Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[annsni]

One could say the same about the apparent age of the earth. If the earth is so young, why does it appear so old?

Who says that it shows age? If God spoke things into being, don't you think He'd make them fully mature rather than as it's beginning seed? When God spoke trees into existence, were they suddenly seeds? But then where did those seeds come from? Was Adam a fully grown man or a baby? Is that being deceptive? I don't think so.

 

[StefanM]

Who says that it shows age?

Geologists. Astrophysicists (more on the age of the universe).

 

[OldRegular]

I haven't disagreed with you. I've already admitted I don't know how God made the universe but I don't buy into God wanting us to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. Which was my point all along. I think its limiting to God.

How does it limit God to accept what He has revealed to us. To deny creation is to deny Scripture. [Create means to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary process.]

Colossians 1:16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The Old Testament was available during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. One criteria for determining the validity of the Old Testament Scripture was Jesus Christ quoting from them. In Genesis 2 the man Adam is named. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus Christ speaking of marriage quotes Genesis 2:24.

 

[canadyjd]

What causes someone to be an Albino? Do you understand that mutations start in your genetic code?

Do you understand that the moths we were discussing had a genetic code that included both dark and light moths in the same species? There was no mutation of the genes of these moths to cause one color to be more dominant than the other. Do you understand that? Then please quit acting like there was gene mutation envolved.

When the genes of any living creature do not function as God created them, they are defective. That is what happens with albinism. The genes for pigmentation do not function as they should.

Whenever any creature has defective genes, the outcome has always been harmful to the creature, i.e. they die.

That is what happens when your cells mutate into cancer cells, they don't function like God intended them to function, and the tissue cannot survive.

You don't "mutate" into superheroes (like the X-men). You don't get special abilities. It doesn't make you better....

You deteriorate and you die. That is the outcome of gene mutations.

If you can show me actual gene mutations that proved to be beneficial, I'll certainly take a hard look at them. And please, please, don't give me a link to hybrid plants. That isn't gene mutation or evolution at all.....but that's another thread.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

You're last statement is pattenly untrue. .

I disagree. Evolution is a belief and those who believe it interpret the data through that filter.

And as far as biblical support I quoted the bible verbatim. Have you ever asked yourself why each day (stansa) ends with There was light then darkness the 1 day etc... It has to do with two aspects Refrain like in a song and this method was commonly used to help people remember things orally. Makes one wonder

Wonder? It does not make me wonder. That kind of repetition is not unusual in the Bible. Sure, it helps people remember -- they didn't have printing presses then, so people could not walk around with Bibles. So memorizing scripture was very helpful! Also, God told them to learn and know his word and memorizing scripture was not unusual.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you understand that the moths we were discussing had a genetic code that included both dark and light moths in the same species? There was no mutation of the genes of these moths to cause one color to be more dominant than the other. Do you understand that? Then please quit acting like there was gene mutation envolved.

When the genes of any living creature do not function as God created them, they are defective. That is what happens with albinism. The genes for pigmentation do not function as they should.

Whenever any creature has defective genes, the outcome has always been harmful to the creature, i.e. they die.

That is what happens when your cells mutate into cancer cells, they don't function like God intended them to function, and the tissue cannot survive.

You don't "mutate" into superheroes (like the X-men). You don't get special abilities. It doesn't make you better....

You deteriorate and you die. That is the outcome of gene mutations.

If you can show me actual gene mutations that proved to be beneficial, I'll certainly take a hard look at them. And please, please, don't give me a link to hybrid plants. That isn't gene mutation or evolution at all.....but that's another thread.

peace to youraying:

Wow you make leaps as well. X-men Really?

You're still leaving out a major aspect of the theory of Evolution which is Natural selection. Think of DNA as information. You provide all solutions but a few survive to procreate. Passing on their particular information to the next generation.

Here is another example MRCA. Just because its harmful to you or I the changes that have this bacteria has undergone to survive a hostile environment has been benefitial for the organism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I disagree. Evolution is a belief and those who believe it interpret the data through that filter.



Wonder? It does not make me wonder. That kind of repetition is not unusual in the Bible. Sure, it helps people remember -- they didn't have printing presses then, so people could not walk around with Bibles. So memorizing scripture was very helpful! Also, God told them to learn and know his word and memorizing scripture was not unusual.

Yes but a song? Like how you get your children to remember something? It seems to me more literary than to be taken literaly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How does it limit God to accept what He has revealed to us. To deny creation is to deny Scripture. [Create means to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary process.]

Colossians 1:16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The Old Testament was available during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. One criteria for determining the validity of the Old Testament Scripture was Jesus Christ quoting from them. In Genesis 2 the man Adam is named. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus Christ speaking of marriage quotes Genesis 2:24.

I haven't disagreed with Col 1:16. I think its limiting to God because you put his words in your personal interpretation box and say he must mean what he says by the way you think he means it. For you God can't mean anything else other than what you want him to mean based on your paradigm which reduces God to fitting in your Paradigm. Shakespear is right when he says:

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!


Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[annsni]

It's amazing. I am just floored that a Christian would say that it is limiting God to take Him at His word. To believe what He said. It is much less limiting to Him if we say "well, that's a story, a parable, a song" even though it is not written that way.

I think I'm going to listen to some "stories" about arguing with certain people (that would be Proverbs) and follow it's wisdom.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's amazing. I am just floored that a Christian would say that it is limiting God to take Him at His word. To believe what He said. It is much less limiting to Him if we say "well, that's a story, a parable, a song" even though it is not written that way.

I think I'm going to listen to some "stories" about arguing with certain people (that would be Proverbs) and follow it's wisdom.

It is a very vague and general statement,that liberals love to hold to, that gives them an out whenever they need it. Such statements would also have to be applied to the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Holy Ghost etc. Another similar phrase used by libbies is " we can't put God in a box". The truth is God is in a box which has been made by His Word and His nature.

 

[OldRegular]

I haven't disagreed with Col 1:16. I think its limiting to God because you put his words in your personal interpretation box and say he must mean what he says by the way you think he means it. For you God can't mean anything else other than what you want him to mean based on your paradigm which reduces God to fitting in your Paradigm. Shakespeare is right when he says:

Why is it strange to think that God means what He says? Did He mean it when He said "By Grace are you saved." or "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son."? If He did not mean what He said then we are of all men most miserable.

My paradigm is the Bible [paradigm is a fancy word for pattern]. You have introduce non biblical concepts into your pattern of thinking, none of which can be proven.

By the way are you familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is valid for the transfer of informatio?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you guys realize that you have no common ground on which to have a conversation with TS? He does not take scripture seriously and leaves its interpretation open to higher criticism. You all are in two different universes.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you guys realize that you have no common ground on which to have a conversation with TS? He does not take scripture seriously and leaves its interpretation open to higher criticism. You all are in two different universes.

Yes! Sadly!

 

[Martin]

I've already admitted I don't know how God made the universe but I don't buy into God wanting us to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. Which was my point all along. I think its limiting to God.

==I'm not sure that taking Genesis 1-2 "literally" is limiting God in anyway. After, it is His Word. So I'm not sure how the two go together. My point was not that we should take a non-literal view of Genesis 1-2 but that there are some questions not answered there. The way the 6,000 year date was arrived at is questionable and not endorsed by the Bible and the Bible does not define the number of hours in "day". So we really don't know how old the earth is or how long the days of Genesis 1 were. However, as I said, I doubt that millions of years can be placed in each day. At most I think we are talking about a range of modern hours (24, 48, etc).

 

[Martin]

Who says that it shows age? If God spoke things into being, don't you think He'd make them fully mature rather than as it's beginning seed? When God spoke trees into existence, were they suddenly seeds? But then where did those seeds come from? Was Adam a fully grown man or a baby? Is that being deceptive? I don't think so.

==Great point. It seems that Adam and Eve, and the creation, was created mature or matured very fast. I would think that a doctor who examined Adam twenty minutes after his creation would have said he was such and such years old based on his physical maturity and not twenty minutes old. This might be another problem we run into when trying to "date" the earth (something the Bible never does). It is certainly not deceptive, however, because God was not trying to fulfill our curiosity. I find it interesting that the Word of God never gives the age of the earth. That silence has to mean something! Too many people, secular and Christian, get side tracked with this issue (imo).

Martin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why is it strange to think that God means what He says? Did He mean it when He said "By Grace are you saved." or "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son."? If He did not mean what He said then we are of all men most miserable.

My paradigm is the Bible [paradigm is a fancy word for pattern]. You have introduce non biblical concepts into your pattern of thinking, none of which can be proven.

By the way are you familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is valid for the transfer of informatio?

Yes I have and would gladly like to discuss it. I'm not conforming to you're paradigm so you have a problem. When you meet God and he doesn't fit into your view of him what then?

