Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Omphalos hypotheses is two years older than Darwins book, so if you consider the Omphalos hypotheses recent, then evolutionary theory is even more recent, and therefore untrustworthy.I'm just pointing out that Omphalos hypotheses are all fairly recent. OEC is fairly old and continuous hypothesis. It was the preferred hypothesis of medieval universities that taught nature. Omphalos comes after the invention of modern geology.
Darwin had access to anaximander's evolution hypothesis which is 2500 years old.The Omphalos hypotheses is two years older than Darwins book, so if you consider the Omphalos hypotheses recent, then evolutionary theory is even more recent, and therefore untrustworthy.
It's what the Earth itSelf has been showing us.And academia buys into that like it's the Gospel.
Interesting, but nothing that you wrote, as far as I can see, answers the question posed in the meme.I think more of a 'one day = one thousand years' mentality, as St. Cyprian said, “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11). Moreover, St. Irenaeus said, “And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2).
With that, I look to St. Augustine, who said that “They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years. Though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not even 6,000 years have yet passed.” St. Theophilus said: “All the years from the creation of the world, [until now], amount to a total of 5,698 years” (120 – 183 AD). Thus, I consider the universe to be made approximately 7,539 years old, give or take. I use St. Theophilus's calculation, but it still remains in coagulation with the calculation of Augustine and Origen; making the world's creation begin in 5515 B.C. However, this could be relatively incorrect, and I am open to different [YEC] interpretations on the subject.
I went to see 'the Ark and the Darkness' when it released in theatres, and I have to agree with ozso here, the fossil record changes every day, and I would assume even the graph cited by dlamberth is outdated. Here is the problem with science:
Well, at some point Belief X is the scientific consensus, and Student B is thought of as "pseudoscientific" for believing in Belief Y. However, new findings come out that say that, actually, Belief Y is correct! Now Belief Y is the scientific consensus, and the same individuals who thought of Student B as "pseudoscientific" now think of Student A as "pseudoscientific." Do you see the problem here? It seems like a game of four-square, defaming one group of believers until they are validated, then turn on those they considered right beforehand. That isn't science in my view, and the idea of "pseudoscience" goes against science in itself. We are taught about the Scientific Method, but if you actually use the Scientific Method in real life practice, the questioning of the scientific status quo will have you labeled as a "pseudoscientist..." until your right of course, then everyone wants to be your friend (I'm sure there is a better way to explain that, but I gave it my best shot).
- Think of Student A, who believes in Belief X, and supports it congruently.
- Then there is Student B, who believes in Belief Y, and supports it congruently.
It seems like only when it is contrary to Scripture is the science "not a theory," regardless of how much they know about what they are talking about; it seems like a factory of "quick, disprove the creationists!" without really explaining or providing clarity in their own theories. Also that graphic is misleading, noone has proven this as a reality, but everyone considers it fact because, as I said, these ideas are not thought up to evolve the human understanding, they are thought up as another tool in the skeptics toolbox to rival the scientific elements of the Scriptures.
I have the hardest time shaking the idea of the Creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear older would not be a deception by God. And for myself anyway, there's no way God is even capable of deception of any kind.People outside of the faith assume that proving natural evidence of an old earth would disprove YEC, yet it wouldn't at all. I am still open to the Omphalos hypothesis, which asserts that within the past six to ten thousand years (in keeping with flood geology), and that the presence of objective, verifiable evidence that the universe is older than approximately ten millennia is due to the creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear significantly older. It would solve all issues of OEC [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth], and the visible light that appears to originate from far-off stars and galaxies (addressing the "starlight problem").
Im not saying the Omphalos hypothesis is not possible, but it is the substitute [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth] scientific evidence for YEC in my mind.
I guess that depends on how fond one is of the notion that the creation stories in Genesis are and can only be accurate literal history.I have the hardest time shaking the idea of the Creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear older would not be a deception by God. And for myself anyway, there's no way God is even capable of deception of any kind.
It's what the Earth itSelf has been showing us.
I have the hardest time shaking the idea of the Creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear older would not be a deception by God.
Just to nit pick a bit. I've never used the term "false evidence". As you already know, what I see as "true evidence" is what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf.I seriously doubt you're struggling with this.
