Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

wow OK so list the things science is all about and studies OTHER than the natural!?

That is nonsensical. What else can be tested by science that is NOT natural?

As soon as you offer support for the claim that science is not limited to the natural, we can look at that. Until we see evidence for that claim it remains your belief and obviously you are trying to push it.

The alternative would be that your claims about creation cannot be tested and thus may be dismissed.

 

[AaronClaricus]

I don't personally know how you would define 'account,' but Genesis 2 is not a chronological recounting like Genesis 1 but a thematic and relational expansion of Day 6 in Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb tense in Genesis 2 allows retrospective or thematic descriptions rather than sequential events. For instance, Genesis 2:19 ("Now the LORD God had formed...") suggests that the animals were already created before Adam. The key is Genesis 2:19: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them..." The phrase "had formed" in many translations reflects the Hebrew verb yatsar, which can be rendered in the pluperfect tense ("had formed") rather than the simple past.

As mentioned, Genesis 1 is presented to the reader as a chronological account of the creation of the universe (with a heavy focus on man and man's perspective.) Genesis 2 is presented to the reader as an account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the original Garden Paradise. Genesis 3 is presented to the reader as a per se "compilation" of everything good that God made:

• The main focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve. This took place during "Day 6" of the Genesis 1 account.
• The purpose of Genesis 2 is to prepare the reader to understand Genesis 3, not to provide stale historical records for future generations to fill their heads with. Everything mentioned in Genesis 2 is strategic, with an eye toward Genesis 3 and beyond.
• The audience of Genesis 1-3 lived after the Fall and did not experience life during the Creation Week, or life in the Garden paradise.

We can attempt an initial chronology based on these two accounts:

• God made light, heaven, and dry land
• God made seed-bearing and fruit-bearing vegetation for food
• God made fish, birds, and land animals
• God made Adam
• God made the Garden of Eden and placed Adam there
• God had Adam name the animals, and then He made Eve

So, the two chronologies mesh perfectly. Dr. Richard Averbeck makes this point too: “We have this whole universe in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. And then Genesis 2:4 goes on and really zeros down into (God’s) work of humanity.” From what I can tell, I think you are imposing modern expectations of linear storytelling onto ancient textual style.

When did god make the sun in your list?

 

[AveChristusRex]

When did god make the sun in your list?

The sun was created on Day 4 according to Genesis 1:14-19. Note that on Day 1, God created light, and this light source sustained the vegetation until Day 4. The "vault of the sky" is created on Day 2, but it remains empty of celestial bodies until Day 4, when God places the sun, moon, and stars into it:

• Forming:
  • Day 1: Light and separation of day/night.
  • Day 2: The sky (vault/firmament) and waters.
  • Day 3: Dry land and vegetation.
• Filling:
  • Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars (to "fill" the sky created on Day 2).
  • Day 5: Birds and fish (to "fill" the waters and sky).
  • Day 6: Land animals and humans (to "fill" the dry land).

To incorporate this:

1. God made light, separating day from night (Day 1).
2. God created the sky and separated the waters (Day 2).
3. God gathered the waters, revealing dry land, and created vegetation (Day 3).
4. God made the sun, moon, and stars to mark time and give light (Day 4).
5. God created fish, birds, and land animals (Day 5-6).
6. God created Adam, placed him in the Garden, and then created Eve after Adam named the animals (Day 6).

 

[AveChristusRex]

If you'd understood what I've been saying, you'd see that I am not closed-minded. I'll accept ANYTHING as true, provided it has testable evidence to support it.

But once again you respond with the same PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) as before.

There is no discussion with you.

I noted this with Professor Dave Explains (who was very rude, and I pray for him to seek peace with himself and with those around him, and to calm his tongue ) during his debate with Dr. James Tour; I do not understand why a secularist like Dave cannot be kind, respectful, and not demeaning or 'holier than thou' in lieu of contrary opinion. I think a lot more people on CF would be open to secular science if secularists like Dave did not frame creationism as 'illogical,' rather just as a different worldview. In vein of Professor Dave Explains having nothing good to say about Dr. James Tour, I ask you Kylie: what is a good thing you can say about AV, or truthpls, or other creationists who happen to disagree with your proposition? I say this about secularists is that they are wonderful, passionate but misguided people who will help you in a time of need, I cherish them with all my heart as I do all others, they are the most intelligent, logical, and memorable people and I have great respect for that. I have great respect for you too Kylie, as you are all of the previously quoted compliments and more, and even more than that to Our Lord! God bless!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll repeat my same question I made all that ago when I first saw this thread, and since there seems to be new people who take embedded age as akin to the Gospel, even though it is one of the most extra-Biblical ideas I've ever seen:

Just a plain and simple... why?

 

[Aaron112]

Why are you turning this into a quid pro quo?

?? a tennis match ??

?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll repeat my same question I made all that ago when I first saw this thread, and since there seems to be new people who take embedded age as akin to the Gospel, even though it is one of the most extra-Biblical ideas I've ever seen:

Just a plain and simple... why?

Because it was necessary.

 

[AV1611VET]

?? a tennis match ??

?)

More like ping pong.

 

[Aaron112]

and this light source sustained the vegetation until Day 4.

Are you sure ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because it was necessary.

But why was it necessary?

 

[Aaron112]

Because it was necessary.

Maybe for here and now. Not eternally. Not in the assembly of ekklesia serving Jesus.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe for here and now. Not eternally. Not in the assembly of ekklesia serving Jesus.

Why?

 

[truthpls]

The alternative would be that your claims about creation cannot be tested and thus may be dismissed.

It is dismissed and has been a long time by the naturalonlydunnit crowd. It will never be tested by natural only science. Nor indeed can be. Therefore to use only the natural is not able to be tested either, as to whether the supernatural also was involved or not. So all claims based only on the natural in regards to creation or even how the universe is held together and works can be dismissed.

It boils down to choice of what we want to believe. For Christians (although from what I see posted by some here, I should specify for bible believers) we walk by faith, not by sight. We know that all that is seen came from the unseen God and that the universe is held together by Him as well. This is why natural only dunnit philosophy/science is not in agreement with us.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why was it necessary?

We've been over this before, haven't we?

Age is necessary for functionality.

Old rocks serve one purpose; young rocks another.

Even radiation embedded in them help regulate the earth's temperature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We've been over this before, haven't we?

Age is necessary for functionality.

Old rocks serve one purpose; young rocks another.

Even radiation embedded in them help regulate the earth's temperature.

No, you've made the claim that age is necessity for functionality, which is a major bit of post hoc logic to try and sync the old age of the Earth with Young Earth Creationism.

God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality. But to say that He did so is to very clearly create a deceptive deity.

 

[AV1611VET]

God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality.

That's about the weakest argument in existence.

"God can do anything."

Sure.

God could have made us men carry children inside of us for nine months, but He didn't.

Or He could have made grass orange, instead of green, but He didn't.

Or He could have made water dry, instead of wet, but He didn't.

 

[Fervent]

But why was it necessary?

Mystery makes people uncomfortable, everyone's looking for some concrete answer. The explanation is necessary to their understanding, because their understanding requires counterfactual beliefs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's about the weakest argument in existence.

"God can do anything."

Sure.

God could have made us men carry children inside of us for nine months, but He didn't.

Or He could have made grass orange, instead of green, but He didn't.

Or He could have made water dry, instead of wet, but He didn't.

Maybe addressing the whole of my question will make you understand things better, so I'll repeat what I said:

No, you've made the claim that age is necessity for functionality, which is a major bit of post hoc logic to try and sync the old age of the Earth with Young Earth Creationism.

God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality. But to say that He did so is to very clearly create a deceptive deity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mystery makes people uncomfortable, everyone's looking for some concrete answer. The explanation is necessary to their understanding, because their understanding requires counterfactual beliefs.

Okay.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe addressing the whole of my question will make you understand things better, so I'll repeat what I said:

No, you've made the claim that age is necessity for functionality, which is a major bit of post hoc logic to try and sync the old age of the Earth with Young Earth Creationism.

God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality. But to say that He did so is to very clearly create a deceptive deity.

That's about the weakest argument in existence.

"God can do anything."

Sure.

God could have made us men carry children inside of us for nine months, but He didn't.

Or He could have made grass orange, instead of green, but He didn't.

Or He could have made water dry, instead of wet, but He didn't.