaches that boundary, it dies out. Put another way, God has ordained how many times a species can microevolve, before it can no longer evolve.

Arguments: (1) This boundary cannot be verified empirically. (2) Once a species reaches the bottom rung, it can't be shown that it has ceased to evolve, since a new genus would start the line all over again.

Counter-arguments: (1) This boundary cannot be verified empirically because science is myopic and can't see it, or because it is a spiritual boundary. Either way, it is a boundary set by God. (2) No bottom-line species of Genus A has ever been observed to produce a top-line Genus B. Evolution has so many missing links, it's impossible to daisy chain atoms-to-Adam evolution.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH

My Opinion: The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically; but has only been in existence for 6015 years. In other words, God embedded age (defined as, "maturity without history") into His creation.

Arguments: (1) The earth shows more than just 4.57 billion years of age, it shows 4.57 billion years of history as well. (2) Embedded age is too hard to adequately define and understand. (3) Embedded age requires changing the definition of the word 'age'.

Counter-arguments: (1) This 'excess history' has never been observed. The laws of nature were different in the past. (2) I, and others, do not find it a difficult concept at all. The only ones who seem to have trouble with it are those who either don't believe in God, or do believe in Him, but limit what He can do to their own level of understanding. (3) A close scrutiny of the word 'age' indeed shows that it can be used effectively. Age is a noun, and nouns can be embedded in objects.

The Visual Age of the Earth

My Opinion: I will go with whatever scientists say it is. If tomorrow they say it is 60 quinzillion years old, then that is fine with me. What I will not accept, is that it has been in existence more than 6015 years.

Arguments: (1) I can't pick and choose what I believe. If I accept the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then I must accept that it has grown that old. (2) Civilizations such as Egypt, China and Sumeria are much older than 6015 years.

Counter-arguments: (1) I am not obligated to accept everything science lays at my feet; especially if it contradicts the Scriptures. My authority is the Bible, not scientific consensus. (2) The dating methods used by these civilizations were not accurate, and reflect gross errors in calculations. In addition, Genesis 10, known as the Table of Nations, shows these civilizations coming after Noah -- not before.

I pray this helps!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Helps what, confuse little kids who might read this and think it's actually true?

 

[ChristianT]

I agree, this makes a lot of sense, it's logical, and I loved the "quinzillion comment."

 

[RickG]

The thing is AV, none of the counter arguments contain any supporting evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that shows those counter arguments are incorrect.

 

[Davian]

...
My authority is the Bible, not scientific consensus.
...

The whole thing teeters on this. And with the demonstrable ineffectiveness of the bible to resolve even differences of opinion, it falls over at the lightest of breezes.

 

[Phred]

And I still don't think you know what "nothing" is.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Who else thinks this is going to be heavily "QV'd"?

 

[quatona]

Ok, maturity without history is called "embedded age". Now, what do we call "immaturity with a long history"?

 

[dad]

My Opinion: The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically; but has only been in existence for 6015 years. In other words, God embedded age (defined as, "maturity without history") into His creation.
......

Counter-arguments: (1) This 'excess history' has never been observed. The laws of nature were different in the past. .....

I think almost all of this maturity is 'determined' by the present laws. Without them nothing really is all that mature. So what is left that we need to embed? Isotopes? With different laws they need not be embedded, but merely re explained. Fossils? No, because we can have all the fossils we could dream of with a different past. So...what really is there that needs embedding? I can't quite get my head around it....? Seems to me that the real problem is that only imagination embeds any old ages..

 

[quatona]

A brother sent me this [edited] PM, and I thought I would share my thoughts on it, since many here do seem to misunderstand where and what I stand for.
CREATION

My Opinioin: God created the earth as outlined in Genesis 1. The earth was created ex nihilo, and is the first object that appeared in the universe with mass. In fact, the amount of mass/energy in existence just prior to the Creation Event was zero, then was raised to its current level today over a period of six days. Although the earth is not geocentric, it is certainly geoprominent -- meaning that God created the earth first, then created the universe around it.

Arguments: (1) Mainly that Genesis 1 is to be taken allegorically, not literally. (2) The Laws of Thermodynamics would prevent mass/energy from being increased.

Counter-arguments: (1) Even Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally. The Bible doesn't start out, 'Once upon a time...' And the literal method is the best, as it forces even those opposed to the Scriptures to admit to what It says. They may not agree with It, but they can't say It doesn't say that. (2) The Laws of Thermodynamics did not exist as yet. God did not use science to create the universe.

EVOLUTION

My Opinion: I believe in evolution -- to a point. God is a God of boundaries, and He has set a boundary that even evolution cannot cross. When evolution of a species approaches that boundary, it dies out. Put another way, God has ordained how many times a species can microevolve, before it can no longer evolve.

Arguments: (1) This boundary cannot be verified empirically. (2) Once a species reaches the bottom rung, it can't be shown that it has ceased to evolve, since a new genus would start the line all over again.

Counter-arguments: (1) This boundary cannot be verified empirically because science is myopic and can't see it, or because it is a spiritual boundary. Either way, it is a boundary set by God. (2) No bottom-line species of Genus A has ever been observed to produce a top-line Genus B. Evolution has so many missing links, it's impossible to daisy chain atoms-to-Adam evolution.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH

My Opinion: The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically; but has only been in existence for 6015 years. In other words, God embedded age (defined as, "maturity without history") into His creation.

Arguments: (1) The earth shows more than just 4.57 billion years of age, it shows 4.57 billion years of history as well. (2) Embedded age is too hard to adequately define and understand. (3) Embedded age requires changing the definition of the word 'age'.

Counter-arguments: (1) This 'excess history' has never been observed. The laws of nature were different in the past. (2) I, and others, do not find it a difficult concept at all. The only ones who seem to have trouble with it are those who either don't believe in God, or do believe in Him, but limit what He can do to their own level of understanding. (3) A close scrutiny of the word 'age' indeed shows that it can be used effectively. Age is a noun, and nouns can be embedded in objects.

The Visual Age of the Earth

My Opinion: I will go with whatever scientists say it is. If tomorrow they say it is 60 quinzillion years old, then that is fine with me. What I will not accept, is that it has been in existence more than 6015 years.

Arguments: (1) I can't pick and choose what I believe. If I accept the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then I must accept that it has grown that old. (2) Civilizations such as Egypt, China and Sumeria are much older than 6015 years.

Counter-arguments: (1) I am not obligated to accept everything science lays at my feet; especially if it contradicts the Scriptures. My authority is the Bible, not scientific consensus. (2) The dating methods used by these civilizations were not accurate, and reflect gross errors in calculations. In addition, Genesis 10, known as the Table of Nations, shows these civilizations coming after Noah -- not before.

I pray this helps!

I´m wondering how you explain the fact that all those stars light-years from here can still be seen, although created after the earth (i.e. - 6000 years ago). Embedded distance or something?

 

[USincognito]

Ok, maturity without history is called "embedded age". Now, what do we call "immaturity with a long history"?

AV's posting habits?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think almost all of this maturity is 'determined' by the present laws.

Yes, and that's a whole matter in itself.

By 'maturity', I mean the 'ability to function as anyone else that age.'

Take an apple tree for instance; although it came on the scene in a moment of time, it came on the scene with ripe apples, ready to be picked and eaten.

By the same token, Adam came on the scene ready for marriage, a job, and adult responsibilities.

Without them nothing really is all that mature.

I don't think the current laws of nature, which were in operation that that time, had an impact on creation.

I mean, Adam & Eve could have functioned as immature adults under those laws as well; but they didn't, since they had maturity embedded in them.

So what is left that we need to embed?

Aside from age, I don't know if God embedded anything else.

Isotopes?

Don't know.

With different laws they need not be embedded, but merely re explained.

I agree 100%.

Fossils?

Definitely not.

No, because we can have all the fossils we could dream of with a different past.

But remember, there was no 'past' as we know it during the creation process, except for the days that went by while the week was going on.

For example, the earth came into existence rotating, so on day three, it had a 'past' of two complete rotations.

No need for fossils or anything.

So...what really is there that needs embedding?

Age.

I can't quite get my head around it....?

It's truly a miracle of creation.

Seems to me that the real problem is that only imagination embeds any old ages..

It would be a bit like watch Star Trek for the first time.

Warp drive comes on the scene in our living rooms fully functional, teleportation is fully functional, that replicator that makes coffee and chicken sandwiches is fully functional, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

I´m wondering how you explain the fact that all those stars light-years from here can still be seen, although created after the earth (i.e. - 6000 years ago). Embedded distance or something?

Kinda.

When the earth was created, it was created in the palm of God's hand.

Isaiah 40:12 ¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

I can imaging God creating the entire universe in the palm of His hand, before He stretched it to its current dimensions.

All the stars in the universe would be shining their lights on the earth, but when God stretched the heavens, the starlight receded; except for the ones that God ordained that we see.

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we tell the difference?

Just like anyone else can.

Take the physical age, subtract 6015, and the difference is embedded age.

Take the earth for example:

4.57 billion minus 6015 equals 4.56993985 years of embedded age.

Why am I even talking about it?

So you can learn it?

 

[jpcedotal]

sounds good to me AV....

 

[quatona]

Kinda.

When the earth was created, it was created in the palm of God's hand.

What exactly do you mean when saying "the palm of God´s hand"?

 

[AV1611VET]

sounds good to me AV....

Thank you, bro!

 

[AV1611VET]

What exactly do you mean when saying "the palm of God´s hand"?

That means that at one time, everything was much, much closer together than it is now.

 

[jpcedotal]

Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
[FONT=&quot]בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ[/FONT] (Hebrew in Hebrew text)
[FONT=&quot]Bereshith bara Elohim eth hashshamayim veeth haarets [/FONT](Hebrew in English text)

This statement is clear, direct, and stated very “matter-of-factly”. I do not want to take away in any fashion this “first glance” approach to Genesis 1:1. Who? God. Did what? created the heaven and the earth. When? in the beginning. This verse does not try to prove God exists in any way; it demands that the reader already believes this to be fact. God is real and He created all that we see and all the we do not see. This simple, yet profound, statement MUST be believed on an intimate level in order for the rest of the Bible to have any personal meaning. All Biblical truth is built on Genesis 1:1. Dr. Vernon McGee states it this way:

This is a majestic verse. It is a tremendous verse. I am of the opinion that it is the doorway through which you will have to walk into the Bible. You have to believe that God is the Creator, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is.http://www.christianforums.com/#_edn1
​

[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Thru the Bible Commentary By J. Vernon McGee

 

[Mr Strawberry]

By the same token, Adam came on the scene ready for marriage, a job, and adult responsibilities.

That doesn't mean he would necessarily display any evidence of having existed before his creation. But if he could remember a childhood that never happened then he'd be very confused, and with good reason.

The problems start when God creates things with evidence of a past. Then He becomes untrustworthy and an untrustworty God destroys the whole point of using the (frankly ludicrous) embedded argument in the first place. The young earth creationist therefore has to retreat back to denying there is any evidence that the universe is older than 6000 years or admit that the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God.