Trusting science

[AV1611VET]

No. Where does scripture say gravity was not in effect from at least Gen. 1:3 on? Or Gen. 1:1 if you take that as a separate creation event?

And if it was not in effect, Adam would not have "enjoyed the ride down" as there would be no "down" and nothing to attract him to the surface of the earth.

Did I say one word about gravity?

You're missing the point.

Adam would have fallen at 32 fps[sup]2[/sup] just like I would --- and would have hit at mv[sup]2[/sup]/2 just like I would.

Get it now?

No death prior to the Fall [no pun intended].

 

[lucaspa]

I'd say YEC is alive and doing well.

YEC was dead by 1820. A world-wide Flood was dead by 1831.

"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

"By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the interpretation of the geological strata had changed radically. Virtually no established geologist thought that the thick sequences of stratified sedimentary rocks so evident in quarries, cliffs, and mountains had anything to do with the flood. Neptunists attributed stratification to deposition of sediments from a shrinking primeval ocean. Others suspected that rock strata represented deposits laid down in successive interchanges of land and sea, possibly over long periods of time before the advent of human beings." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pg 98.

For those interested in the history, I strongly recommend the above book by Young and Genesis and Geology by Gillespie.

What we have today are people who have made a god out of their interpretation of the Bible and refuse to accept what God has clearly told us in His Creation: the earth is very old.

 

[gluadys]

Did I say one word about gravity?

You're missing the point.

Adam would have fallen at 32 fps[sup]2[/sup] just like I would --- and would have hit at mv[sup]2[/sup]/2 just like I would.

Get it now?

No death prior to the Fall [no pun intended].

If Adam was created immortal why did God plant a Tree of Life in Eden?

 

[lucaspa]

No death prior to the Fall [no pun intended].

You need to look at Genesis 1:29 and Genesis 3:22.

Genesis 1:29: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

Now, if there was no death before the Fall, why did God have to give people food to eat? After all, why eat? So you do not starve to death!

Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Notice that back in Genesis 2:8 God forbids Adam to eat of the two trees. If Adam wasn't going to die, why forbid him to eat of the Tree of Life? So now God is worried about Adam living forever, but wasn't back in Genesis 2? Why wasn't God worried about that in Genesis 2? Because Adam was going to die.

For someone who goes by a literal Bible, you don't seem to care that the Bible contradicts what you say. Why not?

 

[Mallon]

If Adam was created immortal why did God plant a Tree of Life in Eden?

I've never seen an answer to this question.

 

[lucaspa]

If Adam was created immortal why did God plant a Tree of Life in Eden?

Better yet, why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of it? According to AV, the fruit would have no effect on them.

Ah, these pesky contradictions when you make it up because you want your interpretation of the Bible instead of God's.

 

[pgp_protector]

Better yet, why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of it? According to AV, the fruit would have no effect on them.

Ah, these pesky contradictions when you make it up because you want your interpretation of the Bible instead of God's.

Well to correct on one point, God before the Tree of Knowledge, didn't forbid them from eating from the tree of life.

It was only after eating from the tree of Knowledge that God realized that he better prevent them from eating of the tree of life.

 

[Mallon]

It was only after eating from the tree of Knowledge that God realized that he better prevent them from eating of the tree of life.

Very true. Then God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and placed a cherub and flaming sword that no one has ever seen in front of its gates.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Adam was created immortal why did God plant a Tree of Life in Eden?

The Tree of Life is not for those who are dead spiritually. In fact, it is for those who have glorified bodies, as it was made off-limits after the Fall, and will be placed back on-limits in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Imagine Adam eating of that tree after he died spiritually, and his body now being subject to decay.

Still alive today --- no teeth --- body completely eaten up with cancer [or whatever] --- every bone in his body a brittle mass --- screaming in pain --- begging to die --- etc.

Have you ever thought that through?

My mother died of advance emphysema, caused by technologically-produced units of tar, placed in very thin tubes of paper and flavored with a highly-addictive substance called nicotine, and packaged in nice red packages researched by color psychologists, and sold under the name Pall Mall.

Imagine if she were still alive today --- struggling to catch even a tiny bit of air in her lungs.

 

[pgp_protector]

Very true. Then God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and placed a cherub and flaming sword that no one has ever seen in front of its gates.

Maybe it got put out in the flood ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Very true. Then God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and placed a cherub and flaming sword that no one has ever seen in front of its gates.

What gates?

(Are you guys okay?)

 

[Mallon]

What gates?

(Are you guys okay?)

My mistake. God placed a flaming sword and cherub at the entrance to the Tree of Life. Not that it makes a difference.

 

[lucaspa]

Well to correct on one point, God before the Tree of Knowledge, didn't forbid them from eating from the tree of life.

It was only after eating from the tree of Knowledge that God realized that he better prevent them from eating of the tree of life.

OK. I stand corrected. Which means that Adam was always going to die. Physical death didn't come into the world because of the disobedience, but spiritual death did.

 

[juvenissun]

The point is: when the two seem to contradict each other, which do you believe?

More than just to believe.

What's said in the Bible is like the instruction of a Math Ph.D. to a student in an algebra class. When the answer of a student is different from that on the key, the teacher says: do it over until you make it right.

And scientists should simply do as told.

 

[juvenissun]

YEC was dead by 1820. A world-wide Flood was dead by 1831.

"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

"By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the interpretation of the geological strata had changed radically. Virtually no established geologist thought that the thick sequences of stratified sedimentary rocks so evident in quarries, cliffs, and mountains had anything to do with the flood. Neptunists attributed stratification to deposition of sediments from a shrinking primeval ocean. Others suspected that rock strata represented deposits laid down in successive interchanges of land and sea, possibly over long periods of time before the advent of human beings." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pg 98.

For those interested in the history, I strongly recommend the above book by Young and Genesis and Geology by Gillespie.

What we have today are people who have made a god out of their interpretation of the Bible and refuse to accept what God has clearly told us in His Creation: the earth is very old.

the earth is only apparently very old if one considered the very very subtle and illusive feature called radiometric dating (not known until late 20th Century).

If an alien visited the solar system, and see the difference between the Mars and the earth from the space ship, does the earth look "very old"?

 

[pgp_protector]

the earth is only apparently very old if one considered the very very subtle and illusive feature called radiometric dating (not known until late 20th Century).

If an alien visited the solar system, and see the difference between the Mars and the earth from the space ship, does the earth look "very old"?

yes.

 

[gluadys]

The Tree of Life is not for those who are dead spiritually. In fact, it is for those who have glorified bodies, as it was made off-limits after the Fall, and will be placed back on-limits in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Imagine Adam eating of that tree after he died spiritually, and his body now being subject to decay.

That answer is irrelevant to the question. It explains Gen. 3:22. It does not explain Gen. 2:16 or for that matter Gen. 2:9 or Gen. 1:29-30

Why did God provide food to creatures that did not need it in their immortal state? Why did they need food? Why were they offered a Tree of Life? Why is any food relevant to their existence? Why a Tree of Life for those who already have immortality?

The logical intent of Gen. 1:29-30 and Gen. 2:9 is that God provides for the needs of those he created. And his creatures, including humans, need food. Why do they need it?

 

[gluadys]

the earth is only apparently very old if one considered the very very subtle and illusive feature called radiometric dating (not known until late 20th Century).

Not true. The earth was apparently very old to geologists of the 19th century long before radioactivity was discovered. They were thinking then in terms of hundreds of millions (not just a few thousand) years old then based on geology alone.

The advent of radiometric dating added another magnitude to the geologically estimated age of the earth, but the antiquity of the earth had been well-established before that.

 

[juvenissun]

Not true. The earth was apparently very old to geologists of the 19th century long before radioactivity was discovered. They were thinking then in terms of hundreds of millions (not just a few thousand) years old then based on geology alone.

The advent of radiometric dating added another magnitude to the geologically estimated age of the earth, but the antiquity of the earth had been well-established before that.

Yes. But, the "very old" age estimated before the radiometric dating IS still within the acceptable range of YECism, at least, to me.

And, no. Without radiometric dating, the "million years" age is only a wild guess.

 

[juvenissun]

If an alien visited the solar system, and see the difference between the Mars and the earth from the space ship, does the earth look "very old"?

yes.

Why?