Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

Given that theistic evolutionists arrive at the same "jumbled up" order, that is actually completely irrelevant.

Theistic Evolutionists, while indeed following this order, are giving preeminence to the wrong bible. They do not arrive at this "jumbled up" order by reading Genesis 1, they arrive at this "jumbled up" order by reading [post-Fall] nature and retrofitting it to Genesis 1.

 

[Cabal]

Theistic Evolutionists, while indeed following this order, are giving preeminence to the wrong bible. They do not arrive at this "jumbled up" order by reading Genesis 1, they arrive at this "jumbled up" order by reading [post-Fall] nature and retrofitting it to Genesis 1.

AV, which is it? Did the Fall jumble up the order (man letting sin into the world) or did God (post 15)? And it's hardly the scientists fault for reading the jumbled up nature accurately, presumably by this post you would think if we lived pre-fall and there were scientists for whatever reason, the earth would empirically directly point to God. This brings the deceitful God argument back into play....you're starting to contradict yourself a bit (in your haste to rubbish atheists and TEs?), methinks.

And one (constructive, I hope) nitpick - when you talk about the electromagnetic spectrum being formed, and the four forces snapping on, I'm assuming you mean the four forces snap on first? Kinda hard to have a spectrum when there's no force mechanism to support it. Again, not trying to pick holes with this one...I just like talking Standard Model

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, which is it? Did the Fall jumble up the order (man letting sin into the world) or did God (post 15)?

My apologies.

I put it in quotes, not for emphasis, but sarcastically --- and shouldn't have.

Again, I do not want to discuss the Fall (Genesis 3), and I promise you I won't. But let me say this much: this earth was shuffled like a deck of cards as a result of the Fall, mainly by the Flood and the Pangaea Split. Things are upside down, inside out, and every which way but loose.

And now, back to Genesis 1, where this thread belongs.

 

[Cabal]

My apologies.

I put it in quotes, not for emphasis, but sarcastically --- and shouldn't have.

Again, I do not want to discuss the Fall (Genesis 3), and I promise you I won't. But let me say this much: this earth was shuffled like a deck of cards as a result of the Fall, mainly by the Flood and the Pangaea Split. Things are upside down, inside out, and every which way but loose.

And now, back to Genesis 1, where this thread belongs.

Alrighty, fair enough.

Again, however, I don't see how this doesn't rule out the deceitful God argument. Seeing as God knew the order was going to be jumbled up, why bother giving us Genesis 1 if we're never going to find evidence for it? And then later on his inspired text has the gall to say that God can be evidenced in his creation?

(Ok, so I'm not sticking to Genesis 1 here, and for that I apologise, but I hardly think creating an entire universe and then (how long until that little tree-and-snake incident? a few years?) a short while later allowing it to crap out and STILL expect people to view the creation as evidence is a much bigger deal than Genesis 1, I would go so far as to say it makes sticking to the first chapter of the Bible quite redundant, at least as a science text.

 

[consol]

And once again, the order that God put this universe together in is a powerful testimony against evolution, and is a powerful testimony to what He can do.

The Theory of Evolution is very convincing, and had God put this universe together in the order that nature demands, then it would be even harder to separate Genesis 1 from McGraw-Hill 1.

I'm impressed at His foresight.

AV What you are really saying is this, if the people who wrote the bible had really cocked everything up and made the Sun on the LAST day,
you would have said how wonderful God was to be able to keep everything alive without light,
in fact, no matter how they wrote it you would have found a way around any problems their lack of knowledge could have brought on.

That's what creationism is really all about AV, and you know it, it's about twisting, changing, making everything fit,
altering the meanings of words, and if need be, JUST PLAIN LYING,
whatever it takes to keep creationism on it's brain deadening track.

 

[Drwhat]

What a crock.

 

[Tomk80]

What a crock.

Excellent thread summary!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why don't you respond to the arguments people actually make, instead of this strawman?

In all fairness, he did say in his OP that he would answer questions "to the best of [his] ability."

Sadly, knocking down strawmen seems to be as good as it gets.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not familiar with any Hebrew creation myth.

The book of Genesis opens with two separate (and mutually exclusive) ones -- Genesis 1, and Genesis 2-3.

Take your pick.

 

[Tomk80]

In all fairness, he did say in his OP that he would answer questions "to the best of [his] ability."

Yes, I knew this was a clear indication that AV's answers would descend into incoherency before the second page was over.

Sadly, knocking down strawmen seems to be as good as it gets.

True. Again, no surprises there. Ah, one can always hope. Although it has become clear to me that hoping on a coherent argument from AV is like hoping to win the jackpot in the lottery. There is a change of that happening, but I'm afraid my chances of getting struck by lightning while dancing salsa on the quai St. Michel in Paris are astronomically higher.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My apologies.

I put it in quotes, not for emphasis, but sarcastically --- and shouldn't have.

Again, I do not want to discuss the Fall (Genesis 3), and I promise you I won't. But let me say this much: this earth was shuffled like a deck of cards as a result of the Fall, mainly by the Flood and the Pangaea Split. Things are upside down, inside out, and every which way but loose.

And now, back to Genesis 1, where this thread belongs.

The problem with this is that the Fall is an essential part of the Creation story -- the etiology demands that the world, in its current state, be explained. Otherwise, you're left with half a story, if that.

Consider: You're writing a biography of OJ Simpson. In your book, he rises from San Francisco obscurity, plays college ball for USC, wins the Heisman Trophy, has a promising professional career, experiments with show business, then, in 1985, marries his sweetheart, Nicole Brown... The End.

You see any problems with your book?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

And here I was thinking I had gone onto your ignore list, AV Good to know you still love me

MOK, when someone teaches the Creation Week, they should never field questions about what occurred outside of Genesis 1. That leads to points that have nothing to do with the subject. You're asking questions about Hamartology (the doctrine of sin) in a thread that's taking questions on the Creation, and these two doctrines have nothing to do with each other.

They do have something to do with each other: God planted a garden, did he not? Containing superspecialmagic Trees, no? Are you telling me those Trees weren't created ex nihilo? If so, where did they come from? If God created the Tree otKoG&E, then good/evil/sin is closely related to creation.

If you don't want to give an answer, well, ok, I can't make you. But don't claim they're not related. Especially when...:

My advice to those who teach the Creation: never, never, never stray outside of Genesis One, or you'll get buried in side-issues.

Then you should heed your own advice:

3. God put Lucifer in the Garden to perform some kind of task. He was the "anointed cherub that covereth," and wore some type of elaborate outfit made of very precious gems. Coupling that with what his name means - (bearer of light; or bright star), and it's possible that his job was to tend to the Tree of Knowledge and to show (light?) the way for the other angels to this tree.

4. That tree bore fruit, not for Adam and Eve, but for the angels.

5. I don't understand this question. God parading the animals past Adam, who gave them their specific names, generated in Adam the realization that he was alone.

6. A couple of theories come to mind here: a) God knew they were going to fall, so He "prepped" them by having them get used to this "needless activity." b) God created them to live in both states (glorified and fallen), knowing they were going to eventually lose their glorified state. In other words --- Plan B requires eating to stay alive, Plan A didn't. So when God told Adam, "to you it shall be for meat" in Genesis 1:29, that statement carried a hint of prophecy in it.

You opened the door so I walked through it.

Seriously AV, it really looks like you answer posts when you have an answer that you like; and when you don't, you just ignore or /thread (in some form). It doesn't look good. Just sayin' -- my advice is free, and you get what you pay for.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with this is that the Fall is an essential part of the Creation story...

Um ... no.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Um ... no.

So, in your opinion, nothing that happens after Genesis 1 has any bearing on the Creation story?

"The best of your abilities" is looking quite sad indeed.

At this point, I would very much like to throw my hat into the proverbial ring, and I shall take any questions on the Creation stories (Which I define as Genesis 1-3) to the best of my abilities.

 

[tcampen]

I got a question. Why would we see a supernova in the sky that is millions of light years away when the universe is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old? Given the constant speed of light, either the universe is much older than this, or God created the universe recently with light already travelling towards earth depicting exploding stars that never actually exploded. Can you help with this?

 

[Split Rock]

And once again, the order that God put this universe together in is a powerful testimony against evolution, and is a powerful testimony to what He can do.

The Theory of Evolution is very convincing, and had God put this universe together in the order that nature demands, then it would be even harder to separate Genesis 1 from McGraw-Hill 1.

I'm impressed at His foresight.

How about what you continue to ignore.... His foresight in creating a universe which would produce what He wanted as it unfolded, so that He would not have to tinker around with dirt, people's ribs, and floods later on?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would we see a supernova in the sky that is millions of light years away when the universe is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old?

Again, I want to confine my answers to what occurred within the first 144 hours of time; but again, I'll make an exception, providing this doesn't get too deep.

Back in Post 21, I mentioned the earth being created in the hollow [palm] of God's hand. I believe the whole universe was created in the palm of God's hand as well. Then, over time, He stretched it to its current dimensions.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Since the stars are the angels' turf, the supernovas we see are the "exploding homes" of the angels that "kept not their first estate" and chose to co-habit with the women of earth prior to the Flood; and they would serve as a testimony to the other angels what God can, and will do to them, should they choose to follow the ways of their former leader.

So let's make up a story, just to show how this could have occurred:

1. God creates the universe with things much closer than they are today.
2. God begins expanding it.
3. Sorel, an angel living on Helios, 30 light years from earth (and moving away), leaves Helios to come to earth and marry a woman.
4. God blows up Helios (which is now 100 light years from earth), and confines Sorel to everlasting chains of darkness.
5. We see the traces of Helios today as a nova, supernova, nebula, or whatever, now thousands of light years out.

In the 4500 years since the Flood, we still see (or begin to see) the shell of this angel's house.

Again though, we're way out of Genesis 1 here.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about what you continue to ignore.... His foresight in creating a universe which would produce what He wanted as it unfolded, so that He would not have to tinker around with dirt, people's ribs, and floods later on?

God did not embed Murphy's Law into His creation.

What happened after He created it was purely done by choice, not by cause-and-effect, which Murphy's Law would stipulate.

 

[Cabal]

Um ... no.

Fraid so. You're only daring to field questions on a period of time that's about 144 hours + some unspecified duration. If The Fall altered empirical observations, then Genesis 1 immediately became irrelevant as soon as it occured.

 

[Skaloop]

What happened after He created it was purely done by choice

Who's choice?