Especially since you don't understand half of what I say, yet you play that "false evidence" card faster than a Jack Chick tract.
Just to nit pick a bit. I've never used the term "false evidence". As you already know, what I see as "true evidence" is what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf.
It would be a delusion by God. And I get where you are coming from that "there's no way God is even capable of deception of any kind," but what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." He did it once; why can't this be an example?I have the hardest time shaking the idea of the Creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear older would not be a deception by God. And for myself anyway, there's no way God is even capable of deception of any kind.
My post was not to answer the chart, as I thought I was late enough to the party that many had already given my view on the topic, rather, I was responding to Chevy's age calculation with my own theory on the matter.Interesting, but nothing that you wrote, as far as I can see, answers the question posed in the meme.
Right, but in the same way Gosse used Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" in which notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God). Moreover, St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).Darwin had access to anaximander's evolution hypothesis which is 2500 years old.
Ah, the grim spectre of last thursdayism.There's a simple answer to this in my opinion. Better than Genesis was using figurative language. How long does it take for a human being to become a fully grown adult? Are there a lot of stages a human goes through in the process? Is it a complicated development process?
When God created Adam, did he start out as a zygote and did it take 18-21 years for God to create him? Or was Adam created fully formed? 18-21 years of growth and development that took place instantaneously.
Why couldn't God create the Earth the same way?
Is that what you think God did to His Creation? It's got old age written all over it. Is that a God cause delusion?It would be a delusion by God. And I get where you are coming from that "there's no way God is even capable of deception of any kind," but what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." He did it once; why can't this be an example?
Last Thursdayism (which I had to look up) seems to be a mocking of the Omphalos hypothesis, which I previously stated that I agreed with in theory, and am leaning towards; Regardless, it is not a new theory. First, 55 years before Henry Gosse's book, François-René de Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity, 1802) in defense of the Catholic faith, wrote: "God could have, and undoubtedly did, create the world with all the signs of its antiquity and perfection that it now displays." Second, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania states that the world was created in Nisan, during spring, citing the verse "trees yielding fruit," indicating that trees were created in their fruit-bearing state. The Talmud elaborates: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of creation were created in their full stature, with full understanding, and with their full beauty. As it says: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" – do not read "hosts" but "beauty"" (תלמוד בבלי, מסכת ראש השנה, דף י"א, עמוד א'). Thirdly, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89).Ah, the grim spectre of last thursdayism.
One of anti intelligentism’s greatest feats.
As Schneerson said, even if the fossilization processes proves the time for the age of the world seems too short, we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear without any developmental process. I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis, though the age of the earth that was made old is unknown, as the archeological studies are spurious. Still, the earth is 7,539 years old, give or take. The earth appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God) during the six day period; however, the "old" that was made is unknown in how actually "old" the "old" is.Is that what you think God did to His Creation? It's got old age written all over it. Is that a God cause delusion?
I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis,
Probably not; the creation of humans happened on different days, and the world was made for human enjoyment, therefore humans had a far more precise and caring formulation than the world. We see that in Genesis, as it is explicitly stated in much more context and format than the creation of the things within the world, so while I can never say definitively yes or no, I don't think they did, as there is no reason for God to give humans that appendage until later. Could they have it? Maybe, so as to allow their decendants to recognize them as their decendant, but I don't know...i've never thought about it really. What do you think? Im interested in your view on it!So God created Adam with a belly button?
Probably not;
What do you think? Im interested in your view on it!
Well, I was not really hung up on the name, that's just what it is known by in the secular world. But true! However, I accept more of the idea of the Omphalos hypothesis, not the word-for-word meaning of Gosse's work. Good point though!But that's the crux of the Omphalos belief.
In fact, "Omphalos" means "belly button."
I don't think Adam (or Eve) had a belly button.
Thus they had a great testimony that they were created -- not born.
Well, see, my thinking on the topic is along the lines that those who knew Adam would have been born before the Flood, as Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5). The Flood, which occurred during Noah's lifetime, began approximately 1,656 years after Adam's creation according to the genealogies provided in Genesis 5. Regardless, the world worshipped other gods. Thus, I don't consider the testimony of creation was necessarily needed until after the Flood and, subsequently, the Babel confusion, in which Adam died beforehand. I may be wrong, though!Thus they had a great testimony that they were created -- not born.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?