[__ Science __ ] creation

[brujaq]

The question then is why God would create the universe to appear old when it isn’t. Is that not rather quite deceptive?

Earth doesn't look old to me, neither does the universe and how do you know what the difference between billions and 6000 yrs ? However old you are minus 5 or 6 yrs is all you can reasonably testify to for sure except what you've been told and believe ..

 

[dirtfarmer]

Why would they be the same? For one thing, mankind was created last. For another, science tells us the universe is significantly older than mankind. And yet another is that the Bible gives us no age for either the universe or man.

It is interesting that you never tried to address my point regarding the early modern scientists and Scripture.


It is unclear what you are asking here.

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

Do you believe that the fruit trees were created fully mature bearing fruit with their seed in them, or that Adam and Eve were created fully grown and not in the infant stage? If you could have seen Adam or Eve 2 minutes after they were created, how old would you have thought then to be? 20 or 30 years old, or even 50 or 60 years old? They were created with the appearance of years of age. Who was God trying to deceive with them looking to be older than 2 minutes old?

I find no problem with God's creation appearing to be thousands of years old, when it was only six days old and he rested on the seventh day.

Yes, science tells us many things but does science trump God's word? In Job 38:16 it speaks of the "springs of the sea", but science has only recently discovered hydrothermal vents in the depth of the seas, somewhere around 1976 or 77.

 

[Free]

Earth doesn't look old to me, neither does the universe and how do you know what the difference between billions and 6000 yrs ? However old you are minus 5 or 6 yrs is all you can reasonably testify to for sure except what you've been told and believe ..

You do understand how silly this argument is, yes?

 

[stovebolts]

The act of creating shows his eternal power. That has nothing to do with creating something new to appear old.

Creating something new to appear as though it is old, is rather deceiving, is it not? How does that declare his glory?

Hi Free.
Just an observation, but the idea of deception is actually articulated in Genesis 3, and I believe it very well may address your concern.

We see a certain tree in the center of the Garden, and the inhabitants were told not to eat from it.

According to the text, it looked similar to the surrounding trees, and met all of the qualifications as being acceptable to eat with the single caviate that God forbids them to eat of it, lest they die.... such a foreign concept at the time. It's like, create something bad, that looks like it's good, although God declared it good. But that's another thought.

While some may differ, I find it interesting that Gods word was not only the means for creation, but it also governed creation with the single negative command.

Because the forbidden fruit qualified as acceptable food to eat in all ways except the command (spoken word), would we then say God set The stage for deception?

With this same thought, if the universe appears to be old, but is actually young could we say God set The stage for deception?

Could it simply be that creating something young to look old may very well declare his eternal glory? If not, then why?

 

[brujaq]

You do understand how silly this argument is, yes?

No I don't think it's silly at all .. Numbers 17:6-11 .. God told Moses to put and keep Aaron's rod in the Ark of the covenant .. Do you think that's silly too or true ? What would be silly to me is that Moses planted an almond seed then waited years for it to mature and produce almonds in that passage ..

 

[Free]

No I don't think it's silly at all .. Numbers 17:6-11 .. God told Moses to put and keep Aaron's rod in the Ark of the covenant .. Do you think that's silly too or true ? What would be silly to me is that Moses planted an almond seed then waited years for it to mature and produce almonds in that passage ..

That has nothing to do with the silliness of the first argument. That is something entirely different.

 

[Free]

Hi Free.
Just an observation, but the idea of deception is actually articulated in Genesis 3, and I believe it very well may address your concern.

We see a certain tree in the center of the Garden, and the inhabitants were told not to eat from it.

According to the text, it looked similar to the surrounding trees, and met all of the qualifications as being acceptable to eat with the single caviate that God forbids them to eat of it, lest they die.... such a foreign concept at the time. It's like, create something bad, that looks like it's good, although God declared it good. But that's another thought.

While some may differ, I find it interesting that Gods word was not only the means for creation, but it also governed creation with the single negative command.

Because the forbidden fruit qualified as acceptable food to eat in all ways except the command (spoken word), would we then say God set The stage for deception?

With this same thought, if the universe appears to be old, but is actually young could we say God set The stage for deception?

Could it simply be that creating something young to look old may very well declare his eternal glory? If not, then why?

I suppose that could be the case. One issue I find is that, according to both Paul and the Psalmist, “the heavens declare the glory of God”, that something of God can be known by studying creation. Based on that, the fathers of modern science began the scientific endeavour, believing creation was rationally ordered and could therefore be studied.

However, if God actually deceived man by creating a young earth to appear old, then if “the heavens declare the glory of God,” we cannot know it. Indeed we could not know if we actually do know anything about God from studying creation; it could all be deception.

 

[stovebolts]

I suppose that could be the case. One issue I find is that, according to both Paul and the Psalmist, “the heavens declare the glory of God”, that something of God can be known by studying creation. Based on that, the fathers of modern science began the scientific endeavour, believing creation was rationally ordered and could therefore be studied.

However, if God actually deceived man by creating a young earth to appear old, then if “the heavens declare the glory of God,” we cannot know it. Indeed we could not know if we actually do know anything about God from studying creation; it could all be deception.

Hmmmm, interesting take. Let me chew on that for a bit.

 

[brujaq]

That has nothing to do with the silliness of the first argument. That is something entirely different.

You can believe a dead stick budded, flowered and produced ripe almonds in one day but God creating physical creation in 6 days is out of the question .. Now my 100 azaleas are in bloom two months early which look young with spring around the corner and new, and you claim to know history first hand before and when you were a baby without being told, then you claim you know the difference between billions of yrs vs 6000yrs since Creation according to Gods account ? Sorry , you have nothing except what man has said against God and man is the liar .. I think you are defending your favorite team with team pride instead of God and can't help yourself .. I once believed in evolution and God opened my eyes because I was willing to believe him, why would God open yours if you refuse to ? Is your God not big enough, dead, or a liar ? This forum is Christianity and Science .. Is your life so dull and empty that you have to live your life cold arguing against God as if that's all you got .. Dude I'm 64 and half dead and still get on my hands and knees and crawl following beetles in the grass and I don't think that's silly though some may ..

 

[Free]

You can believe a dead stick budded, flowered and produced ripe almonds in one day but God creating physical creation in 6 days is out of the question ..

Again, this has nothing to do with the argument you made.

you claim to know history first hand before and when you were a baby without being told

Where did I claim to know history first hand? What does that even mean? And what is with the baby comment? That doesn't even make sense.

then you claim you know the difference between billions of yrs vs 6000yrs since Creation according to Gods account ?

Where did I claim this? Science knows the difference between 14 billion years and 6000 years. And, again, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest the Earth and the universe are only 6000 years old.

Sorry , you have nothing except what man has said against God and man is the liar .. I think you are defending your favorite team with team pride instead of God and can't help yourself .. I once believed in evolution and God opened my eyes because I was willing to believe him, why would God open yours if you refuse to ? Is your God not big enough, dead, or a liar ? This forum is Christianity and Science .. Is your life so dull and empty that you have to live your life cold arguing against God as if that's all you got ..

Knock off the personal stuff. Nothing you have said here has anything to do with the discussion. I never said I believed in evolution. We are discussing the age of the Earth. If you can't put a coherent argument together, perhaps you should leave the discussion.

 

[brujaq]

Again, this has nothing to do with the argument you made.


Where did I claim to know history first hand? What does that even mean? And what is with the baby comment? That doesn't even make sense.


Where did I claim this? Science knows the difference between 14 billion years and 6000 years. And, again, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest the Earth and the universe are only 6000 years old.


Knock off the personal stuff. Nothing you have said here has anything to do with the discussion. I never said I believed in evolution. We are discussing the age of the Earth. If you can't put a coherent argument together, perhaps you should leave the discussion.

Do you believe in evolution ?

 

[stovebolts]

Let's not pit our beliefs against one another and the personal attacks must end.

 

[stovebolts]

I suppose that could be the case. One issue I find is that, according to both Paul and the Psalmist, “the heavens declare the glory of God”, that something of God can be known by studying creation. Based on that, the fathers of modern science began the scientific endeavour, believing creation was rationally ordered and could therefore be studied.

However, if God actually deceived man by creating a young earth to appear old, then if “the heavens declare the glory of God,” we cannot know it. Indeed we could not know if we actually do know anything about God from studying creation; it could all be deception.

I've given this a moment of thought, and what comes to my mind is this.
Have you ever looked up in the night sky and just felt the awe of its magnificence? I believe this initial feeling is universal and people have been turning to the stars for thousands of years in search for answers that are as deep as our awe for the beauty and vastness of the stars.
In this same way, for me at least, I see God in the same way. I am small, yet I am a part of what makes up the breadth and vastness of the universe. But in that vastness, I am not alone. It is bigger than I am, yet I am part of it, for it, is in me.

Why do we study the universe? Why does it fascinate Us? Like God, will we ever fully understand it? These are not necessarily questions for you, but are rather a reflection of how I see our God, and his creation.

 

[for_his_glory]

Just like all that God created in seed bearing plants is the same with Adam created as a seed bearing man to give life into the world. Plants give life within the oxygen they produce and man gives life through his seed planted inside the woman that was also created in the beginning to increase the population of the earth.

In Genesis 1:11, 12 says let the earth bring forth and then the earth brought forth. Then we read in Genesis 2:4-7 these are the generations of all that God brought forth before He created man. Then in Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden, which seems to me after that of the first generation of creating all things, and after planting this garden in Eden God then puts the man, Adam, in it to take care of it. From the first generation to the generations nothing is written of any events in between so there is also a possibility that the earth is older than just 6000 years, but there is no way of knowing for sure as nothing is written, but only theories and speculations.

 

[stovebolts]

Just like all that God created in seed bearing plants is the same with Adam created as a seed bearing man to give life into the world. Plants give life within the oxygen they produce and man gives life through his seed planted inside the woman that was also created in the beginning to increase the population of the earth.

In Genesis 1:11, 12 says let the earth bring forth and then the earth brought forth. Then we read in Genesis 2:4-7 these are the generations of all that God brought forth before He created man. Then in Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden, which seems to me after that of the first generation of creating all things, and after planting this garden in Eden God then puts the man, Adam, in it to take care of it. From the first generation to the generations nothing is written of any events in between so there is also a possibility that the earth is older than just 6000 years, but there is no way of knowing for sure as nothing is written, but only theories and speculations.

I agree because in part the text was never written to support a modern scientific viewpoint.
Gen 1 is an Elohist, or better known as a priestly text. It's what we may consider an apologetic writing within a culture ripe with a pantheon of gods and various creation accounts. Think Anu and El. Both Supreem gods over their respective geographies.
Gen 2 is considered a Yawist text. It is how the God in Genesis 1 interacts with creation. Again, contrast with other ancient near eastern texts on how those gods interacted with creation and their accounts.

When we try and make the text say things it was never designed to say, let alone demand answers out of the text that were never intended to be represented in the text, we can really make a mess of things...

 

[brujaq]

And I believe the Word of God is the legal birth certificate dated, written and signed by God himself concerning Earth itself, all creation, mankind and Jesus .. John 8:14

 

[Free]

And I believe the Word of God is the legal birth certificate written and signed by God himself concerning Earth itself, all creation, mankind and Jesus .. John 8:14

What does that even mean, “the legal birth certificate”?

 

[brujaq]

What does that even mean, “the legal birth certificate”?

 

[for_his_glory]

I agree because in part the text was never written to support a modern scientific viewpoint.
Gen 1 is an Elohist, or better known as a priestly text. It's what we may consider an apologetic writing within a culture ripe with a pantheon of gods and various creation accounts. Think Anu and El. Both Supreem gods over their respective geographies.
Gen 2 is considered a Yawist text. It is how the God in Genesis 1 interacts with creation. Again, contrast with other ancient near eastern texts on how those gods interacted with creation and their accounts.

When we try and make the text say things it was never designed to say, let alone demand answers out of the text that were never intended to be represented in the text, we can really make a mess of things...

Scripture speaks for itself without us trying to dissect and putting it under a microscope if we read it for what it already says word for word. This is why one verse can be taken out of context of the whole that is being spoken.

 

[stovebolts]

Scripture speaks for itself without us trying to dissect and putting it under a microscope if we read it for what it already says word for word. This is why one verse can be taken out of context of the whole that is being spoken.

I agree. And the original text is very rich. It excites me!