Creation Science Seminar

[Mr E]

God couldn't have created with embedded age? He created Adam a fully grown man. When Jesus turned water into wine he did it instantly. It takes time to plant a vineyard. harvest grapes, press them, and age the wine. If you tested that wine you would probably find it was aged.

I once had a conversation with someone who insisted that God buried dinosaur bones and made them seem old. Why would He do that? Is God some kind of trickster-? Is He the author of confusion?

The miracles are by design, things that don't follow the natural path and that are beyond explanation on purpose. The purpose is that they serve as signs of the power of God working through His anointed, and God isn't at all limited by our limited understanding. If those things followed the natural course, they wouldn't be miracles and if miracles happened every day, they would be considered the natural course.

The wine was aged of course, because it was tasted and tested and found to be good. That doesn't mean that everything springs to life instantly aged. Scripture tells a different story, including the creation story.

 

[RLT63]

I once had a conversation with someone who insisted that God buried dinosaur bones and made them seem old. Why would He do that? Is God some kind of trickster-? Is He the author of confusion?

The miracles are by design, things that don't follow the natural path and that are beyond explanation on purpose. The purpose is that they serve as signs of the power of God, which isn't at all limited by our limited understanding. If those things followed the natural course, they wouldn't be miracles and if miracles happened every day, they would be considered the natural course.

The wine was aged of course, because it was tasted and tested and found to be good. That doesn't mean that everything springs to life instantly aged. Scripture tells a different story, including the creation story.

You don't think that creation was a miracle? I don't think God deceived anyone I think that he wasn't concerned about the accuracy of dating techniques that men came up with.

 

[Mr E]

You don't think that creation was a miracle? I don't think God deceived anyone I think that he wasn't concerned about the accuracy of dating techniques that men came up with.

lol-- I'm certain He wasn't concerned about dating techniques.

Creation by definition is not "instant." It's the process of shaping something. It's how something is brought about. As to it being a miracle that too depends on your understanding of miracles. Is the birth of a baby a miracle? Sure. -That doesn't mean it was instantaneous. A baby is brought about by a process that takes nine months. That doesn't negate the miracle of its creation.

 

[marks]

Evolution does not teach that apes became men. It teaches that men and chimpanzees had s common ancestor. Apes didn't become men, we ARE apes according to the theory of evolution. I agree with your other points.

Evolutionists teach that we come from rocks.



Much love!

 

[RLT63]

lol-- I'm certain He wasn't concerned about dating techniques.

Creation by definition is not "instant." It's the process of shaping something. It's how something is brought about. As to it being a miracle that too depends on your understanding of miracles. Is the birth of a baby a miracle? Sure. -That doesn't mean it was instantaneous. A baby is brought about by a process that takes nine months. That doesn't negate the miracle of its creation.

Gen 1:3

¶
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

 

[Mr E]

Gen 1:3

¶
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

...... the first day. Then.....

Incidentally, it never says God created the light. Of that He just said- "Let there be."

 

[RLT63]

...... the first day. Then.....

It had to be a miracle. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. What was holding the earth in place?

 

[RLT63]

Evolutionists teach that we come from rocks.



Much love!

The theory of evolution doesn't address abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a separate issue, life coming from non life. People often get the two mixed up when refuting evolution.

 

[RLT63]

...... the first day. Then.....

Incidentally, it never says God created the light. Of that He just said- "Let there be."

He speaks and it becomes. Gen 1:3

¶
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

 

[marks]

The theory of evolution doesn't address abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a separate issue, life coming from non life. People often get the two mixed up when refuting evolution.

That brings up a good thing to mention, "evolution" can be macro or micro, "origin of the species", "origin of life", "stellar evolution", others, we do need to specify.

Good point!

Much love!

 

[marks]

...... the first day. Then.....

Incidentally, it never says God created the light. Of that He just said- "Let there be."

Light be, and light was. No, it doesn't say He created light, only records the act of God doing so.

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

That brings up a good thing to mention, "evolution" can be macro or micro, "origin of the species", "origin of life", "stellar evolution", others, we do need to specify.

Good point!

Much love!

Microevolution is defined as changes within a species. An example of microevolution is the evolution of mosquitoes that cannot be killed by pesticides, called pesticide-resistant mosquitoes.
But the mosquitoes didn't really evolve. The ones that were immune to the pesticides survived and procreated. What happened was actually natural selection.

Macroevolution refers to much bigger evolutionary changes that result in new species. According to the TOE macroevolution may happen:

1. When microevolution occurs repeatedly over a long period of time and leads to the creation of a new species.
2. As a result of a major environmental change, such as a volcanic eruption, earthquake, or an asteroid hitting Earth, which changes the environment so much that natural selection leads to large changes in the traits of a species.

But again it's not really evolution taking place, it's natural selection. Evolution as most people define it cannot be proven.(People who defend it will tell you science doesn't deal in proof, but in a preponderance of the evidence) Likewise abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated or proven.

