Taking Questions on the Creation

[Nathan Poe]

Genesis 1

The fact remains, AV, that the stars are moving -- to the point that they would not spell out the same pictograph you claim they would've 6,000 years ago. Whatever message God had put there is now illegible.

And God, being the one who set those stars in motion, would've known this -- yet He still allowed his celestial connect-the-dots to be lost. Why would He do something so seemingly idiotic?

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact remains, AV, that the stars are moving -- to the point that they would not spell out the same pictograph you claim they would've 6,000 years ago. Whatever message God had put there is now illegible.

If you want to start a thread with this question (it's a good one), feel free to do so. I plan to keep this thread on topic as best I can, and not stray out of Genesis 1.

 

[Bombila]

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.

That's an extremely convoluted methodology for tri-omni God to indulge in, given he could just make everything instantly mature without having to cause everything to look old. But - why wouldn't God, having eternity to make everything come out as he wanted, just allow everything to mature (the soil, the trees, life) at the rate at which he intended to have the world continue aging? Why the impatience you suggest?

"The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and is 6100 years old existentially"... AV, are you trying to find a dignified way to out yourself as having come around to believing evolution, geology, etc. just possibly occurred (all right, at least from the POV of accepting that yes, looks like it and God did it) mostly as science says it did?

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you want to start a thread with this question (it's a good one), feel free to do so. I plan to keep this thread on topic as best I can, and not stray out of Genesis 1.

The topic is the Creation -- and God, according to you, created the stars to spell out a message.

You wouldn't be avoiding the issue because to address it would mean that either (A) Your theology is off or (B) God screwed up, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an extremely convoluted methodology for tri-omni God to indulge in, given he could just make everything instantly mature without having to cause everything to look old.

Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze. I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.

But - why wouldn't God, having eternity to make everything come out as he wanted, just allow everything to mature (the soil, the trees, life) at the rate at which he intended to have the world continue aging?

I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.

Why the impatience you suggest?

No impatience --- God works on a timetable.

"The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and is 6100 years old existentially"... AV, are you trying to find a dignified way to out yourself as having come around to believing evolution, geology, etc. just possibly occurred (all right, at least from the POV of accepting that yes, looks like it and God did it) mostly as science says it did?

Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow.

You will find, AV, that when it comes to things you find hard to swallow, Reality will happily tell you to "take a hike."

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze.

Why would it be fragile with age if it were only ten seconds old?

I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.

But you think He did something exactly the same, but since you gave it a catchy name ("embedded age"), it's ok.

I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur.

Actually, Genesis 1 stands as a powerful Creation story, a sad written testimony that too many people wouldn't know etiological mythology if it jumped out of a cake.

In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.

And when anything sticks out like a sore thumb against science -- science tends to amputate it.

How does it feel to worship a severed thumb, AV?

No impatience --- God works on a timetable.Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution.

Your explanation is compatable with the junk theology you yourself made up -- not surprising.

 

[Bombila]

Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze. I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.

I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.No impatience --- God works on a timetable.

Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution.

AV, that sounds even less convincing than other explanations. There are plenty of mad and bad things in the world today that, even considering evoloution as blasphemous, would be better candidates for God deciding to put a scriptural spanner in the futureworks, yet AFAICS, he did not.

Too bad. The tone of some of your posts recently, the wording in particular, has been a little mysterious, but obviously I was reading something not there... or you've had indigestion or the like. ;-D

 

[Split Rock]

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

For what purpose? I thought the KJV Bible had that covered.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.

If God wanted to reduce the number of people who believed in atheistic evolution, the best way to do so would be to make a creation that didn't look exactly like it arose through atheistic evolution. It's a stupid thing to do; Genesis 1, rather than a testament that evolution didn't occur, is a testament to the ineptness of the Bible.

It's as if I came home one night to find my wife murdered. So I put my fingerprints on the gun at the scene, fire it a few times to get GSR on my hands. Then I put blood spatter on myself. Then I remove the footprints of the intruder who actually did it. Then I call 911 to report that I have shot my wife to death. Then, just before the cops show up, I write a note saying that I didn't kill her, but someone else did. As I am being arrested, I suggest that all the evidence showing that I killed my wife was made by me personally in order to make the note proclaiming my innocence more convincing. It's stupid. I am not saying that the note is not true. Please mind this point; the note could indeed be true. But making the note look untrue in order to make it look more true is the height of ridiculousness. It's practically omni-impotent.

 

[Assyrian]

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

Why is it that Creationists seem to be the only ones who are into this Gospel in the Stars business?

Interesting parallel here though. Behe's definition of science ended up including astrology. And Creationists end up including astrology in the plan of salvation. What is the connection?

but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.

So why do you think God jumbled up the order again in Genesis 2? What do you think he might be telling you about your interpretation of Genesis 1?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that Creationists seem to be the only ones who are into this Gospel in the Stars business?

Because a Creationist put them there in the first place.

Interesting parallel here though. Behe's definition of science ended up including astrology. And Creationists end up including astrology in the plan of salvation. What is the connection?

That's not astrology, and you know it. We've discussed this before in this thread, haven't we?

So why do you think God jumbled up the order again in Genesis 2? What do you think he might be telling you about your interpretation of Genesis 1?

Genesis 2 is not where I want to go in this thread.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

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.

How long does it take until fruit trees are mature? How long does it take until humans can communicate and have children? Twenty years? Thirty?

 

[Assyrian]

Because a Creationist put them there in the first place.

I think you might be mixing up Creator and Creationist, a common mistake

That's not astrology, and you know it. We've discussed this before in this thread, haven't we?

You never did get back to me there.

Genesis 2 is not where I want to go in this thread.

Understandable.

 

[AV1611VET]

How long does it take until humans can communicate and have children? Twenty years? Thirty?

I arbitrarily place Adam's age at 30.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I arbitrarily place Adam's age at 30.

OK. Then why isn't this planet only 30 years older than the Bible says it is, but over four billion years older? What was the point of adding the extra time if a few decades were all that was necessary?

 

[Catherineanne]

I'll take any questions you may have on the Creation, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.

OK, why not?

The Bible says the earth has four corners (Rev 7 v 1), has four winds, and is covered with the dome of the heavens. This can only be true of a flat earth.

Many other scriptures state that the earth is immovable.

Is this true, in your opinion?

If it is not true, why does the Bible say it?

Keep in mind that the answers will be my opinion, and not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Christian community (Body of Christ) in general.

You don't say!!

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. Then why isn't this planet only 30 years older than the Bible says it is, but over four billion years older? What was the point of adding the extra time if a few decades were all that was necessary?

MrGoodBytes, every time I've asked why this earth is as old as it is, I get pointed to Zirconium (or Zircon, or Zir[something]), which supposedly is that old. If God embedded 4.57 billion years into this Zir-stuff, and 30 years into Adam, and 70 years into the trees, etc., I'm sure He did it for a reason.

I've made the point before, that I find it hard to believe that Zir-something went around the sun 4.57 billion times, but the Pleistocene Alluvium it rested in didn't.

Truth of the matter is, I find it very difficult to believe this earth is actually that old. This Zir-thing that's in it might be, but that doesn't mean the whole earth is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Catherineanne!

OK, why not?

Because inquiring minds want to know ---

The Bible says the earth has four corners, and is enclosed within a dome of the heavens, which indicates that it is flat.

Yes, it does indicate that --- but only if you look at it from a two-dimensional perspective. Technically, the earth has 360 circles. If you draw a circle all the way around from 0N - 0N, that's one circle, then 1N-1N would be two circles, etc.

The Bible says nothing about being enclosed in a "dome of the heavens".

Regarding the four corners, you can take an orange, cut it into four wedges, find the center of mass of each wedge, put the wedges back --- there are your four corners of an orange.

Is this true, in your opinion?

Yes.

If it is not true, why does the Bible say it?

Good question.

You don't say!!

 

[Catherineanne]

Truth of the matter is, I find it very difficult to believe this earth is actually that old. This Zir-thing that's in it might be, but that doesn't mean the whole earth is.

And here I am afraid your whole thesis collapses.

If any element in the universe is older than the 5 - 7,000 odd years of creationists, then that element necessarily predates creation itself. And that is not possible, because everything that is, came into being at the moment of creation. Big Bang and Christian thinking coincide here; everything came into being and time began at the point of creation; to talk about 'before' is meaningless.

So, either you have God creating the universe out of bits of pieces he had lying around, presumably created earlier, which is not Christian belief, or else you have to accept that the ability of the writers of Genesis to comprehend what God was trying to tell them about creation was limited, and that they did not have the linguistic or cognitive ability to grasp what he was saying.

 

[Catherineanne]

Hi, Catherineanne!

The Bible says nothing about being enclosed in a "dome of the heavens".

This is what 'firmament' means. And indeed this is how the Bible describes the earth.

Regarding the four corners, you can take an orange, cut it into four wedges, find the center of mass of each wedge, put the wedges back --- there are your four corners of an orange.

Revelation does not say anything about an orange. Nor does it say the angels came from inside the earth, but from its four corners.

What about the question of the earth being immovable? Several places in the Bible make this statement. Are they wrong?