Genesis 1:2-12 and the Hydrologic Cycle

[SoCalExile]

A third contender emerges:

http://www.slideshare.net/SarahSalviand ... s-63120073

After a quick read, it looks like Schroeder's Creation Perspective. Not quite an "emerging" third contender. If you'll excuse the comparison, it's more like a third fighter who is a "never was", and really had no chance in the creation boxing ring.

For whatever reason, Schroeder's beliefs never really gained any traction.

From what basic reading I've done about it, I understand it to be a kind of compromise between YEC and day age/progressive creation.

Look again more closely.

It's a reasonable analysis on how God created in six days yet did it with billions of years of age. It call comes down to the wavelength of light as the source of timing. As the universe was stretched out, the wavelength grew and time effectively slowed. BTW don't confuse time with the passage of days.

What was Jesus' first miracle? Creating something with age instantly. It's the same thing.

[RickD]

A third contender emerges:

http://www.slideshare.net/SarahSalviand ... s-63120073

After a quick read, it looks like Schroeder's Creation Perspective. Not quite an "emerging" third contender. If you'll excuse the comparison, it's more like a third fighter who is a "never was", and really had no chance in the creation boxing ring.

For whatever reason, Schroeder's beliefs never really gained any traction.

From what basic reading I've done about it, I understand it to be a kind of compromise between YEC and day age/progressive creation.

Look again more closely.

It's a reasonable analysis on how God created in six days yet did it with billions of years of age. It call comes down to the wavelength of light as the source of timing. As the universe was stretched out, the wavelength grew and time effectively slowed. BTW don't confuse time with the passage of days.

What was Jesus' first miracle? Creating something with age instantly. It's the same thing.

As far as the wavelength stuff, I did read it, but it didn't really make much sense to me tbh. I just have no idea if what he says about that is even realistic. I tend to think not, if only because nobody else is promoting it.

And if I remember correctly, Jesus's first miracle in scripture was turning water into wine. I don't see how turning water into wine means the wine has age. Is there something in the text that I missed, that says he made old wine? Kinda sounds like the YEC argument that Adam was created with age.

Edit***
If you're pretty knowledgeable about Schroeder's beliefs, you can start a thread about it. Provide a link to the beliefs, and those who are interested, can look it over and give their take on it. Fwiw, from a brief search on reasons.org, it seems Hugh Ross has worked with Gerald Schroeder. At least the two of them seem to have an amicable relationship.

[SoCalExile]

You can't have wine without age. It's the central ingredient.

[RickD]

You can't have wine without age. It's the central ingredient.

I thought the central ingredient of wine, is grapes. So, let's use your logic and take it to its conclusion. The text says that Jesus simply turned water into wine, and calls it a miracle. Using your logic that aging is necessary for wine, we also know grapes(or fruit) is also necessary for wine. Following your logic further, I'd gather that you don't think that Jesus took the jugs of water and turned them into wine, but you think he actually took the water, added grapes, and quickly aged and fermented the wine?

I hope you really look at where your "can't have wine without age" logic leads.

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement here. The same kind of fundamental disagreement I have with YECs who say God made the universe 6-10 thousand years ago, but made it look old. Jesus turned water into wine, very quickly at a wedding, but you believe it's an aged wine.

Really looks like you're reading something into the text that isn't there. From the text, we know the wine that Jesus turned from water, was thought to be the best wine. What we don't know, is that it was aged wine. It's pretty logical to me, that God incarnate could make the wine "the best" without aging it. But hey, I also believe the universe is old. Not that it appears aged.

[Jac3510]

I think you missed his point, Rick, because your illustration just proved it. Wine is just fermented grape juice, so you necessarily need grapes (that is, the juice) and the time for it to ferment. If I pick up a glass of wine, I can "date" the grapes. I know that it took X amount of time for it to ferment. And I know a bottle of wine would have required I grow this many grapes, and that, depending on various conditions, a vineyard could grow that in this amount of time and in that season. Thus I could reasonably estimate the number of years "back" from the wine.

Now, if you picked up a bottle of Jesus Wine and you tried that dating method, you'd be wrong. And then some Old Wine Creationists would accuse Young Wine Creationists of having a deceptive God, because, clearly, since the wine exists, and since God would never deceive, then obviously the vineyard did exist X number of years ago.

Kind of silly. But so is the argument against appearance of age for the same reason.

[RickD]

I think you missed his point, Rick, because your illustration just proved it. Wine is just fermented grape juice, so you necessarily need grapes (that is, the juice) and the time for it to ferment. If I pick up a glass of wine, I can "date" the grapes. I know that it took X amount of time for it to ferment. And I know a bottle of wine would have required I grow this many grapes, and that, depending on various conditions, a vineyard could grow that in this amount of time and in that season. Thus I could reasonably estimate the number of years "back" from the wine.

Now, if you picked up a bottle of Jesus Wine and you tried that dating method, you'd be wrong. And then some Old Wine Creationists would accuse Young Wine Creationists of having a deceptive God, because, clearly, since the wine exists, and since God would never deceive, then obviously the vineyard did exist X number of years ago.

Kind of silly. But so is the argument against appearance of age for the same reason.

Jac,

That's the same stupid argument that theophilus keeps using about Adam having the appearance of age. It just isn't the same as the universe or earth looking old. Why would the wine have an appearance of age? Same question about Adam. Assume he was created as a full grown man. He still wouldn't have all the things that we use now, to tell if someone is a certain age. Anyone who would have studied Adam, would've seen he didn't have age spots, wrinkles that come with age, rotten teeth, calloused hands, scars from injuries, etc.

In the same way, someone who knows wine would look at the wine and realize it wasn't old. Jesus made wine from water. He didn't make aged wine. Jesus didn't need grapes and time to ferment the wine. Of course, if you want to say he used grapes, you can, but you ain't getting that from the text.

Again, in the same way that if God created Adam as a fully grown man, you'd be wrong to assume He used sperm and an egg to make him. And you'd be wrong to see age, as a typical fully grown man would need if his birth and growth was natural.

Adam created fully grown, without signs of age, was a miracle, and not natural.
The wine created from water, fully fermented, without signs of age, was also a miracle. And not the natural way wine was made.

[Jac3510]

Your rebuttal doesn't work, Rick. Just because Adam might not have had this or that evidence of aging (and more on the type you are suggesting in a second, because you are here begging the question) doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had the appearance of age. Are you seriously going to suggest that a brand new Adam, created "fully grown" and fully functioning would not appear older than a newborn infant? Don't be ACB. When we studied him in some detail and found that he didn't have some of those age markers, they would be regarded as the oddity. We wouldn't say, "Hmm, how does this new born look really old?" We'd say, "Why does this old guy not have these aspects of his age?"

But now let's revisit the things you are talking about, wrinkles, spots, etc. That's not a sign of aging. That's a sign of decay. A human body that was perfectly regenerated every day wouldn't any of those features, either. So those signs, YECs say, are marks of the Fall. So by appealing to them, you are begging the question.

But let's press this now one step further, both with Adam and with the bottle of wine. You say that appearance of age makes God deceptive, a liar, that such a god is not the God of the Bible (or at least, Rich does--he ought to be condemned for such divisive rhetoric, too). And yet "his" God does the same. Suppose Adam is created fully formed, adult, and so on. So what about his baby teeth? Apparently he was created with his adult teeth. But all humans go through baby teeth. So Adam was created with a "false history," right? You'd look at Adam and assume there must have been baby teeth that were never there. Or what about his chromosomes? He is created with 46, right? But there's that false history, because what about the egg and sperm he came from? They didn't exist, but that's how humans come to be. What about the old joke about the belly button? If he had one, that's another false history. So fine, he didn't have one of those (note that you have to say that, because, again, you'd be accusing God of making a false history).

More fun, and here's a biggie: how about his immunity? So you say that death and disease have always been in the world. So God creates Adam totally fresh, a fully functional human. Guess what kind of immune system a newborn has. Pretty much nothing. And how do you think we get our immunity? Our bodies develop them. So either God creates Adam with a fully function immune system (another false history), or He doesn't and then sends Adam out into the world of viruses and bacteria. And yet somehow Adam's immune system lets him live like that for hundreds of years. Hmm. Smells fishy to me.

We could keep going. "New born" Adam can walk and lift his head. But humans don't have that capacity at first. They have to build those muscles up by using them. False history. Another one: Adam's finger nails. All false history, there. Those are dead cells. Dead cells, by definition, used to be alive. So God gave Adam the false history of having live cells he never had? We could do this for pages and pages and pages, Rick. Fact is, in creating Adam fully formed, God gave Adam a false history by Rich's stupid and offensive argument.

And the same could be said about the wine, as I've already suggested. Wine presumes grapes. So a Young Wine Creationist says that Jesus created the wine with appearance of age. And Old Wine Creationist says, "Bah--you have a false god. Your god has created a false history. Since the grapes never existed that the wine came from, but the wine presumes grapes and time for the sugar to ferment, then your god is deceptive." That's a stupid position. But then again, so is Rich's argument. It's dishonest. It's slanderous. It's irrational because it begs the question (insofar as you take away death and decay, you take away a lot of the argument for a very old universe).

So we can agree to disagree. You can think the rebuttal is stupid. I'm telling you that, in my opinion, the argument itself against the appearance of age is so stupid that it ought to be banned from these boards (literally, no exaggeration here) for being what it is: an attempt to belittle and slander fellow believers.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! *shrug*

[RickD]

Thanks for the post Jac. You left me with quite a bit to respond to, and hopefully I can get to it later on today.

[B. W.]

Gen 1:31, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." NASB

The words translated very good imply clearly that God did not create Adam with the appearance of an old geeezer with flaws of growth of age.

Now we are being told that within 24 hours of Adam's fall he aged and had wrinkles

...and no, YEC's, we are not saying YEC's worship a false God at all.
-
-
-

[Philip]

Holding up Adam as an analogy for how the earth and universe could LOOK old but be very young is not a good one. For one, he is not held up as an example of God's creation to be studied to determine such things, and God knew that those living in his time would not think to do so nor would have any capacity to do so, or even care. Plus the way Adam was created, the wine in Cana, were both miraculous creations that are not the way God typically does things. Across Scripture, the far more typical way things play out are NOT instantaneous/miraculous, but play out according to the natural processes and parameters in which God set up. Adam's creation, in the way it occurred, had a purpose. And he had no human parents to raise and care for him. And VERY key, we are TOLD how Adam, and later, Eve, were created. No, God does not tell us everything He has done, but still, we must recognize that miraculous processes are not the norm for how God works. So, while God might START something new and miraculously, what we mostly see is that, subsequently, natural processes playing out in real time. And processes playing out in real time leave REAL evidences!

The issue of those who would say God making a universe that only LOOKS ancient (but that is very young) would be deceptive - that's not a smart way of looking at it. That's asserting that God shouldn't do things however He wants to or that He owes us any explanations as to HOW He did so. Really, the entirety of Creation is miraculous - whether it played out in what ever length of time, so I don't get hung up over that.

But there are important things to consider: The Creation IS another TESTIMONY to God's handiwork. And God obviously knew that mankind would become obsessed with studying it, and that He would eventually give us the understandings and tools to carefully study it, with the scientific method and through the many technical tools and understandings gained through exhaustive studies of the minutia of the Creation. He knew that we would SINCERELY want to know the truths gained through the study of the Creation. And the scientific method is ONLY possible because 1) of how God made the processes to work, and 2) because these processes, their functions and designs, individually and interactively, show incredible precision and consistency into how they operate. Constant or high levels of unpredictable randomness would render the scientific method useless.

So, God knew that we would TRULY want to know and seek the truths about the earth and universe. He allowed us the tools to do so. Consistency of how things work make that possible. The incredible level of consistency of processes AND the fact that God gave us both the intellect and these scientific methodologies, and also has given us the example that (within reason) the scientific method is highly reliable in the returning accurate results - not always perfect, sometimes perplexing, but with a phenomenal level of showing these methodologies should be perceived as giving us important clues and many validations to the things we study.

So, God gave us the tools, the consistency of process, and knew we'd massively study this OTHER testimony on both a global and galactic scale. He's given us good reason to respect the abilities and tools related to scientific analysis that He's allowed us to develop. So, would God expect us to merely ignore the conclusions and massive consistency and data correlations, HE made possible, and provided through mankind's sincere efforts in studying His OTHER testimony? HE has given us the tools, shown how reliable they can be, and they show remarkable consistency across so many disciplines, all revealing, what, FALSE conclusions gained through an obsessive seeking of truth of the matter???!!!

God has given us the tools referenced above, the ability to use them, shown we can have confidence in their results, allowed an immense level of data from many, many fields of study, geologic and astronomic data and observations that show us, WHAT, the polar opposite of the truth of the earth's true age? You see, it is both the mountain of data AND that the data all correlates with the very same conclusions. Would God give us these many marvelous tools and methods, knowing we would so intensely study His handiwork, and yet have us simply ignore and have no trust that we could have gained ANY hint of accuracy over such massive validations, ALL agreeing upon the same thing - as to the age issue?

I don't believe God wants us to view His TESTIMONIES of Scripture and what can be learned by methodical and massive studying of His Creation as being at ODDS with each other! Would God want us to have such an intense desire to know the truth of His handiwork and yet also deny us an essential truth of something we've sought so long and hard? Because if the YEC view is definitive, it means God would want us to simply ignore a key understanding gained by globally and methodically studying His Creation, AND not to trust it - even though He's allowed us good reason to respect highly consistent and correlating validations using tools know to have a high degree of trust. So, why not trust BOTH? As this is not an issue of denying God, or that He created the world and universe, or that Jesus is God, that the Gospel isn't true, that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation, that we shouldn't love all men equally - it's none of these far more important understandings we're speaking of. So why would God want us to totally miss something we really want to know the truth of. And the divide is NOT only unbelievers on one side and believers on the other. It's also NOT those who take Scripture as being God-breathed and true on one side and those who disbelieve it on the other.

Often, when there is great controversy over the things considered to be true, there is massive disagreement over various data and conclusions. If science has collectively massively missed such a basic yet important fact of the universe and earth, it is not because man doesn't want to know the truth! It's not as there are great conflicts with the data, or great uncertainty between various and specialized scientific fields of study. If science has wrongly concluded the polar opposite of the truth of the age of the earth and universe, this tells me God wants us to ignore a key component of what our sincere quest to know has revealed to us. He's allowed us the tools, shown us they are reasonably trustworthy, but also wants us to ignore what they massively agree and show us to be true??? Because IF our exhaustive studies both agree and have entirely missed a powerful understanding (especially considering its potential ramifications for understanding Scripture), this cannot be an accident, and so it is purposefully hidden from us. That is not an accusation but a reasonable deduction. But if God wants us to know the truth, has given us multiple ways of finding it, would they be in disagreement - and so radically so? Why would God not want us to confirm a truth in Scripture by also intensively studying His Creation?

Much of this controversy is fed by what I see as cherry-picked literalism and those who have assumed that they KNOW both that certain descriptive things spoken of on a grand scale were meant to be BOTH literal AND scientifically understood, AND that the purposes were NOT to BOTH an original audience, in it's pre-scientific context and understandings, their absorption of 200 years of pagan creation teachings, AND a modern, scientific age audience in which God obviously was ALSO speaking to. It's not an EITHER/OR as to whom God was speaking. And such an interpretation basis, I see as faulty. YES, it has to make sense to the original audience and what they understood and knew - YET not EXCLUSIVELY so!

And we know that, PER A LITERAL READING OF THE TEXT, the Creation week was no ordinary one. We know God works on His own time and that He is an eternal Being for Whom time is irrelevant/but a tool. And He never tells us that a Creation "day" in Genesis is a 24-hour one! NEVER! These should give us caution when assuming literal, what may well have been otherwise, or might have been meant for other purposes and understandings. Being dogmatic about these, particularly whenever one asserts their importance as being FAR beyond what they truly are, or uses them to accuse others (WHICHEVER side of the YEC/OEC controversy they are on) is relentlessly destructive to the body of Christ!

THE END (I wish! )

[RickD]

Ok,

Let's see if I can get through this without putting everyone to sleep. And please don't take the joking personally. It's my way of trying to keep what I say interesting, as well as showing that I enjoy the discussion, and it's not personal in any way. Just a friendly discussion between two Brothers in Christ.

Jac wrote:

Your rebuttal doesn't work, Rick. Just because Adam might not have had this or that evidence of aging (and more on the type you are suggesting in a second, because you are here begging the question) doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had the appearance of age. Are you seriously going to suggest that a brand new Adam, created "fully grown" and fully functioning would not appear older than a newborn infant? Don't be ACB. When we studied him in some detail and found that he didn't have some of those age markers, they would be regarded as the oddity. We wouldn't say, "Hmm, how does this new born look really old?" We'd say, "Why does this old guy not have these aspects of his age?"

To your first question, if I were competent enough to examine Adam by going back in time in the DeLorean, I would say that Adam looks fully grown, but not old. So, I guess I'd say he looks more grown than a newborn, but not necessarily older.

Instead of saying, "why does this old guy not have aspects of his age?", I'd tend to think we'd ask why this fully grown man doesn't show any signs of age. To help you understand better, think Mearth or Benjamin Button.

jac wrote:

But now let's revisit the things you are talking about, wrinkles, spots, etc. That's not a sign of aging. That's a sign of decay. A human body that was perfectly regenerated every day wouldn't any of those features, either. So those signs, YECs say, are marks of the Fall. So by appealing to them, you are begging the question.

Jac,

I know science isn't your specialty, but wrinkles, age spots, grey hair, etc. happen as people age. Therefore, they are signs of age. And living people usually don't decay. That happens when we die.
No question begging involved. It's called looking at the evidence of aging, then concluding someone has or has not aged.

jac wrote:

But let's press this now one step further, both with Adam and with the bottle of wine. You say that appearance of age makes God deceptive, a liar, that such a god is not the God of the Bible (or at least, Rich does--he ought to be condemned for such divisive rhetoric, too). And yet "his" God does the same.

I'm not sure I've ever said that I believe YECs worship a different God, just because they make God out to be deceptive.

jac wrote:
Suppose Adam is created fully formed, adult, and so on. So what about his baby teeth? Apparently he was created with his adult teeth. But all humans go through baby teeth. So Adam was created with a "false history," right? You'd look at Adam and assume there must have been baby teeth that were never there.

Jac,
You do realize that typically, humans are born, and then age, right? Which typically means we all have baby teeth before they fall out, and adult teeth replace them. If we assume Adam was created as a fully grown man, he probably didn't have baby teeth. Ever. I don't think that's too unreasonable to surmise. In fact, if a competent dentist examined Adam, I bet he would see that there was no evidence that Adam ever had baby teeth. Which would just be more evidence for Adam not aging.

Or what about his chromosomes? He is created with 46, right?

I have no reason to assume he was or wasn't. I really have no idea.

But there's that false history, because what about the egg and sperm he came from? They didn't exist, but that's how humans come to be.

Again,

That's how humans who are conceived, come to be. Are you arguing for Adam being conceived and born? Aren't we in agreement in at least the idea that Adam was created fully grown?

What about the old joke about the belly button? If he had one, that's another false history. So fine, he didn't have one of those (note that you have to say that, because, again, you'd be accusing God of making a false history).

I would assume that if Adam wasn't born, then no outie nor innie.

More fun, and here's a biggie: how about his immunity? So you say that death and disease have always been in the world. So God creates Adam totally fresh, a fully functional human. Guess what kind of immune system a newborn has. Pretty much nothing.

Just not true. At least according to this.

And how do you think we get our immunity? Our bodies develop them. So either God creates Adam with a fully function immune system (another false history), or He doesn't and then sends Adam out into the world of viruses and bacteria. And yet somehow Adam's immune system lets him live like that for hundreds of years. Hmm. Smells fishy to me.

Doesn't smell fishy to me. Smells kinda fruity. Like the fruit of the tree of life that Adam ate to keep him from dying physically. Who needs an immune system, when one has fruit from the tree of life? Sheesh Jac, how could you overlook that one?

We could keep going. "New born" Adam can walk and lift his head. But humans don't have that capacity at first. They have to build those muscles up by using them. False history.

If Adam was created fully grown, do you think God would've given him the neck strength of a newborn? Oh wait, you forgot about Adam's penis and sexual maturity. Adam must've gone through puberty, in order to be able to father children right? So, is that false history too? Or do ya think that maybe God created Adam as an adult?

Adam's finger nails. All false history, there. Those are dead cells. Dead cells, by definition, used to be alive. So God gave Adam the false history of having live cells he never had?

Um...not quite Jac. Fingernails and hair are made of keratin. Which is a protein made of dead cells. Fingernails are not alive, AND NEVER WERE. The cells that make the fingernails are alive.
A simple google search would've shown you this stuff Jac. It's not rocket surgery.

And the same could be said about the wine, as I've already suggested. Wine presumes grapes. So a Young Wine Creationist says that Jesus created the wine with appearance of age. And Old Wine Creationist says, "Bah--you have a false god. Your god has created a false history. Since the grapes never existed that the wine came from, but the wine presumes grapes and time for the sugar to ferment, then your god is deceptive." That's a stupid position. But then again, so is Rich's argument. It's dishonest. It's slanderous. It's irrational because it begs the question (insofar as you take away death and decay, you take away a lot of the argument for a very old universe).

Wine presumes grapes? Even wine that was instantly turned to wine, from water, miraculously by Jesus?

There's no appearance of age in the jugs of wine that were miraculously turned from water. There's only appearance of wine, where there used to be water.

So we can agree to disagree. You can think the rebuttal is stupid. I'm telling you that, in my opinion, the argument itself against the appearance of age is so stupid that it ought to be banned from these boards (literally, no exaggeration here) for being what it is: an attempt to belittle and slander fellow believers.

Jac,
With arguments like the ones you just presented, I can see why someone would want the subject banned. I can see how one wouldn't want the topic brought up, if that's all there is to offer against it. But I thought you like to be challenged. At the very least, it helps you strengthen you arguments. And at the most, if you honestly read what you're saying, maybe you'll come to your senses, and at least admit that your arguments don't hold water.

So yes. I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now.

But I will say one thing. Your points have gotten me thinking. Some of the things you brought up, got me thinking that TE may not be so wrong. Not that you were trying to, but you actually made some pretty good arguments for Adam actually being born.

[Jac3510]

Now we are being told that within 24 hours of Adam's fall he aged and had wrinkles

No, you aren't being told that. Quit misrepresenting YEC, ACB BW.

...and no, YEC's, we are not saying YEC's worship a false God at all.

I didn't say you said that. Again, quit misrepresenting. I said Rich said that. Allow me to quote:

• Appearance of age claims that God created a world with a false history. Such a claim is directly refuted by the Bible, which claims that God's creation declares His glory and righteousness. Nowhere does any biblical author make the claim that God's word contradicts any historical facts. Ultimately, the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible. A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me as a senior in high school. Assuming he was correct, I rejected the "God of the Bible" as being unworthy of my worship. It wasn't until many years later that I read the Bible for myself and came to faith in Jesus Christ - the God who is the truth - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

That's disgusting, and anyone who defends such rhetoric ought to be immediately banned under the board rules.

[SoCalExile]

BTW Rick, replace grapes with muscadines, and you get....muscadine wine. Age can't be substituted.

Now where did I put those potatoes....

[Philip]

Ultimately, the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God

I agree, that no matter the truth, God has not given us a false history! And such an assertion WOULD be an attack upon the character of God. However, that is a strawman, is it not, as YECs do not claim that. What they claim is that we have misperceived what we see and that per our countless tests and methodologies have produced an overwhelming consensus based upon wrong understandings of the data.

and cannot be tolerated within the Church!

Again, IF people were slandering God by saying that He's misled us - well, yes, that should not be tolerated. The problem is I think Rich here is going too far in what he is asserting YECs are asserting. For one, it's a showing an absolute faith in the ability of science to reveal the truth of the matter - even if it MIGHT be wrong. So, on both the OEC and YEC sides, we need to watch our mouths of what we assert about others who disagree with us. I'm far less concerned about the individual hurt feelings as much as I am the damage such back and forth is doing to the body of Christ. And part of the root of that is coming from both camps, as they assert the AGE of the Creation is far more important than it truly is. It sure isn't worth alienating and angering our fellow brothers in Christ.

The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible.

This is TRUE - God does not lie!

A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me as a senior in high school. Assuming he was correct, I rejected the "God of the Bible" as being unworthy of my worship. It wasn't until many years later that I read the Bible for myself and came to faith in Jesus Christ - the God who is the truth - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God?

Again, just as God did not tell us specifically that the universe is X amount of years old, or that the Days of Creation were ALL the same, OR all 24-hour ones, He also did not specifically make it clear that the universe is merely thousands of years old - at least not as written, amongst the possibilities of what the non-scientific and theological purposes might be. So to assert God misled is just WRONG. However, it IS clear, that IF all of our studies and data and the overwhelming scientific consensus is WRONG, it is obvious that God would have us just ignore what the science has produced on this issue, as the answer is not there - or it is unattainable through the science, or misleading - at least FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE of what we THINK the SCIENTIFIC DATA has revealed.

But God gave us common sense, great curiosity about His Creation, and powerful tools and methodologies to study it - tools and methodologies which have produced abundant findings and proofs of things we could not otherwise know - to the point that it is entirely understandable that we would have a strong level of trust in the enormously consistent results they have produced. And as long as we don't go beyond the parameters of what is reasonable to think, based upon the science. And so God does NOT provide ALL powerful understandings to various great mysteries ONLY through supernatural means - which is why I don't believe He would have us simply ignore our exhaustive scientific findings. IF the earth and universe are very young, it would appear that God doesn't want us to be able to detect the truth of this age issue through science (at least so far). Is that a deception? Of course NOT! OR, He doesn't CARE how old we might think things are? Maybe that is the point - that what He cares FAR more about are not silly arguments, but that man loves Him and each other.

But if YEC scientists want to use SCIENCE to assert that the way things in the past worked are not how they work NOW, without scientific proof of such, then they might as well abandon a scientific approach to the issue, as they are essentially telling us, on a massive scale across a multitude of disciplines, that the scientific approach is essentially exceptionally faulty. But God didn't ONLY give us supernaturally supplied answers, He's allowed us much more. And I don't think He would have us merely ignore the insatiable curiosity HE provided us, nor the overwhelming results of the tools He's allowed us as we've intensively studied HIS Creation - His OTHER testimony. But is the testimony of SCRIPTURE actually about the age - the other very important question!

[RickD]

BTW Rick, replace grapes with muscadines, and you get....muscadine wine. Age can't be substituted.

Now where did I put those potatoes....

I guess we just disagree. As far as I know(I'm not a wine expert), when people make wine, it takes time. More time than afforded at a wedding.

But when Christ changed jugs of water into wine, did he really need the same time as the process takes when people make wine?

I still contend that if a wine expert could examine that wine, there'd be no evidence that the wine was old. Only that it was wine.