6 days of creation

[Divinsoteriology]

Millard Erikson noted what I believe to be a genius perspective on the 6 days of creation that will stop any scientific atheist

"The ideal-time theory says that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it as if it were billions of years old. This is a genuinely novel and ingenious view. Adam, of course, did not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation). The ideal-time theory extends this principle. If God created trees, rather than merely tree seeds, they presumably had rings indicating an ideal age rather than their real age. Thus, each element of creation must have begun somewhere in the life cycle."

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp. 406–407). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

If God could create Adam aged, why couldn't he also do that with the rest of His creation ?

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Millard Erikson noted what I believe to be a genius perspective on the 6 days of creation that will stop any scientific atheist

"The ideal-time theory says that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it as if it were billions of years old. This is a genuinely novel and ingenious view. Adam, of course, did not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation). The ideal-time theory extends this principle. If God created trees, rather than merely tree seeds, they presumably had rings indicating an ideal age rather than their real age. Thus, each element of creation must have begun somewhere in the life cycle."

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp. 406–407). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

If God could create Adam aged, why couldn't he also do that with the rest of His creation ?

Indeed he did create a mature creation(instantaneously)but he did within each day period - circulation of the Sun and Moon - whether that be Adam the animals or plants etc. Again, faith does not require us to prove or suggest a plausible argument for the unbelieving so-called intellectual world... . :)

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3 KJV

 

[aspen]

then i guess God favors the stupid and illiterate, which is why He purposely left the fossil record and rock formations to damn the intellectually curious and literate folks among us. yep - that sure sounds like the God i know........

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

then i guess God favors the stupid and illiterate, which is why He purposely left the fossil record and rock formations to damn the intellectually curious and literate folks among us. yep - that sure sounds like the God i know........

Dude, carbon dating is as accurate as your reasoning. Don't disappoint now. Also, one shouldn't pass as science that which is speculative philosophy. B)

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

We end up playing in the devils sandbox when we start using such terminology (billions of years)

The "Old Earth" theory exists for one simple reason .

The people who refuse to recognize a Creator-God required an alternative explanation

The explanation they came up with was that nothing became everything by random chance over a long period of time.

A really really long period of time.

Billions and billions of years as a matter of fact.

Some creationists got sand in their eyes while playing in the devils sandbox and even joined the the non-creationinsts by agreeing that the magnificent powerful Creator can do just about anything he wants to.

Except he is really really slow. It takes him billions and billions of years to do anything.

He is such a slowpoke he even calls himself The Ancient of Days in the book of Daniel

Not only is He extremely slow .. he is pretty dumb too .... he went and made a mistake by useing time measured in days when it came to creation.

Now we have a really really slow and dumb creator who cannot even get his days and billions of years sorted out.

Gosh sakes it sure gets tough trying to invent a creator the way we want him to be.

All we need is a really really big sandbox to get all the people into so that we can sort this problem out for once and for all.

A sandbox of about six billion cubits should suffice

And make sure there is a special section for the geniuses mentioned in the opening post.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

All things have been created by God.

But, because the entire bible is about God's chosen people, Genesis is probably about the creation of the covenant between God and Adam more that about the natural.

I know this will not fit with most Christians. It is just a thought.

 

[Angelina]

"The ideal-time theory says that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it as if it were billions of years old. This is a genuinely novel and ingenious view. Adam, of course, did not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation). The ideal-time theory extends this principle. If God created trees, rather than merely tree seeds, they presumably had rings indicating an ideal age rather than their real age. Thus, each element of creation must have begun somewhere in the life cycle."

I doubt that time existed in the garden until Adam sinned... and they left JMHO :)

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I doubt that time existed in the garden until Adam sinned... and they left JMHO :)

Yes .... it appears that time itself was created at the time of creation .... or like you say time began to be applied to Adam when he fell in the garden. Genesis hints that Adam was eternal up until then.

God himself is eternal of course , so time (as we know it) does not apply to Him

Presuming a 6-day creation .... it is possible that previous to creation there was no "time" .... thus , to we humans it has the appearance of being billions and billions and billions of years ..... and it should probably be labeled as "eternity"

 

[Rex]

Millard Erikson noted what I believe to be a genius perspective on the 6 days of creation that will stop any scientific atheist

"The ideal-time theory says that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it as if it were billions of years old. This is a genuinely novel and ingenious view. Adam, of course, did not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation). The ideal-time theory extends this principle. If God created trees, rather than merely tree seeds, they presumably had rings indicating an ideal age rather than their real age. Thus, each element of creation must have begun somewhere in the life cycle."

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp. 406–407). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

If God could create Adam aged, why couldn't he also do that with the rest of His creation ?

Here's book introduction you may enjoy reading it, I know the books on this subject are many but not many writers have the science and biblical back ground this man has.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Unlike most people with the attention span of a fruit fly, I trust you will read the outline introduction.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the universe is about 15 billions years old and is the result and in response tp Lucifer's rebellion.

If... E = mc2 ... Then m (matter) = E/c2 (energy)

Therefore, for the big boom to have occurred the matter had to have been there before the light and energy (E/c2), as the scripture says...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. - Genesis 1:2

I would imagine, with these words... 'Let there be light (Genesis 1:3)', that the earth (the mass) turned into energy and light (E/c2) and expanded out from a point of origin, turning into what solar systems the Father willed it to. So the plasma (E/c2) is actually mass that has changed state.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:4,5

I believe that 15 billion years took place between Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4. God divided the light and the darkness by putting the in orbit around the sun thus creating the first day of the Earth's creation. But... The universe was created 15 billion years (give or take a few billion years) before that.

 

[aspen]

Dude, carbon dating is as accurate as your reasoning. Don't disappoint now. Also, one shouldn't pass as science that which is speculative philosophy. B)

Dude - there are a few more methods available. which are used to verify carbon dating:

Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:

• Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials
• Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
• Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
• Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications
• Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
• Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record
• Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates[1]
• Lead Corrosion Dating.[2]
• Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6]
• Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
• Rehydroxylation dating - for dating ceramic materials[7]

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Dude - there are a few more methods available. which are used to verify carbon dating:

Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:

• Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials
• Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
• Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
• Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications
• Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
• Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record
• Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates[1]
• Lead Corrosion Dating.[2]
• Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6]
• Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
• Rehydroxylation dating - for dating ceramic materials[7]

Did that hurt the brain. :) Whatever one's position on the Creation account, I firmly believe and understand it to be as stated in its literal sense. This can be supported by what I stated above-context- of the cycle of one day. Post #2 refer to Genesis 1:5 etc

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

We can walk into a room which contains a burning candle.
We can accurately measure the rate the candle burns per hour
That is essentially the same as carbon dating ... only difference is we measurement the decay of carbon.

But we do not know when the candle was lit ... and how long it has been burning
Same as we dont know how long ago the carbon began decaying.

Thus we have a fundamental flaw in using either method

 

[aspen]

Carbon dating is only one method of measurement.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Carbon dating is only one method of measurement.

LOL! It's because it's so unreliable. What's even more unreliable is men, who think they can put GOD in a box. What you fail to see is "without FAITH it's impossible to please him". Isn't it logic 101 to be aware of the creator by the things he has made. Romans 1: ff concordes with this universal experience.

 

[Rex]

LOL! It's because it's so unreliable. What's even more unreliable is men, who think they can put GOD in a box. What you fail to see is "without FAITH it's impossible to please him". Isn't it logic 101 to be aware of the creator by the things he has made. Romans 1: ff concordes with this universal experience.

Amen to that Romans 1:18-20 ...... Romans 1:18-20 KJV
Psalms 19:1
Psalms 147:4
Job 9:9
Amos 5:8

 

[aspen]

Rex - you do not understand science or carbon dating. Within academia, multiple methods are often used to confirm data. It is infantile for you to suggest that scientists use different methods of dating until they come up with the answer they are looking for. You should be able to comprehend the use of multiple methods to confirm data since Biblical scholars often rely on ancient artifacts to confirm the civilizations mention in the Bible.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Rex - you do not understand science or carbon dating. Within academia SCIENCE, multiple methods TESTS FOR REPEATABILITY(SCIENTIFIC METHOD) are often used to confirm data. It is infantile for you to suggest that scientists use different methods of dating until they come up with the answer they are looking for. NO HE DIDN'T AND NO IT'S NOT You should be able to comprehend the use of multiple methods to confirm data since Biblical scholars often rely on ancient artifacts to confirm the civilizations mention in the Bible. MAYBE SO, BUT SCIENTIST DO IT TO COVER THEIR ARSE. PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE OWN PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS GO SOUTH. B) NOW THEY MAY 'AFTER THE HORSE HAD BOLTED' BUT IN THE BEGINNING, NOT SO.

Amen to that Romans 1:18-20 ...... Romans 1:18-20 KJV
Psalms 19:1
Psalms 147:4
Job 9:9
Amos 5:8

Thanks for the other scriptures. :)

 

[Rex]

Rex - you do not understand science or carbon dating. Within academia, multiple methods are often used to confirm data. It is infantile for you to suggest that scientists use different methods of dating until they come up with the answer they are looking for. You should be able to comprehend the use of multiple methods to confirm data since Biblical scholars often rely on ancient artifacts to confirm the civilizations mention in the Bible.

Pretty worked up arn't you aspen. The truth of the matter is God could have very well have created in a moment the universe with "apparent" age built in what would be the reason behind such a thing, I'll be the first to say I don't know.

I'm just going to cut to the point, I was simply replying to JB's post, it has nothing to do with carbon dating, or that I agree with everything he says but I do agree with that post.

The truth is I have no problem considering ether young or old creation, like I said I beleive God could and may have created the heavens and the earth in a literal six days or six seconds or in a moment. But this requires we use time, or the scale of time we measure here on earth. 1 day = 24 hours ect. What I find amazing is I can also used proven science from a scientist with some of the highest credentials and believe the earth is also 15 billion years yet created in 6 days as well. You see it's a matter of perspective, time moves slower or faster depending on ether your location, how fast your traveling, or both.

I'm sure you know what geocentric vs heliocentric is, its the old argument of what is the center of our solar system, the sun or the earth. I would now like to apply that to what I'm about to say. Time and location, the fact is that today If you were standing at the point of expansion of the universe looking out the amount of time you would measure would be slightly more than 6 24 hour days, Now us standing on earth looking outward we can measure roughly 15 billions years backwards to where science can see the robin egg shape of the universe when it first began it's expansion.

So you see I can just as easily tell my scientific friends this. So then you believe that it's a compete coincidence that an atomic clock sitting in the center of the expansion of the universe has only registered slightly more than 6-24 hour days, and an identical atomic clock placed with in the gas expanding outward that would someday become the earth has ticked of 15 billion years. I find that a remarkable coincidence. So you see, I can also believe that from where God may have been watching the development of the big bang, "from the point of expansion" only six days have passed. Yet we see billions of years. geocentric vs heliocentric, time, it's all about location.

Here's book introduction you may enjoy reading it, I know the books on this subject are many but not many writers have the science and biblical back ground this man has.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Unlike most people with the attention span of a fruit fly, I trust you will read the outline introduction.

And to the fruit flies please do not trouble me with not understanding or not using proper science or making something up, I am merely in the simplest words possible giving you a description of applied physics or Einsteins math concerning time and space, from someone that is more than qualified to apply it to what we know today. If you can not read and study the provided link and understand what it means I have already provided in the simplest version I can. So please don't bother arguing with me about it.

It's science and its fascinating how time is measured and works depending on the point of observation. Relativity, time is relevant to location mass and speed.

 

[aspen]

LOL! You guys love to believe I get all worked up over your magnificent posts, composed of ironclad reasoning and Godly rebukes - Give me a break. I've been posting here for years - neither of you bother me in the least. Apparently, you also love to believe that there is some huge conspiracy by scientists to prove that there isn't a god - as if, people choose to study the nature world using the scientific method only to wage war against Christians. Scientists do not even notice Christians unless they are trying to introduce creationism into science textbooks. BTW, the scientific method is applied all across academia, not just science, JB.

The fact is, the Genesis creation account has more in common with literature than it does with science. All I am saying is that we recognize the evidence around us and consider the expertise of the people who study it. Scientists are questioned more than any other professional - no one goes to their heart surgeon and questions their method or education. Neither do we do critique Olympic athletes because we know that they are experts in their sport. Why do we think we know more than people who spend their lives studying science?