Genesis 1:2-12 and the Hydrologic Cycle

[B. W.]

I don't understand the question.

How do you define God's timelessless?
-
-
-

[Philip]

Jac: Feel free to downplay the problem, Phil. Seems like a typical response from you and a couple of others. If it lets you continue comfortably in your cognitive dissonance, that's your issue. I've no interest in such cold comforts. I'm more interested in facing the truth as squarely as I'm capable of doing. Honesty is a little more important to me.

Seems like a rather smug response, Jac. As if YOU find taking Scripture seriously important but I and others who disagree with your take on the age issue do not, as if we'd rather buy into what makes us feel comfortable. Your assertion that others are not "interested in facing the truth as squarely as I'm capable of doing" shows arrogance and pride. How incredibly insulting and pride-filled: "Honesty is more important to me." Really, Jac, that about sums up your attitude you often show toward people who don't agree with you over this issue. And so you've slandered their views to assert that anyone who doesn't agree with YOU on this doesn't view honesty or facing the truth as important as your highness. Please, spare me the posturing - you're not fooling anyone but yourself! Do you not realize how UNNECESSARILY insulting such statements are? You'll not convince anyone of things they might possibly to learn from you if you don't first learn how to lose your attitude and arrogant posturing! Do you not care about people more than pressing your arguments with insulting statements. That's not to say you shouldn't articulate how you view something - you SHOULD - but your attitude and insulting style totally stinks!

[abelcainsbrother]

Feel free to downplay the problem, Phil. Seems like a typical response from you and a couple of others. If it lets you continue comfortably in your cognitive dissonance, that's your issue. I've no interest in such cold comforts. I'm more interested in facing the truth as squarely as I'm capable of doing. Honesty is a little more important to me.

I have given Jac many chances to show where the bible says the earth is young and although he gets angry and demands we believe him he has never shown biblically why YEC is right biblically,and if he had? I would have accepted it but instead of showing where and how YEC is right biblically he just tells us he is right and expects us to believe him based on his knowledge. I show biblically why I accept the GT and I wish Jac would do the same thing. Even without the bible it seems awefully weird that our eternal God waited until just 6-12,000 years ago to finally create the universe and us.

[crochet1949]

abc -- Considering that God is the creator -- Isn't God's timing to create the universe up to Him and Not us? Just because some people think His timing is awefully weird --well -- is suggesting that somehow 'we' are better / more qualified to determine when the universe Should have been created?

[abelcainsbrother]

abc -- Considering that God is the creator -- Isn't God's timing to create the universe up to Him and Not us? Just because some people think His timing is awefully weird --well -- is suggesting that somehow 'we' are better / more qualified to determine when the universe Should have been created?

You're right,it doesn't matter what we think or how weird it might seem,it matters what God's word says but it is hard to believe that our eternal God finally decided to create the universe and us just 6-12,000 years ago. It is possible that even man and science is wrong even about a 14 billion year old universe and that nobody really knows,it could be even older than that considering God is eternal.I go by God's word and I can show biblically how the bible teaches the heavens and earth are old even if it doesn't tell us specifically how old it is. The bible does not teach the heavens and earth are young though despite so many that believe it does.Usher's chronology does not in no way prove it does either and it was not even about the age of the earth but when God created Adam,this in no way proves the age of the earth.

[RickD]

Feel free to downplay the problem, Phil. Seems like a typical response from you and a couple of others. If it lets you continue comfortably in your cognitive dissonance, that's your issue. I've no interest in such cold comforts. I'm more interested in facing the truth as squarely as I'm capable of doing. Honesty is a little more important to me.

I have given Jac many chances to show where the bible says the earth is young and although he gets angry and demands we believe him he has never shown biblically why YEC is right biblically,and if he had? I would have accepted it but instead of showing where and how YEC is right biblically he just tells us he is right and expects us to believe him based on his knowledge. I show biblically why I accept the GT and I wish Jac would do the same thing. Even without the bible it seems awefully weird that our eternal God waited until just 6-12,000 years ago to finally create the universe and us.

ACB,

If you did a little research on this site, you'd see many different threads where Jac makes arguments for YEC from scripture. He gives detailed reasons why he believes scripture says the earth is young. So, please don't say that he has never shown biblically why YEC is right. Jac actually makes a very good argument for YEC, from a biblical standpoint. He has made a much more detailed argument about YEC, than your GAP argument.

Your lack of searching for threads in this site, is not to be confused with Jac's lack of biblical arguments for YEC.

And no, it doesn't seem weird that God would have waited until 6-12,000 years ago. Whether God created billions of years ago, or thousands of years ago, there was no time. God is eternal. He didn't "wait" as we understand waiting. Compared to eternity, 15 billion years is a blip as small as 6,000 years.

[abelcainsbrother]

Feel free to downplay the problem, Phil. Seems like a typical response from you and a couple of others. If it lets you continue comfortably in your cognitive dissonance, that's your issue. I've no interest in such cold comforts. I'm more interested in facing the truth as squarely as I'm capable of doing. Honesty is a little more important to me.

I have given Jac many chances to show where the bible says the earth is young and although he gets angry and demands we believe him he has never shown biblically why YEC is right biblically,and if he had? I would have accepted it but instead of showing where and how YEC is right biblically he just tells us he is right and expects us to believe him based on his knowledge. I show biblically why I accept the GT and I wish Jac would do the same thing. Even without the bible it seems awefully weird that our eternal God waited until just 6-12,000 years ago to finally create the universe and us.

ACB,

If you did a little research on this site, you'd see many different threads where Jac makes arguments for YEC from scripture. He gives detailed reasons why he believes scripture says the earth is young. So, please don't say that he has never shown biblically why YEC is right. Jac actually makes a very good argument for YEC, from a biblical standpoint. He has made a much more detailed argument about YEC, than your GAP argument.

Your lack of searching for threads in this site, is not to be confused with Jac's lack of biblical arguments for YEC.

And no, it doesn't seem weird that God would have waited until 6-12,000 years ago. Whether God created billions of years ago, or thousands of years ago, there was no time. God is eternal. He didn't "wait" as we understand waiting. Compared to eternity, 15 billion years is a blip as small as 6,000 years.

I will search for them then but when I have discussed it with him or have seen discussions I have not seen him show how or why YEC is right biblically.Instead it seems he just more demands he is right instead of showing why it is right biblically.Also I do think it makes God out to be a deceiver to use the appearance of age argument.I agree that 15 billion or 6000 is just a blip compared to eternity but It seems God would be busy though.At least I try to show biblically why the GT is true if it comes up for discussion and I do not get mad or demand I'm right,etc like some do,I try to be respectful and show why it is right. I have gotten frustrated though about YEC arguments that come very close to considering you a heretic if you accept OEC and from the top YEC ministry teachers too.Sometimes I think atheists are nicer than YEC's are,but I know not all YEC's are the same.

[neo-x]

And I can guarantee you that Jac doesn't have a perfect understanding of it either

Guys, you haven't negated Jac's argument. He has made a very good defense of his argument. I haven't seen a real challenge to it thus far. The kind of comment above while generally is true of anybody, in this case, the argument is backed by proper logic.

[Philip]

Guys, you haven't negated Jac's argument. He has made a very good defense of his argument. I haven't seen a real challenge to it thus far.

THE problem is NOT Jac's argument - it's his totally unnecessary and provocative, insulting, arrogant and prideful accusation that other Christians (who he KNOWS take Scripture very seriously AND believe in inerrancy) don't take Scripture seriously and that truth is not as important to HIM as it is to others. My ticked off response to Jac's above post has absolutely NOTHING to do with his creation beliefs - which I believe he has defended well, at least from a YEC point of view. Obviously, he has defended it exceptionally poorly as to the scientific findings - which he wears, almost as a badge of honor, as it is quick to dismiss that as a liability. And let's be clear, if he has missed one critical point - are the DAYS in Genesis normal ones, was God speaking to the science, or perhaps rather to correct recently liberated Israel's wrong THEOLOGICAL understandings, gained through four centuries of absorbing pagan Egyptian and ancient Mesopotamian religious beliefs. Because if he's incorrect what was truly meant on that one issue, then all of his typed words and detailed arguments fall apart. But I've no problem with any of that - really, I respect his viewpoint. What I don't respect is his occasional child-like insults that are uncalled for. And he NEVER, EVER takes responsibility for these, as he'll always go back to talking about other stuff in a normal manner, as if it really doesn't matter that he's insulted people so unnecessarily.

[Philip]

What I find troubling, from a literalist/YEC point of view is not ONLY that the science pointing to an ancient earth and universe, but that across so many different scientific disciplines, so many complex studies, and a literal mountain of data, ARE IN AGREEMENT! I can see that we might not be able to determine the truth of the matter from scientific analysis. But what I don't see as plausible is that all of these many and widely differing scientific fields are all producing the very same conclusions - and overwhelmingly so! The data intersperses and supports each other incredibly! What we should see instead, if the old earth/universe view is incorrect, is a jumbled mass of confusing and conflicting conclusions and data - none of it showing great clarity, and certainly not being in massive sync across so many fields. Again, God does not ONLY show us things through Scripture. He gave us MORE! FAR more, than just His word. He also gave us the insatiable curiosity to study His Creation, the technical tools and methodologies to do so, breathtaking consistency in how the world and universe functions - so that the scientific method is even possible. AND, God has allowed massive reasons for us to have reasonable trust in the scientific method's results - which is precisely why so much of our modern world's functionalities and inventions have been made possible.

Given all of the above, NO one should be easily dismissive of mountains of data that are all pointing to the same conclusions, as that seems highly improbable. Would God have us simply ignore something He has also made possible - EVEN THOUGH it has limitations? But those limitations of the individual scientific processes of analysis do not negate the massive issue that the data AND conclusions are overwhelmingly in sync across the board.

Lastly, what we see, across the earth and heavens, are not just end-resulting things, but we can see evidence of processes. Instant miraculous things do NOT need processes, because the processes did not produce the end results - not if the earth and universe is not a result of these MASSIVE evidences of processes.

[Philip]

Neo: Guys, you haven't negated Jac's argument. He has made a very good defense of his argument. I haven't seen a real challenge to it thus far. The kind of comment above while generally is true of anybody, in this case, the argument is backed by proper logic.

Neo, that is because you realize he is ONLY making an argument from Scripture - of which so much of you don't believe to be true or factual - at least as I've understood your past assertions.

Glad to see you're still lingering about, Neo!

[Jac3510]

I don't understand the question.

How do you define God's timelessless?
-
-
-

I mean I don't understand how God's timelessness is related to the question we are discussing. Would you please elaborate?

Seems like a rather smug response, Jac.

Meh. Seems you've degenerated into personal attacks. Not interested in that type of nonsense. Let me know if you have any interest in actually discussing the question rather than just calling me names.

Okay, Rick, so if I can go back to your longer post:

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.

I don't understand your distinction between growth and age. The word growth is necessarily a process. To say someone looks grown is to say that they have been through a process of growth, and such processes necessarily involve time. So to say that Adam looked fully grown would be to say that he looked like he was a certain age. So I don't understand what you mean when you say that Adam wouldn't show any signs of age. The fact that he had adult teeth would be a sign of age. The fact that he had legs he could walk on, an ability to speak, that he was a certain height, and so on, are all signs of age.

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

On this, you are scientifically mistaken. I did my clinical residency in a geriatric hospital. The fact of the matter is that the entire phenomenon we call aging or "growing old" is nothing more than the wear and tear on the body, that is, of the body decaying. The reason you get wrinkles and age spots and grey hair is because your body is decaying. You are confusing the decomposition of the corpse with the decay your body goes through as we age. Or we could use the word "degeneration" if you prefer. Here's an article you might find helpful on the subject:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/has-th ... -been-born

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.

And I hope you don't hold to that. But Rich does, and he's the one I was raising as the specific example of the type of argument commonly leveled against YECs. To be clear, there are some YECs themselves that think the argument has validity. I did myself at one point. Jason Lisle, in one of the articles I already linked you to, says he thinks it has force. I just don't, for reasons I've already offered and for others I haven't.

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.

Again, I don't think your age/growth distinction holds up. To look closer at your specific example, if a dentist were able to see that Adam never had baby teeth, that would not be a sign he hadn't aged. It would just be a sign he never had baby teeth. Thus, as I said before, "[The dentist] wouldn't say, 'Hmm, how does this new born look really old?' [He
d] say, 'Why [did] this old guy [never have baby teeth?'"

Again, the oddity would be the lack of certain features we expect. The age would be assumed. The dentist would say, "This is clearly a 30 year old man. So why doesn't this 30 year old man have these dental features I see in other 30 year old men?" He certainly wouldn't start with the assumption that Adam was only a day old!

And that gets back to the deeper point of the false history. Whether you like it or not, if God created Adam as a fully functional adult, the presence of the functionality necessarily suggests a false history. That is, in order for Adam to have some of those functions, he would have had to pass through phases of life that he never, in fact, passed through. Any person observing him would conclude from his body, as it exists in that very moment of observation, had gone through certain changes in the past in order to get to the present. And if you came along and said, "No, God just made him fully formed," they could, following Rich, accuse you of making God out to be a deceptive liar. They could follow Phil's argument and say that maybe such an argument was good in prescientific days, but Scripture was obviously written for people today, too, and therefore, we can't allow any reading that would contradict what science says; and since science says certain functions require a certain history, then Adam being made fully formed makes God out to be a liar. So you and your fellow Young Adam Creationists, Rick, need to be kicked out of church and not tolerated, because your god is a liar that is driving people away from Jesus!

Stupid and sophomoric, I know. But that's exactly what Rich's argument against the appearance of age. Stupid and sophomoric.

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

Of course he did. If he didn't, he couldn't have functioned properly. And so another false history on Rich's stupid argument.

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?

Of course we are. But I'm showing you how Adam's being created fully grown, just like Jesus creating the wine to appear aged, disproves Rich's stupid argument against the appearance of age. If God created the world fully functional, that accounts for A LOT of the so-called evidence that the earth is old, and those who use it to try to disprove YEC are just begging the question. And when Rich questions the appearance of age argument because it makes God liar but then accepts that Jesus turned water into (good) wine and says that God made Adam fully functional, he's being a self-contradictory hypocrite.

Just not true. At least according to this.

The article doesn't contradict what I said. It says that children's immune systems are stronger than we give them credit for. It did not say that our immune systems don't develop in response to our environment. And so I continue to press the case. If Adam was created with a fully functional immune system, especially if he existed in a world that already had death as you say, then Adam was created with a false history. So Rich is, again, wrong.

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?

I didn't overlook it. You overlooked what I said. Read it again:

• 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.

I'm talking about post-Fall. I can accept that Adam didn't need an immune system in the Garden. But the problem was that he was kicked out of the garden. Now, you take someone with a newborn immune system and put them out in the world, and what happens to them? They aren't going to last very long. They need time for the body to develop a proper response system. Again, that's a false history. So if you can accept that for Adam, then why not for the created universe?

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?

Yes, puberty is another good example. If God created Adam as a fully functional adult, then the fact that he was created sexually mature means that God created him with a false history of having gone through puberty.

Now, I'm okay with Adam having a false history. It's some of those in YOUR camp who say that history is unacceptable as it makes God a liar. So goose and gander. If false histories are unacceptable, then you have to give up ALL special creation (including, by the way, the special creation of animals and plants). As I asked before and I ask again, why is it okay for Adam and wine to have a false history, but not the created universe?

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.

You misread me again. I didn't say fingernails were alive. I said the cells that fingernails are made out of used to be alive. That's what a dead cell is. As you note, keratin is made out of dead cells. So when you looked at Adam's fingernails the day he was created, you would find dead cells--cells that used to be alive. But, of course, they never were alive because Adam had no such history. Another false history.

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.

Yes, by definition, wine presumes grapes. That's what wine IS--it is fermented grape juice.

Holy cow, I think I just saw your confusion. Are you taking "appearance of age" to mean "the manifestation/coming-into-being of age"??? That's not what "appearance" means in this context. It means "what something looks like." So you couldn't say "there's no appearance of wine" in the second sense. If that's what you said, you would be saying it only LOOKED like wine but was actually just still water. But that's not what we mean. The wine actually was wine. And because it actually was wine, it LOOKED LIKE it was fairly old. It LOOKED LIKE it came from grapes. It LOOKED LIKE that grape juice had been fermented for several months with yeast, and so on. But all that LOOKED LIKE (appearance) is false. The wine has a false history. So on Rich's argument, Jesus is deceitful and not the God of the Bible.

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.

At least TE is self-consistent. It's definitely a more respectable position (in my view) than Day-Age Creationism. I think it's wrong, of course. I think the Bible meant exactly what it said. But, yes, better to be a TE than DA OEC.

[neo-x]

Neo: Guys, you haven't negated Jac's argument. He has made a very good defense of his argument. I haven't seen a real challenge to it thus far. The kind of comment above while generally is true of anybody, in this case, the argument is backed by proper logic.

Neo, that is because you realize he is ONLY making an argument from Scripture - of which so much of you don't believe to be true or factual - at least as I've understood your past assertions.

Glad to see you're still lingering about, Neo!

Thank Philip, I check often what's going on and occasionally comment.

Anyway, it may have been I that didn't make it clear but I see some problems in the creation story, in the narrative, or the authors understanding of it compared to what we see. I certainly don't think that "much" of the bible is non-factual. I have said the same in the past and I reiterate I am perfectly fine with Adam and Eve as well, just not as first humans per se. But even if that is what I think (and I could certainly be wrong) I have maintained that the scriptures are not compatible with this, they lean towards YEC and I respect that. I am not trying to fit my conclusions in the scriptures or somehow try to bend the scriptures to align with my views. I don't think it's a good thing to do.

You have to substitute a lot to get OEC out of Genesis and then keep it consistent throughout the biblical text. and while technically yom can mean a whole of things but the usage certainly doesn't merit anything other than an ordinary day. It's nonsensical to think that it means anything other than a normal day or meant to the audience back then.

And while I agree with you that creation times/theories don't matter at the end, I do think that OEC is far-fetched from scriptures, and that is if we are being generous about it.

And to be clear, it is not that believing the Bible is difficult or hard for me or I think that believing the Genesis story as is, makes me look like an idiot. Far from it, my concern is purely logic-argument driven.

[abelcainsbrother]

I must say that Jac does make a convincing case for the appearance of age argument,still I am not convinced.I still believe that it makes God into the deceiver when we know Satan is the deciever. It might seem logical that the water Jesus turned into wine would show age if you tested it,but I don't think so.I do not believe it would show age but would be real wine.

God does not create junk and the decorate it,no it is perfect the way he chose to make it. Like the wine,it was the best wine,not junk and then decorated.God speaks and it happens.One of the things that bothers me about YEC is how they often times imply we must believe their interpretation by blind faith.This bothers me,now sure we know there are many things that we must believe by faith that can't be proven,however God's word is living and there are things that are revealed over time that confirms more of God's word true and even YEC's know this.

I mean even YEC's show things that the bible said that was later confirmed true,yet when it comes to YEC? That goes out the window and we must believe it by blind faith when it comes to creation.This has bothered me because when we have the correct interpretation of God's word the book of nature should line up with it too,and not when it doesn't and we should question our fallible interpretation until we do and can know more certian,instead of being prideful and hardheaded and set in our ways.
This is God's word,not ours.

The bible teaches us to seek the truth and to search out hidden things and yet it seems we cannot do this when it comes to creation and YEC because we will get the wrong answers,we cannot trust what we discover to be true about God's creation and even if it confirms our interpretation.It just does not sit well with me.It is better to me when your interpretation lines up with the book of nature also and God's word can be confirmed,even if not proven. It all adds up.

[neo-x]

I still believe that it makes God into the deceiver when we know Satan is the deciever.

I think it's quite condescending to say that and it irks me. Why would you say that when you clearly know that from Jac's POV God is not a deceiver at all? That is what his argument and his defense has shown clearly. So I am baffled that if you follow his line of thought you end up on that conclusion. You can't. You'd have to change the terms of the argument to reach that conclusion. He has already shown that.

I used to say that too but I realized how wrong this is. Let's not misrepresent.