 

[Mr E]

He speaks and it becomes. Gen 1:3

¶
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

You are missing the point (and the meaning) of "creation." The word is bara-- to shape. Of other things scripture say asah-- to make. Still at other times it says things like- let the waters sharats (breed abundantly) or let the earth dasha (sprout or grow) or "bring forth" this or that....

It's the same imagery that Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and such prophets use to describe a potter making something from the clay. It's making something by shaping it and bringing one thing from another.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Young.

And that the evidences pointed to for an "old earth" are primarily the results of the flood.

Much love!

All of the biblical passages concerning prehistory indicate that this planet existed before the events of Gen 1:3, and that Gen. 1:2 describes the aftermath of Lucifer's rebellion. Paul supported this teaching in Rom. 8 where he talks about how God deliberately left the other planets in the same condition that Gen. 1:2 describes until the time comes for Christians to restore those planets to their original condition like He did with Earth in Gen. 1:3 forward.

This planet is a lot older than 6 millennia old, and honest science fully supports it. Job 38:7 shows that this world existed at a time when angels were the only other living things in the universe besides God. A worldwide flood cannot make something appear to be older than it actually is. That is foolish talk. With this line of reasoning, you would also have to argue that the Grand Canyon is younger than people really think.

 

[RLT63]

All of the biblical passages concerning prehistory indicate that this planet existed before the events of Gen 1:3, and that Gen. 1:2 describes the aftermath of Lucifer's rebellion. Paul supported this teaching in Rom. 8 where he talks about how God deliberately left the other planets in the same condition that Gen. 1:2 describes until the time comes for Christians to restore those planets to their original condition like He did with Earth in Gen. 1:3 forward.

This planet is a lot older than 6 millennia old, and honest science fully supports it. Job 38:7 shows that this world existed at a time when angels were the only other living things in the universe besides God. A worldwide flood cannot make something appear to be older than it actually is. That is foolish talk. With this line of reasoning, you would also have to argue that the Grand Canyon is younger than people really think.

YECs use the Grand Canyon as an example to make their point. When and How Did the Grand Canyon Form?

 

[marks]

A worldwide flood cannot make something appear to be older than it actually is. That is foolish talk. With this line of reasoning, you would also have to argue that the Grand Canyon is younger than people really think.

Are you aware of the rock dating issues at the Grand Canyon? That the uppermost layers are supposedly millions of years older than the lowermost layers?

Are you aware that a hardrock canyon 100 ft deep and 200 feet wide was eroded at Mount St. Helen virtually overnight, contrary to scientific views of how long that takes?

Are you aware that northeast of the grand canyon was a huge lake that drained through that canyon? You can see the erosion patterns and lakebed outlines from satellites.

No, the flood doesn't make things look old, it makes them look worn. Scientists claim that wear takes millions and millions of years, they are the ones claiming things are older than they are.

Are you aware of the various methods for dating rocks, and the criteria by which the methods are selected? And the assumptions that are built into those methods?

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

You are missing the point (and the meaning) of "creation." The word is bara-- to shape. Of other things scripture say asah-- to make. Still at other times it says things like- let the waters sharats (breed abundantly) or let the earth dasha (sprout or grow) or "bring forth" this or that....

It's the same imagery that Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and such prophets use to describe a potter making something from the clay. It's making something by shaping it and bringing one thing from another.

Genesis 1:9-12 God speaks and it happens
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, [and] fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[ScottA]

Because it’s not scriptural. Creation is described as a process that occurred over time, bit by bit and day by “day.” And it says that it was elohim that created the earth. I know that’s not what our English Bibles say, but the Hebrew makes a careful distinction.

I did not suggest anything that is "not scriptural." So...what does it mean if the angels were manifest as grown men instantaneously, or over 6 days and on the seventh day they came to Abraham over time? It means nothing.

Again, God can and has done what we would think is impossible--why is that so hard to believe when it comes to creating the universe in the appearance of being much older?

The real question that we should be asking, is why--why would God create the universe appearing to be what it is not? (Which I have already answered)​

 

[Mr E]

I did not suggest anything that is "not scriptural." So...what does it mean if the angels were manifest as grown men instantaneously, or over 6 days and on the seventh day they came to Abraham over time? It means nothing.

Again, God can and has done what we would think is impossible--why is that so hard to believe when it comes to creating the universe in the appearance of being much older?

The real question that we should be asking, is why--why would God create the universe appearing to be what it is not? (Which I have already answered)​

I quibble with you on your opinion of scripture. Nothing (in scripture) means nothing. Everything means something. We just might not clearly perceive or understand on one level or another.

I'm not sure exactly what it is you are referring to regarding angels, but I'll guarantee whatever it may be-- it has meaning.

 

[Mr E]

Genesis 1:9-12 God speaks and it happens
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, [and] fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

Yawn. You like to play scriptural tic tac toe. I like to discuss things. I don't think we're a match.

Try to offer some of your own thoughts rather than just a copy/paste effort. You too eager to replace dialogue with prooftexts. Each to their own-- I'll leave you to it.