As far as the Rev and Old Regular. I'm having a civil discussion with you to present the other side. You always seem to go right back to insulting comments. I take exception to being told I don't take the bible seriously. I do. I have for years. I don't agree with both of your views and I won't be bullied into accepting them either. Nor will I acquiesce to intimidation or accept that 1) I'm not a christian or 2) that I don't take the bible seriously. I certainly don't believe aspects as you. But again I find it strange that you use the same tactics the RCC used against the first Reformers like Martin Luther. Your cry "recant" or you're not really taking scritpures seriously falls right into that catagory. Must I have a noble (like Luther) watch my proverbial back? I would hope not. It was scriptures that first introduced me to Jesus and it is scriptures that keeps me in his will (along with the Holy Spirit). Just because I do not believe as you that Genesis was literal doesn't negate anything the Lord has done for me or turned me against scripture. You don't take the Body and Blood thing literally so obviously you don't take all of scripture literally. You can argue your point and I'm sure classical christians would show how you're wrong. But does that mean you're not christian? Christians have disagreed with meaning of Scripture from the begining. And I don't buy into your pattern. I believed I'm viewing the scriptures as they are meant. I don't buy all of evolution either and I've mentioned that before which you convieniently ignore. I don't deny God created the world as he said but with the view of my post 208. And to be certain there are better trained doctors of Scripture who agree with me. Certainly there are those who disagree. But to devolve into insulting me because I won't cave into your views is unbefitting both of you and the positions you hold.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This article shows your misconseption with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

 

[canadyjd]

You're still leaving out a major aspect of the theory of Evolution which is Natural selection. Think of DNA as information. You provide all solutions but a few survive to procreate. Passing on their particular information to the next generation.

You simply dismissed everything I said without so much as a comment.

1. The moths you claimed supported evolution had NO MUTATION OF THEIR GENES. Will you admit that?

2. Gene mutations, (defective genes...i.e cancer, albinism, etc.), are always harmful to the species. The genes are not functioning the way God created them.

Here is another example MRCA. Just because its harmful to you or I the changes that have this bacteria has undergone to survive a hostile environment has been benefitial for the organism.

Are you claiming genetic changes for MRCA bacteria?

My understanding of MRCA is that it is already resistent to antibiodics. The overuse of antibiodics has killed off other bacteria, which allows the resistent strand of MRCA to flourish in the bacteria depleted evironment.

That doesn't mean MRCA has changed in anyway genetically.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Just because I do not believe as you that Genesis was literal doesn't negate anything the Lord has done for me or turned me against scripture.....

I am going to be as candid with you as I can inasmuch as I view your statements and positions. First, I agree that your (mis)understanding of Gen. 1 doesn't negate anything God has done for you. It doesn't mean you're not a Christian. It doesn't mean you don't love Jesus. It doesn't mean you aren't sincere in your devotion to understanding God's Word.

I do believe it means you are misguided and/or decieved.

It isn't that you disagree with the literal interpretation of scripture. It is that you are embracing a God-denying, bible undermining lie (evolution) in the process.

If you had said, "Hey guys, I think Gen. 1 is simply poetry. God is giving us His truth, but He doesn't necessarily want us to take it literally.", then we can have a conversation about genre and proper hermeneutics.

But that is not the road you took. You dismiss the Gen. 1 account based on your understanding of unproven scientific theories.

You have clearly subordinated the truth of scripture to your understanding of the scientific theories of men who have demonstrated distain for all the things of God, His Word, His Law, and His Grace found only in Jesus Christ.

As for as people insulting you....I believe you have dished out the insults as good as you got.

As I said before you compared me to a Mormon, I'm bailing out of this thread. Everyone is talking past each other anyway.

peace to youraying:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Canadyjd: // 1. The moths you claimed supported evolution had NO MUTATION OF THEIR GENES. Will you admit that? //

This statement is largely meaningless. The point was NOT if or if not a mutation of the genes existed but that the genes are different. The moths were born with different genes (one meaning of 'mutation') the moths did not have their genes changed after they were concieved (another meaning of 'mutation').

Canadyjd: // 2. Gene mutations, (defective genes...i.e cancer, albinism, etc.), are always harmful to the species. The genes are not functioning the way God created them. //

This statement is largely useless. Gene mutations can be useful, and it is the few times that it is useful that make the difference. 999,999,999,999 in a trillion gene mutations are harmful to the INDIVIDUAL that has them. It is that trillionth that might be useful.

BTW, There are events recorded in the rocks where 80% to 98% of all species (kinds?) on earth at the time died out. Such events are totally unexplained by all Young Earth theories.

BTW, I define 'Religious Liberal' such that Young Earth Theorists are all 'Religious Liberals'. And don't forget those Liberals who don't believe my trailer/signature: