Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: It's clear from what I wrote, but I'll spell it out for you. Scientists have detected the signature of stars that have gone supernova, and they no ahead of time when this will be visible on Earth. No, my question is, why would God have to act deceptively? Why is it the case that God would have to create a beam of light with no source? That claim is one I don't understand. God created stars, and other heavenly bodies, not beams of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghtan Posted September 22, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 422 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2017 19 hours ago, Teditis said: I agree 100% with that view... though I don't think that God made it look as though it was billions of years old in order to confuse people... He made it the way He made it and "pop" scientists have just made up the billions of years in order to justify the theory of Evolution. Some people do argue that God might be deceitful if he made an earth that looks old. But I think that charge is not valid because God has openly told us that he created it over 6 days. Do you know any other objection to this approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghtan Posted September 22, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 422 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2017 19 hours ago, shiloh357 said: God did not make the earth look billions of years old. What He did, was make the earth and all it contains, functionally mature. To make the earth billions of years old, would mean that the earth would have the appearance of decay and wear. There would be things like water and wind erosion on rocks, for example. We don't need to reconcile the Bible with science because science is not the infallible standard against which we judge the Bible. Rather it is science that is judged by Scripture. I don’t understand. What is the difference between looking old and functionally mature? Why can’t God also make the earth have the appearance of decay and wear? I think we do need to try to reconcile the bible to science, because we have the responsibility to explain the bible to the lost. They may not listen if we simply dismiss science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, ghtan said: I don’t understand. What is the difference between looking old and functionally mature? It's like the difference between a man who is 30 years old and the same man 40 years later. The 70 year old will have things like wrinkles, gray hair, cracked teeth, scars from surgery, failing eyesight or hearing, etc. He has the signs of age. God did not create Adam "old." He created him mature. All of the fruit/food bearing vegetation, were created "mature" with fruit/vegetables with their seeds in them. Animals were created "mature" and able to reproduce. The same applies to Adam. Adam was created as a fully functional adult. The earth was created with all of its functionality already intact. It was not created with evidence of water or land erosion, or the scars of earth quakes and natural disasters. The earth was created, ready to support the life God placed upon it. Quote Why can’t God also make the earth have the appearance of decay and wear? He can, but he didn't. Quote I think we do need to try to reconcile the bible to science, because we have the responsibility to explain the bible to the lost. They may not listen if we simply dismiss science. No one is dismissing science. We don't reconcile the Bible to science. We reconcile science to the Bible. To reconcile the Bible to science means that science is the standard the Bible must live up to. We have ascribed infallibility to science. The problem has been that if science and the Bible don't agree, we feel we need to fix the Bible so that the Bible lines up with science. The Bible is thus,true only insofar as it agrees with science. And you know what? We have NO responsibility to explain the Bible to the lost. Nowhere does God task us with that. We are tasked with giving them the Gospel. We are not commanded by God to answer all of their questions, and make them understand the Bible. If they reject the message of the Gospel, that is between them and God. We are not responsible for getting people saved, we are responsible for preaching. What they do with the message is up to them. The only one who can save and convince anyone of the truth is the Holy Spirit and we need stop usurping the role of the Holy Spirit by thinking it is our job to convince people of the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghtan Posted September 22, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 422 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: It's like the difference between a man who is 30 years old and the same man 40 years later. The 70 year old will have things like wrinkles, gray hair, cracked teeth, scars from surgery, failing eyesight or hearing, etc. He has the signs of age. God did not create Adam "old." He created him mature. All of the fruit/food bearing vegetation, were created "mature" with fruit/vegetables with their seeds in them. Animals were created "mature" and able to reproduce. The same applies to Adam. Adam was created as a fully functional adult. The earth was created with all of its functionality already intact. It was not created with evidence of water or land erosion, or the scars of earth quakes and natural disasters. The earth was created, ready to support the life God placed upon it. He can, but he didn't. No one is dismissing science. We don't reconcile the Bible to science. We reconcile science to the Bible. To reconcile the Bible to science means that science is the standard the Bible must live up to. We have ascribed infallibility to science. The problem has been that if science and the Bible don't agree, we feel we need to fix the Bible so that the Bible lines up with science. The Bible is thus,true only insofar as it agrees with science. And you know what? We have NO responsibility to explain the Bible to the lost. Nowhere does God task us with that. We are tasked with giving them the Gospel. We are not commanded by God to answer all of their questions, and make them understand the Bible. If they reject the message of the Gospel, that is between them and God. We are not responsible for getting people saved, we are responsible for preaching. What they do with the message is up to them. The only one who can save and convince anyone of the truth is the Holy Spirit and we need stop usurping the role of the Holy Spirit by thinking it is our job to convince people of the truth. Well, we obviously have very different views of our responsibility as believers. But that is not the subject of this thread. Is there reason to believe God did not make an earth that displays decay and wear? Daniel 7 describes God with white hair and calls him the ancient of days. Doesn't sound like God mind looking old. So why wouldn't he create an earth that looked old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, ghtan said: Is there reason to believe God did not make an earth that displays decay and wear? There is no reason to think he would do that. Why would He? Quote Daniel 7 describes God with white hair and calls him the ancient of days. Doesn't sound like God mind looking old. So why wouldn't he create an earth that looked old? It is not describing God as old, but as timeless. You're the one with the burden to prove the earth was created to look billions of years old. Unless you have evidence to support that view, there is no logical reason to accept it. Quote Well, we obviously have very different views of our responsibility as believers. Yes, and mine is based on Scripture; yours is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted September 22, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2017 13 hours ago, shiloh357 said: No, my question is, why would God have to act deceptively? Why is it the case that God would have to create a beam of light with no source? That claim is one I don't understand. God created stars, and other heavenly bodies, not beams of light. That's my point. God would not act deceptively. That's why the Young Earth Creationist argument is wrong, unless you're going to rewrite the Bible. There are objects in space that have already quit giving off light, radiation, etc. These objects are gone, maybe supernova, black holes, or by other means. But, according to YEC, these objects were created during the 6000 years we've been on planet Earth. But the objects in question are much older than that. So you either believe God is a deceiver, or you believe the Earth and this universe are much older. The YEC argument of created with age is pure deception from YEC which is why some scientists of faith are not respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: That's my point. God would not act deceptively. That's why the Young Earth Creationist argument is wrong, unless you're going to rewrite the Bible. That would only be true IF the earth showed signs of billions of years of age, erosion, etc. at the moment of creation. Quote There are objects in space that have already quit giving off light, radiation, etc. These objects are gone, maybe supernova, black holes, or by other means. But, according to YEC, these objects were created during the 6000 years we've been on planet Earth. But the objects in question are much older than that. But how do they know that? How do they measure the age of a star, given that we can't visit a star? And since our dating methods for the earth (radio carbon, carbon 14) are all over the page and cannot be relied upon to give consistent accurate dates, how can we trust that science can consistently and accurately date the stars and other heavenly bodies? Quote So you either believe God is a deceiver, or you believe the Earth and this universe are much older. The YEC argument of created with age is pure deception from YEC which is why some scientists of faith are not respected. I don't know of any YEC that says the earth was created with age, at least not a credible one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted September 22, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: That would only be true IF the earth showed signs of billions of years of age, erosion, etc. at the moment of creation. How long is a moment for God? 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: But how do they know that? How do they measure the age of a star, given that we can't visit a star? And since our dating methods for the earth (radio carbon, carbon 14) are all over the page and cannot be relied upon to give consistent accurate dates, how can we trust that science can consistently and accurately date the stars and other heavenly bodies? There are a plethora of measurement techniques which prove the accuracy of our current dating methods. I'd list them for you but I don't think you care. You just want to argue an unwinnable argument. 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: I don't know of any YEC that says the earth was created with age, at least not a credible one. You don't know many YEC. I am done with this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: How long is a moment for God? That is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the earth showing signs of age. Quote There are a plethora of measurement techniques which prove the accuracy of our current dating methods. I'd list them for you but I don't think you care. You just want to argue an unwinnable argument. actually, I do care. But so far, all of our dating methods have proven inconsistent. They have dated trees that are less than 30 years old as being 2 million years old. Volcanic rock that was formed in the 70s were dated as being millions of years old, as well. So there are some real discrepancies. So I would be interested in knowing what kinds of measurement techniques exist that prove that our current dating is accurate despite those discrepancies. Quote You don't know many YEC. I am done with this conversation. I a know A LOT of YEC's and none of them claim that the earth was created to appear old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts