Taking Questions on the Creation

AV1611VET · Jul 17, 2008

Cabal said:
Fraid so. You're only daring to field questions on a period of time that's about 144 hours + some unspecified duration.

And I'd like to keep it to that 144 hours, if I can.

Cabal said:
If The Fall altered empirical observations, then Genesis 1 immediately became irrelevant as soon as it occured.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree with that. Certainly Genesis 1 cannot be evidenced with man-made equipment, no matter how hard one looks; and as my Apple Challenge shows, it would require an amount of omniscience to be able to prove the Creation - (it would anyway, Fall or no Fall). Thus the Creation must be taken on faith in the written Documentation.

Kyrisch · Jul 17, 2008

AV1611VET said:
And I'd like to keep it to that 144 hours, if I can.For the sake of argument, I'll agree with that. Certainly Genesis 1 cannot be evidenced with man-made equipment, no matter how hard one looks; and as my Apple Challenge shows, it would require an amount of omniscience to be able to prove the Creation - (it would anyway, Fall or no Fall). Thus the Creation must be taken on faith in the written Documentation.

Your Apple Challenge was only good for so long as it was not taken up. I sat down one day, poured my thought into it, and came up with a pretty good response and all you do is get caught up in a semantics argument with another member, completely hijacking my thread. Your Apple Challenge means nothing until you actually respond. I'll even link you to it.

Split Rock · Jul 17, 2008

AV1611VET said:
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.

Huh? Murphy's Law says whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. How does this embody my suggestion that God created a universe that would by its very nature produce what He wanted without further thinkering on His part? The God you believe in is not only deceptive, but very small in his foresight and abilities. He must constantly correct the mistakes He should have headed-off that set His perfect creation spiraling out of his control and off target. What a small god you believe in!

pgp_protector · Jul 17, 2008

When Adam was created as a fully grown man.
Was he created with memories of things that didn't happen, like learning how to communicate ?

AV1611VET · Jul 18, 2008

Kyrisch said:
Your Apple Challenge was only good for so long as it was not taken up. I sat down one day, poured my thought into it, and came up with a pretty good response and all you do is get caught up in a semantics argument with another member, completely hijacking my thread. Your Apple Challenge means nothing until you actually respond. I'll even link you to it.

I did respond to it --- QV here.

AV1611VET · Jul 18, 2008

pgp_protector said:
When Adam was created as a fully grown man.
Was he created with memories of things that didn't happen, like learning how to communicate ?

No --- Adam was created fully-functional and didn't go through any learning process. Paul says we'll do the same thing ---

1 Corinthians 13:12 said:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Cabal · Jul 18, 2008

AV1611VET said:
And I'd like to keep it to that 144 hours, if I can.For the sake of argument, I'll agree with that. Certainly Genesis 1 cannot be evidenced with man-made equipment, no matter how hard one looks; and as my Apple Challenge shows, it would require an amount of omniscience to be able to prove the Creation - (it would anyway, Fall or no Fall). Thus the Creation must be taken on faith in the written Documentation.

Ok, fair enough. The next question I have is, who do you believe wrote down Genesis? The reason I ask is that in another thread, I think you said it was Adam - maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, anyway I just wanted to double check.

AV1611VET · Jul 18, 2008

Cabal said:
Ok, fair enough. The next question I have is, who do you believe wrote down Genesis? The reason I ask is that in another thread, I think you said it was Adam - maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, anyway I just wanted to double check.

It goes something like this:

Adam - Genesis 1-3
Seth & Noah? - Genesis 4 - 9
Abraham - Genesis 10 - 25
Various Authors - Genesis 25 - 50

Then Moses edited the book.

Cabal · Jul 18, 2008

AV1611VET said:
It goes something like this:

Adam - Genesis 1-3

Seth & Noah? - Genesis 4 - 9

Abraham - Genesis 10 - 25

Various Authors - Genesis 25 - 50

Then Moses edited the book.

So I'm assuming you believe that God dictated the order of creation to Adam? Seeing as he wasn't there for the first five days - I just find the omniscient narrator style quite an...interesting one to take given that this is creation and the first man we're talking about. Also, if all Adam had to worry about was three chapters, why then couldn't he get the creation order right just a few pages on? I'm sure being naked in a garden with Eve was distracting, but....

ChordatesLegacy · Jul 18, 2008

AV1611VET said:
It goes something like this:

Adam - Genesis 1-3

Seth & Noah? - Genesis 4 - 9

Abraham - Genesis 10 - 25

Various Authors - Genesis 25 - 50

Then Moses edited the book.

That’s interesting, in what language, with what writing implement and on what writing material.

Were there pencil and paper factories in the garden of eden.

Which brings us back to language and the evolution of language. If creation happened less than 10 thousend years ago and the biblical flood less that 4 thousands years ago how can we in a matter of no time at all end up with the following written word differences.

Signs carved into 8,600-year-old tortoise shells found in China may be the earliest written words, say archaeologists

The symbols were laid down in the late Stone Age, or Neolithic Age.

They predate the earliest recorded writings from Mesopotamia - in what is now Iraq - by more than 2,000 years.
The archaeologists say they bear similarities to written characters used thousands of years later during the Shang dynasty, which lasted from 1700-1100 BC. But the discovery has already generated controversy, with one leading researcher in the field branding it "an anomaly". The archaeologists have identified 11 separate symbols inscribed on the tortoise shells.

Cuneiform was a system of writing, dating from before 3000 BC until the early years AD. It used characters built up from wedge shaped strokes (hence the term cuneiform, derived from the Latin word cuneus meaning a wedge), and most texts were written on clay tablets. The use of clay means that an enormous amount of material has survived (albeit in a fragmentary state) and we can now read letters, legal documents, omens, medical texts, and many other records written between two thousand and five thousand years ago. It is probably the earliest writing system in the world, and seems to have developed gradually in the area of modern Iraq and Iran, starting in the late 4th millennium BC. It continued in use for over three thousand years. An excellent introduction to this writing system is given by C.B.F. Walker (Cuneiform, British Museum Press).

Babylonian Cuneiform Tablet ca. 2300-800 B.C. Cuneiform, one of the earliest writing systems, was created using long reeds pressed on wet clay.
(Special Collections, Ellis Library)

Bone and ivory tags, pottery vessels, and clay seal impressions bearing hieroglyphs unearthed at Abydos, 300 miles south of Cairo, have been dated to between 3400 and 3200 B.C., making them the oldest known examples of Egyptian writing. The tags, each measuring 2 by 1 1/2 centimeters and containing between one and four glyphs, were discovered by excavators from the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo in the predynastic ruler Scorpion I's tomb. Institute director Günter Dreyer says the tags and ink-inscribed pottery vessels have been dated to 3200 B.C. based upon contextual and radiocarbon analysis. The seal impressions, from various tombs, date even further back, to 3400 B.C. These dates challenge the commonly held belief that early logographs, pictographic symbols representing a specific place, object, or quantity, first evolved into more complex phonetic symbols in Mesopotamia.

I am afraid AV you are writting nonsense again, but i like your imagination

These artifacts also pre-date the flood so all the sediments below them could not be flood deposits, hence no flood.

Nathan Poe · Jul 19, 2008

AV1611VET said:
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.

Choice is not cause and effect? Are you suggesting that choices do not have forseeable consequences?

Rather puts a monkeywrench into your insipid "Fall" theology, doesn't it?

Nathan Poe · Jul 19, 2008

AV1611VET said:
It goes something like this:

Adam - Genesis 1-3

Seth & Noah? - Genesis 4 - 9

Abraham - Genesis 10 - 25

Various Authors - Genesis 25 - 50

Then Moses edited the book.

And there are actually intelligent people who believe this? I would very much like to meet one.

AV1611VET · Oct 13, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
And there are actually intelligent people who believe this? I would very much like to meet one.

Perhaps you need to get out more?

Tiberius · Oct 13, 2008

I've got a question for you. Actually a few...

You've said many times before that you believe that God created the world about 6000 years ago, but created it with what you called embedded age. In otherwords (as far as I can tell), starting from the moment it was created, it had been around for billions of years. Why would a god make something to appear much older than it actually is?
Following on from the last question, why would God create something that is clearly meant to look so old, and yet give us a conflicting source of information (the Bible) that tells us that the appearance of age is deceiving and that the world is much younger?
If we have two sources that tell us two contradicting things about the origins of the world, why is it that you believe the claims of the Bible over the position of science? After all, science has evidence to back it up, the Bible, as poetic as it is, is just claims. Doesn't your inflexible belief in the claims of the Bible go against Proverbs 14:15?

Nathan Poe · Oct 13, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Perhaps you need to get out more?

It certainly doesn't look like I'm going to find such a person around here.

AV1611VET · Oct 13, 2008

Tiberius said:
I've got a question for you. Actually a few...

You've said many times before that you believe that God created the world about 6000 years ago, but created it with what you called embedded age. In otherwords (as far as I can tell), starting from the moment it was created, it had been around for billions of years. Why would a god make something to appear much older than it actually is?

Following on from the last question, why would God create something that is clearly meant to look so old, and yet give us a conflicting source of information (the Bible) that tells us that the appearance of age is deceiving and that the world is much younger?

If we have two sources that tell us two contradicting things about the origins of the world, why is it that you believe the claims of the Bible over the position of science? After all, science has evidence to back it up, the Bible, as poetic as it is, is just claims. Doesn't your inflexible belief in the claims of the Bible go against Proverbs 14:15?

1. God made the universe older that its existence so it could support life. Fruit trees, for example, had to be fully-mature, else there would be nothing for Adam and Eve to eat. In addition, Adam and Even themselves had to be old enough to get married, have children, communicate with God, name the animals, and work as a husbandman in the Garden. Stars in the sky had to be spaced just right - (God didn't just put them out there randomly); the soil had to have the proper pH balance, the sun just the right age, etc.

2. The world looks old because it is old. It wasn't just meant to look old --- it is old. The world is not "much younger", as you seem to think I'm saying.

3. Since the physical age of the earth does not contradict the Bible - (how can it, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is), I see no contradiction at all. There are two ages --- one physical, one existential. The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and is 6100 years old existentially.

Split Rock · Oct 13, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Stars in the sky had to be spaced just right - (God didn't just put them out there randomly); .

So, what are all the millions of stars out in the universe for? I know that angels live there, but they hardly need so many star systems. Clearly you don't think God created other sentient species, since SETI is "Junk Science."

AV1611VET · Oct 13, 2008

Split Rock said:
So, what are all the millions of stars out in the universe for? I know that angels live there, but they hardly need so many star systems. Clearly you don't think God created other sentient species, since SETI is "Junk Science."

The placement of the visible stars form a pictograph of the plan of salvation.

Cabal · Oct 13, 2008

AV1611VET said:
The placement of the visible stars form a pictograph of the plan of salvation.

Before or after they've changed positions over the millennia?

AV1611VET · Oct 13, 2008

Cabal said:
Before or after they've changed positions over the millennia?

Genesis 1

Taking Questions on the Creation

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

This Statement Is False

Conflation of Blathers

Noted strange person

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency