A novel view on Old Earth Creationism

[37818]

Hugh Ross tries to combine creationism with deep time. I reject deep time as part of evolution and I rely on Biblical creationist scientists to be correct in scientific and mathematical issues beyond my education.

Well any YEC beliefs which rejects, what I understand to be true, to me is nonsense. I believe Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 3:24 to be understood in a literal manner. And I defer from YEC and the typical OEC for that reason.

 

[37818]

I hold also to the same. I hold to the Gap Theory. I believe it is Scriptural.

Quantrill

I agree Genesis 1:2 is a time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3. I reject the traditional gap theory, Scofield notes. As a young Chistian I held a day age view, because Genesis 2:4, that 7 day week being understood as a day.
In 1969 or so coming to believe in the global flood, I also came to believe those 7 days were an actual 7 day week. I still believe in an old universe, Genesis 1:1.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well any YEC beliefs which rejects, what I understand to be true, to me is nonsense. I believe Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 3:24 to be understood in a literal manner. And I defer from YEC and the typical OEC for that reason.

If Genesis is history, then the universe should confirm that history in a scientific manner. And it does.

we know that deep time did not originate with the Jews but with the pagan Hindus. From India, deep time went to the pagan Greeks. With the fall of Greece and Rome, deep time was lost until the Enlightenment around 1800 when atheistic and deist Europeans revived deep time. All of this is accepted history.

So why should I accept a Hindu notion as part of creation? YECs have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research and modern science just does not support deep time.

 

[37818]

Yes, I do deny. Evolution has no part in God's creative process. Not Macro. Not Micro.

In other words I could say Macro-bs. Or, I could say Micro-bs. Both are still bs.

Quantrill

Ok. We do not agree on the use of that term. So do you really deny genetic changes occur?

 

[37818]

If Genesis is history, then the universe should confirm that history in a scientific manner. And it does.

We do not agree on our understanding of the evidence.

So why should I accept a Hindu notion as part of creation?

I reject Henduism too.

YECs have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research and modern science just does not support deep time.

Astonomy supports distances older than Genesis 1:3-31. That is a fact.

 

[timtofly]

And my point is that the Bible said Adam begat a son. (Gen. 5:3). It doesn't say Cain evolved from Adam.

Quantrill

Evolution is not about having children. It is the change that you, an offspring of Seth, have changed in some way during the process of the last 5890 years.

I agree that turning the mechanics of change into some explanation of creation is just philosophy of science.

God's Word is the only science we have on creation. Have you read the science journal of the Mesopotamians called the Enuma Elish?

 

[timtofly]

If one understands the 4. Billion years for earth's crust in or before Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:3-31 can still be plausible to be a mere 6000 years. But I think much older do to global flood evidence. Do to the same type of plant and animal fossil layers on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Except no one can account for 1000 years of perfection without any change or decay, can they? The Flood of Noah was the only rapid change period. No one even accepts a perfect creation, because they place sin, death, and decay before the 6 days. God claims, sin, death and decay did not happen during the first 1000 years of existence. The ability to date is very flawed.

 

[timtofly]

Not if the evidence does not support it. Honestly I do not believe a mere 4300 years is supported by the known physical global flood evidence. Biblical OEC believe in the universal flood not a global flood.

So the whole alleged 14 billion year universe was flooded with water? Do you accept a flat universe?

 

[timtofly]

Astonomy supports distances older than Genesis 1:3-31. That is a fact.

Math supports science. "Facts" do not support science. There is no gap in Genesis 1:1-2. That is worse than the lie Satan fed Eve about not touching the fruit and the wisdom gained from such fruit. Knowledge includes facts. A gap in Genesis 1:1-2 is a lie from Satan, not a fact. The knowledge of good and evil is a fact yet unknown until Adam disobeyed. Eve did not get her result from her scientific test of touching and eating. That was Satan's lie. It was Adam who had to disobey God.

This existence can only be 8000 years in breadth, and there is still 1000 to go. Take that as scientific fact or not. That is the math factor # of the 4th dimension, time. Now if any one can figure out the length, depth, and height of creation, they would have the correct facts of existence, when it comes to space.

 

[Quantrill]

I agree Genesis 1:2 is a time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3. I reject the traditional gap theory, Scofield notes. As a young Chistian I held a day age view, because Genesis 2:4, that 7 day week being understood as a day.
In 1969 or so coming to believe in the global flood, I also came to believe those 7 days were an actual 7 day week. I still believe in an old universe, Genesis 1:1.

I hold to the traditional Gap Theory and believe it is supported in Scripture.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Ok. We do not agree on the use of that term. So do you really deny genetic changes occur?

I don't know what you are calling 'genetic changes'. What I am saying is that whatever you are saying, it is not God creating by evolution.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Evolution is not about having children. It is the change that you, an offspring of Seth, have changed in some way during the process of the last 5890 years.

I agree that turning the mechanics of change into some explanation of creation is just philosophy of science.

God's Word is the only science we have on creation. Have you read the science journal of the Mesopotamians called the Enuma Elish?

Yes I know. Evolution is about a change from one species to another. Which is why being born of Adam is not evolution.

No, I have never read it.

Quantrill

 

[37818]

'genetic chanes'

'.

 

[church mouse guy]

We do not agree on our understanding of the evidence.
I reject Henduism too.
Astonomy supports distances older than Genesis 1:3-31. That is a fact.

That seems to be the only scientific problem that old earthers can point to. You say that you reject Hinduism but you support one of their major theories not found in Jewish religion but from pagan Hindus and Greeks and into American propaganda education from the atheists and deists of the Enlightenment.

I think that Dr. Danny Faulkner has a good explanation. God in the miracle of Creation started with nothing but rapidly matured everything so that plants started as seeds for example but had fruit the same day so that animals and humans had food right away. Both Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, Adam from dust, Eve from a rib from Adam. So it was with the stars, etc., in that they were matured rapidly so that Adam saw stars on his first night on earth about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Quantrill]

'.

Gee, that was deep. But I don't need Mendel.

Quantrill

 

[37818]

You say that you reject Hinduism but you support one of their major theories . . . .

So you need to falsely accuse me.

Andromada Galaxy has an angular diameter of 2.96 degrees. It is believed to be 2.5 million light years away.

 

[37818]

There exists a notion that God on day four actually created the rest the universe's millions and billions of years for the stars and now known galxies. So their history is real and Genesis 1:1-31 were actually created in the 6 earth days.

 

[church mouse guy]

There exists a notion that God on day four actually created the rest the universe's millions and billions of years for the stars and now known galxies. So their history is real and Genesis 1:1-31 were actually created in the 6 earth days.

I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[church mouse guy]

So you need to falsely accuse me.

Andromada Galaxy has an angular diameter of 2.96 degrees. It is believed to be 2.5 million light years away.

No, I am not accusing you of anything. What I am saying is that deep time did not originate with Jews and Christians but with pagan Hindus. As Dr Faulkner tells Del Tackett, Adam saw the stars on his first night on earth and Job saw the same stars that we do. Adam was not created a fertilized egg but was created fully mature from dust. So stars were created fully mature in minutes for Adam to see. Your measurements have nothing to do with Biblical creation.

 

[37818]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

So stars were created fully mature . . .

So are you saying God has lied and did not create the stars and galaxies with a real history?