Creation and an Old Earth - One Possibility

[SavedOnebyGrace]

"fudge" ?  read Job...   who can even measure the width of God's fingernail on His fifth digit according to His Word ?

Who was there when Yahweh created the void  ?

Who can create a bacterium or a blood cell or a virus ?

How much dust has been measured on the moon's surface ? (can't get around this one) ...

You didn't answer the question I posed here and elsewhere.  So if you take the Bible literally as I do, how old is creation?  You YEC like flowering language without one substative piece of proof.  You have yet to answer my requests to prove your assertions.  If you choose not to see what God has clearly put in His Word and through nature around us, why should I care what you think or say?

If you tell me how much dust ((how deep is the dust/ lose soil)) is on the surface of the moon,   I'll be able to tell you how old the earth and moon are within a few thousands years variance/ tolerance, according to the rate of deposit....

Just like some who have measured the various deposits all over the earth have published their unpopular findings.     'Unpopular',  but if 12 inches is a foot is twelve inches, and 3 feet is 36 inches, and so on,  it can be measured ..... 

?

[JohnD]

Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman have been soundly trounced by the macro evolution bullies for their paper on the decay of c.

They simply showed how the scientific observations over hundreds of years themselves indicate the speed of light is slowing down beyond the margin of error of the increasingly improved ability to make such observations.

These bullies and their stooges were merciless. They invoked one straw man argument after another. Claiming the size of the universe proves that it is 13.8 billion years old.

Then Hubble Telescope presented these bullies with a real problem. The universe is 46 billion light years in every direction. For light to have traveled all that way in only 13 billion years means it had to be faster in the past. And using the cosine squared curve presented in Setterfield's and Norman's work (which is way way over my head) the speed of light could have been as much as 10 million times faster (some 10 thousand years ago) than it is today.

So there is nothing to prove the universe and earth are older than 7 - 10 thousand years old.

     

YEC like to fudge the numbers.  Are they claiming 6000 years?  7000 years?  10000 years?  Can't YEC agree on a number?

Speed of Light

If you slowed the speed of light, that gives even more credence to OEC.  The time would be longer for observation.

So the light we now see from 46 billion light years away shouldn't be able to be seen yet?

Think!

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman have been soundly trounced by the macro evolution bullies for their paper on the decay of c.

They simply showed how the scientific observations over hundreds of years themselves indicate the speed of light is slowing down beyond the margin of error of the increasingly improved ability to make such observations.

These bullies and their stooges were merciless. They invoked one straw man argument after another. Claiming the size of the universe proves that it is 13.8 billion years old.

Then Hubble Telescope presented these bullies with a real problem. The universe is 46 billion light years in every direction. For light to have traveled all that way in only 13 billion years means it had to be faster in the past. And using the cosine squared curve presented in Setterfield's and Norman's work (which is way way over my head) the speed of light could have been as much as 10 million times faster (some 10 thousand years ago) than it is today.

So there is nothing to prove the universe and earth are older than 7 - 10 thousand years old.

 

YEC like to fudge the numbers.  Are they claiming 6000 years?  7000 years?  10000 years?  Can't YEC agree on a number?

Speed of Light

If you slowed the speed of light, that gives even more credence to OEC.  The time would be longer for observation.

So the light we now see from 46 billion light years away shouldn't be able to be seen yet?

Think!

Light isn't the only method in measuring distance between space objects and us.  Consider Quasars.  We have yet to see quasars but we know they are there from energy readings the equivalent of 10 galaxies or so.  God's Glory is beyond our imagination.

Quasars

Edited November 9, 2015 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[enoob57]

Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman have been soundly trounced by the macro evolution bullies for their paper on the decay of c.

They simply showed how the scientific observations over hundreds of years themselves indicate the speed of light is slowing down beyond the margin of error of the increasingly improved ability to make such observations.

These bullies and their stooges were merciless. They invoked one straw man argument after another. Claiming the size of the universe proves that it is 13.8 billion years old.

Then Hubble Telescope presented these bullies with a real problem. The universe is 46 billion light years in every direction. For light to have traveled all that way in only 13 billion years means it had to be faster in the past. And using the cosine squared curve presented in Setterfield's and Norman's work (which is way way over my head) the speed of light could have been as much as 10 million times faster (some 10 thousand years ago) than it is today.

So there is nothing to prove the universe and earth are older than 7 - 10 thousand years old.

 

YEC like to fudge the numbers.  Are they claiming 6000 years?  7000 years?  10000 years?  Can't YEC agree on a number?

Speed of Light

If you slowed the speed of light, that gives even more credence to OEC.  The time would be longer for observation.

So the light we now see from 46 billion light years away shouldn't be able to be seen yet?

Think!

Light isn't the only method in measuring distance between space objects and us.  Consider Quasars.  We have yet to see quasars but we know they are there from energy readings the equivalent of 10 galaxies or so.  God's Glory is beyond our imagination.

Quasars

God subjected the creation to Himself not Himself to the creation!

[SavedOnebyGrace]

oh,   this is pretty simple too, and answers many questions : (SURPRISE!   SCRIPTURE ! ) 

Genesis 3Expanded Bible (EXB)

The Beginning of Sin

3 Now the ·snake [serpent] was the most ·clever [shrewd; cunning; crafty] of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day the snake said to the woman, “Did God really say that you must not eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”

² The woman answered the snake [3:1], “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden. ³ But God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden [^Cthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil]. You must not even touch it [^CEve was adding to the divine command], or you will die.’ ”

⁴ But the snake [3:1] said to the woman, “You will [^Lmost certainly] not die. ⁵ [^LFor] God knows that if you eat ·the fruit from that tree[^Lfrom it], [^Lyour eyes will be opened and] you will ·learn about [experience; ^Lknow about] good and evil and you will be like God!”

⁶ The woman saw that the tree was ·beautiful [^Lpleasing to the eyes], that its fruit was good ·to eat [^Lfor food], and that it would make her wise. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of the fruit to her husband who was with her [^Capparently he was present but silent while the woman spoke to the snake], and he ate it.

⁷ Then, ·it was as if their eyes [^Lthe eyes of both of them] were opened. They ·realized [knew] they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made ·something to cover [^Lloincloths for] themselves [Rom. 5:12–21].

⁸ Then they heard the [^Lsound of the] Lord God walking in the garden during the cool part of the day, and the man and his wife hid from the Lord God among the trees in the garden. ⁹ But the Lord God called to the man and said, “Where are you?”

¹⁰ The man answered, “I heard ·you walking in the garden [^Lyour voice/sound], and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”

¹¹ ·God [^LHe] asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?”

¹² The man said, “You gave this woman to me and she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

¹³ Then the Lord God said to the woman, “·How could you have done such a thing [What is this you have done]?”

She answered, “The snake ·tricked [deceived; 1 Tim. 2:14] me, so I ate the fruit.”

¹⁴ The Lord God said to the ·snake [serpent],

“Because you did this,
    a curse will be put on you.
    You will be cursed as no other animal, ·tame [beasts; livestock] or ·wild [^Lof the field], will ever be.
You will ·crawl [go] on your ·stomach [belly],
    and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
¹⁵ I will ·make you and the woman
    enemies to each other [^Tplace hostility/enmity between you and the woman].
Your ·descendants [^Lseed] and her ·descendants [^Lseed]
    will be enemies.
·One of her descendants [^LHe] will crush your head,
    and you will ·bite [strike; ^Tbruise; ^Lcrush] his heel [Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9].”

¹⁶ Then God said to the woman,

“I will ·cause you to have much trouble [or increase your pain]
    ·when you are pregnant [in childbearing],
and when you give birth to children,
    you will have great pain.
You will greatly desire [^Cthe word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband,
    but he will rule over you.”

¹⁷ Then God said to ·the man [or Adam; 1:27], “You listened to what your wife said, and you ate fruit from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat.

“·So I will put a curse on [Cursed is] the ground,
    and you will have to ·work very hard [toil; labor] for your food.
In pain you will eat its food
    all the days of your life.
¹⁸ The ground will produce thorns and ·weeds [thistles] for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
¹⁹ ·You will sweat and work hard for [^LBy the sweat of your brow you will eat] your food.
Later you will return to the ground,
    because you were taken from it.
You are dust,
    and ·when you die, you will return to the dust [^Tto dust you will return; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 40–45].”

²⁰ The man named his wife Eve [^Cthe name derives from an early form of the verb “to live”], because she was the mother of all the living.

Speak clealy simplejeff.  What do you think you are proving by this?  Have I once said I supported evolution?  The answer is no.  Does this verse prove that Lucifer didn't fall before Genesis 1:2?  The answer again is no.  Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrit by using an expanded version of Genesis 3, while I see a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with restoration starting in Genesis 1:3?  You've used many words to say nothing new.  Do you have a point?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman have been soundly trounced by the macro evolution bullies for their paper on the decay of c.

They simply showed how the scientific observations over hundreds of years themselves indicate the speed of light is slowing down beyond the margin of error of the increasingly improved ability to make such observations.

These bullies and their stooges were merciless. They invoked one straw man argument after another. Claiming the size of the universe proves that it is 13.8 billion years old.

Then Hubble Telescope presented these bullies with a real problem. The universe is 46 billion light years in every direction. For light to have traveled all that way in only 13 billion years means it had to be faster in the past. And using the cosine squared curve presented in Setterfield's and Norman's work (which is way way over my head) the speed of light could have been as much as 10 million times faster (some 10 thousand years ago) than it is today.

So there is nothing to prove the universe and earth are older than 7 - 10 thousand years old.

 

YEC like to fudge the numbers.  Are they claiming 6000 years?  7000 years?  10000 years?  Can't YEC agree on a number?

Speed of Light

If you slowed the speed of light, that gives even more credence to OEC.  The time would be longer for observation.

So the light we now see from 46 billion light years away shouldn't be able to be seen yet?

Think!

Light isn't the only method in measuring distance between space objects and us.  Consider Quasars.  We have yet to see quasars but we know they are there from energy readings the equivalent of 10 galaxies or so.  God's Glory is beyond our imagination.

Quasars

God subjected the creation to Himself not Himself to the creation!

I believe God is outside of time and creation (this universe).  I don't know what point you think you're making.  God violating His creative work's framework would be essentially God admitting He made a mistake!  My God doesn't make mistakes.

[Kan]

 

 

 

Your questions are reasonable, from our perspective and experience of what can be, but the Bible is just stating the truth, and so if it surpasses anything we know, we are challenged to accept it and investigate it. However, if we are inclined to study by faith rather than doubt, we will find out amazing things about the creation and the first humans. 

About naming the animals, it is not too mysterious, because God "brought" the animals to Adam. Notice that whatever he named them, was its name. So God already had a name for each animal, and Adam named them the same as God, it proved that he was made after the image of God.

Each animal was named after the impression it left on Adam's mind. When he looked at each animal, he noticed everything about it, and also sensed everything about it, from its demeanor, purpose and to its overall expression of love. The name he gave to each animal was a description of its essence as part of the whole creation.

We could talk about Adam in detail, and find out some of the things he was capable of, but again it doesn't take any investigation to understand that, because by faith we know he was made like God. That says everything doesn't it?

To think that God will restore sinners to that original majestic state should be a great motive to praise God, to realize that what we go through on earth cannot be compared to the glory which will be revealed in us.

So you're saying God named the animals and Adam had no choice in the matter.

No. My post does not suggest that either.

Genesis 2:19 "...and whatsoever Adam called every creature, that was the name thereof."

That could mean that the name stuck after Adam named it, or that it already had a name, or both at the same time. 

God brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them:" Having made him in His own image, there was the moment of delight in that Adam thought and spoke the intended impact that the animal had on him, and named them accordingly. 

The names Adam gave each animal, had a corresponding meaning, it was not an exercise in how may different names Adam could make up, as people do. What he said about his partner is indicative of this- 2:23. Again, later Adam names his wife "Eve," 3:20, meaning "the mother of all living" or simply "life/giver."

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

I do not believe the prehistoric and current animal kingdoms could move that fast.  In any event, you are speculating beyond Holy Scripture what you cannot understand from scripture.  I'm in the same boat as you even though I believe in an OEC.  I still believe in the 6-24 hour days of restoration, as you believe in 6-24 hour days of original creation.  And furthermore, we both believe in a literal interpretation of Holy Scripture.  I believe we are both missing something here, but I'm not arguing just to be arguing.  I don't believe Adam was a computer like human, and there is no evidence that angels were either.  Just speaking the name would take some large amount of time unless you are advocating evolution.  What it is we are both missing is beyond my abilities to explain.  Maybe beast of the field does not mean the whole animal kingdom.  Just a thought.  I don't think we can resolve this with the scriptural information we now have.  That doesn't mean it's not true.  Am I making sense to you?

Your questions are reasonable, from our perspective and experience of what can be, but the Bible is just stating the truth, and so if it surpasses anything we know, we are challenged to accept it and investigate it. However, if we are inclined to study by faith rather than doubt, we will find out amazing things about the creation and the first humans. 

About naming the animals, it is not too mysterious, because God "brought" the animals to Adam. Notice that whatever he named them, was its name. So God already had a name for each animal, and Adam named them the same as God, it proved that he was made after the image of God.

Each animal was named after the impression it left on Adam's mind. When he looked at each animal, he noticed everything about it, and also sensed everything about it, from its demeanor, purpose and to its overall expression of love. The name he gave to each animal was a description of its essence as part of the whole creation.

We could talk about Adam in detail, and find out some of the things he was capable of, but again it doesn't take any investigation to understand that, because by faith we know he was made like God. That says everything doesn't it?

To think that God will restore sinners to that original majestic state should be a great motive to praise God, to realize that what we go through on earth cannot be compared to the glory which will be revealed in us.

So you're saying God named the animals and Adam had no choice in the matter.

No. My post does not suggest that either.

Genesis 2:19 "...and whatsoever Adam called every creature, that was the name thereof."

That could mean that the name stuck after Adam named it, or that it already had a name, or both at the same time. 

God brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them:" Having made him in His own image, there was the moment of delight in that Adam thought and spoke the intended impact that the animal had on him, and named them accordingly. 

The names Adam gave each animal, had a corresponding meaning, it was not an exercise in how may different names Adam could make up, as people do. What he said about his partner is indicative of this- 2:23. Again, later Adam names his wife "Eve," 3:20, meaning "the mother of all living" or simply "life/giver."

I misunderstood what you were saying.  I think you are presuming a bit beyond what's in the Biblical text, but I don't have any real problem with what you've written here.  My problem with this text is two-fold: 1) how long would it take Adam to name all the beasts of the field; and 2) does beasts of the field mean every animal species.  Let's say there are roughly 8.7 million species on earth (current estimate).  At one second per beast, that would take you (or Adam) about 9 months given a seven day week - 8 hour work day.  No wonder Adam wanted a helper.  God would have to teleport each animal in for Adam to see and name.  A second doesn't seem quite long enough.

[Hippie333]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY do not want to close this thread.... consider this me pleading with all involved to stop with the insults... and just discuss it.  If this is how we handle ourselves within a group of believing Christians....what kind of witness do we make to those that are not?

 

God Bless,

Hip

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY do not want to close this thread.... consider this me pleading with all involved to stop with the insults... and just discuss it.  If this is how we handle ourselves within a group of believing Christians....what kind of witness do we make to those that are not?

 

God Bless,

Hip

Amen Hip. I have asked the same on the other similar thread.