Genesis 1:2-12 and the Hydrologic Cycle

[Jac3510]

I do not believe it would show age but would be real wine.

This sentence makes about as much as sense as this: "I do not believe it is has three sides but it is a triangle." You aren't following my argument, ACB. The wine Jesus created necessarily has a false history. Likewise, we make a more general statement: every instance of special creation necessarily entails the creation of a false history in the thing created. The nature of that false history is directly related to what that thing is. So the creation of wine entails a false history of grapes, yeast, and the process of fermentation. The creation of Adam entails a false history of immunity fortification, keratin production, calcification of bone cartilage, etc. Similar false histories could be pointed out with reference to the bread and fish (fish! think about that!!!) Jesus multiplied, of Elijah's oil and flour, of Elisha's oil and flower, and so on. That's just part and parcel of what it means to create from nothing. So the question is whether or not the creation event/s itself/themselves described in Genesis 1-2 are to be understood as creation ex nihilo. If so, then we can expect false histories. YEC and OEC both say that those events do describe acts of special creation. But they hypocritically accuse YEC of having a deceptive God when they point out some of the (possible) false histories associated with the YEC view while ignoring their own false histories. It's absurd, and it is a line of argument that should be dropped immediately. And if someone doesn't drop it, then once they have been shown the obvious error, if they persist in it, they should either be ignored or mocked mercilessly for persisting in stupid slander.

[RickD]

I do not believe it would show age but would be real wine.

This sentence makes about as much as sense as this: "I do not believe it is has three sides but it is a triangle." You aren't following my argument, ACB. The wine Jesus created necessarily has a false history. Likewise, we make a more general statement: every instance of special creation necessarily entails the creation of a false history in the thing created. The nature of that false history is directly related to what that thing is. So the creation of wine entails a false history of grapes, yeast, and the process of fermentation. The creation of Adam entails a false history of immunity fortification, keratin production, calcification of bone cartilage, etc. Similar false histories could be pointed out with reference to the bread and fish (fish! think about that!!!) Jesus multiplied, of Elijah's oil and flour, of Elisha's oil and flower, and so on. That's just part and parcel of what it means to create from nothing. So the question is whether or not the creation event/s itself/themselves described in Genesis 1-2 are to be understood as creation ex nihilo. If so, then we can expect false histories. YEC and OEC both say that those events do describe acts of special creation. But they hypocritically accuse YEC of having a deceptive God when they point out some of the (possible) false histories associated with the YEC view while ignoring their own false histories. It's absurd, and it is a line of argument that should be dropped immediately. And if someone doesn't drop it, then once they have been shown the obvious error, if they persist in it, they should either be ignored or mocked mercilessly for persisting in stupid slander.

I guess there's just a disagreement as far as what's history, and if it's the same thing as appearance of age.
Rich talks about Appearance of age vs. history in the article you mentioned here.

[Jac3510]

I guess there's just a disagreement as far as what's history, and if it's the same thing as appearance of age.
Rich talks about Appearance of age vs. history in the article you mentioned here.

Sure, and I think his argument is silly. Let me quote it:

• According to appearance of age advocates, God created Adam with the appearance of age, since he seems to have been created as an adult. The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Didn't this wine have the appearance of age? There are two major problems with these analogies. First, neither the body of Adam nor the wine of Cana is available for inspection. The creation is still here. Second, the analogies confuse appearance of age with appearance of history. The creation appears to have a long history, not just an appearance of age or maturity.
  
  Did Adam have an appearance of history? Did he have a navel from a birth that never happened? Were his teeth worn at his creation, even though he had never eaten? Did Adam have calluses on his feet even though he had never walked? The Bible does not address these issues, and since Adam's body is not available, we have no idea of the answers to these questions. Does the Bible compare Adam's body to the creation? No! The analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.
  
  Does the wine of Cana have an appearance of history? According to the biblical account, Jesus ordered waterpots to be filled with water and, immediately, the water had become wine. Did it have an appearance of history? If the wine had been in wineskins (like the original wine) then one might say that it appeared to have been aged in the wineskins. However, the wine was still in the waterpots. It had no appearance of history. Does the Bible compare the wine of Cana to the creation? No! Like Adam's body, the wine of Cana analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.

So his argument is basically that we can't compare Adam's body or the wine to the universe because we don't have Adam's body or the wine. But that's a complete non-sequitur. In the first place, the examples of "age" he points to in Adam's body aren't examples of age at all but rather usage. But that's a straw man. I've given lots of examples of the history necessarily presumed in Adam's mature body that would be a false history if he were created mature. And his appeal that the wine was in waterpots and not wineskins is even more absurd. Suppose that wine had to be aged in wineskins (which it didn't, but let that pass). That just counts even more against Rich's patently stupid position, because now the water in the waterpots necessarily presumes a history of having been in wineskins. So it DOES have the appearance of history, along with the history of the type of grape, the fermentation process, the yeast, and so on.

So I reject Rich's attempt to distinguish. That page ought to be taken down as slanderous to YEC brothers in Christ. Slander, of course, is a sin. I am charging Rich with sin. That article and argument is what ought not be tolerated.

[RickD]

I guess there's just a disagreement as far as what's history, and if it's the same thing as appearance of age.
Rich talks about Appearance of age vs. history in the article you mentioned here.

Sure, and I think his argument is silly. Let me quote it:

• According to appearance of age advocates, God created Adam with the appearance of age, since he seems to have been created as an adult. The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Didn't this wine have the appearance of age? There are two major problems with these analogies. First, neither the body of Adam nor the wine of Cana is available for inspection. The creation is still here. Second, the analogies confuse appearance of age with appearance of history. The creation appears to have a long history, not just an appearance of age or maturity.
  
  Did Adam have an appearance of history? Did he have a navel from a birth that never happened? Were his teeth worn at his creation, even though he had never eaten? Did Adam have calluses on his feet even though he had never walked? The Bible does not address these issues, and since Adam's body is not available, we have no idea of the answers to these questions. Does the Bible compare Adam's body to the creation? No! The analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.
  
  Does the wine of Cana have an appearance of history? According to the biblical account, Jesus ordered waterpots to be filled with water and, immediately, the water had become wine. Did it have an appearance of history? If the wine had been in wineskins (like the original wine) then one might say that it appeared to have been aged in the wineskins. However, the wine was still in the waterpots. It had no appearance of history. Does the Bible compare the wine of Cana to the creation? No! Like Adam's body, the wine of Cana analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.

So his argument is basically that we can't compare Adam's body or the wine to the universe because we don't have Adam's body or the wine. But that's a complete non-sequitur. In the first place, the examples of "age" he points to in Adam's body aren't examples of age at all but rather usage. But that's a straw man. I've given lots of examples of the history necessarily presumed in Adam's mature body that would be a false history if he were created mature. And his appeal that the wine was in waterpots and not wineskins is even more absurd. Suppose that wine had to be aged in wineskins (which it didn't, but let that pass). That just counts even more against Rich's patently stupid position, because now the water in the waterpots necessarily presumes a history of having been in wineskins. So it DOES have the appearance of history, along with the history of the type of grape, the fermentation process, the yeast, and so on.

So I reject Rich's attempt to distinguish. That page ought to be taken down as slanderous to YEC brothers in Christ. Slander, of course, is a sin. I am charging Rich with sin. That article and argument is what ought not be tolerated.

I'm just not seeing slander. Which person's reputation is he damaging? He's attacking a position. You do it all the time. And quite strongly as well. Did he name someone specific who he misrepresented? I guess if you feel that strongly, you can email rich and make an argument that he's misrepresenting the YEC position. But slander? Just don't see it.

And after you email rich, please email Ken Ham and Jason lisle. I'm sure they'd listen to a fellow YEC who calls them out on their constant misrepresentations of OECs.

[Jac3510]

How is it not slanderous and dishonest to say that YECs worship a false god?

[crochet1949]

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc."
Adam and Eve Had to be adult enough to 'be fruitful and multiply'. The appearance of age -- in other words they were not created as babies needing parents. They were created able to Be parents. The earth was created quickly to provide the environment that Adam and Eve needed to live in. And Adam was given the job of naming the various animals.

[RickD]

How is it not slanderous and dishonest to say that YECs worship a false god?

Jac,

I'm just not sure that Rich is saying that. I've read the conclusion in the article over and over, and I'm just not sure enough to say that's what Rich means.

Conclusions Top of page
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 truth31 - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God?

While Rich does say,"The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible."

I'm not sure he actually means that YECs believe in a false God.


Have you ever actually asked him if he means what you think he means?

[Jac3510]

Of course that's what he means. The whole point of the article is that if God created the universe with the appearance of age then He is a deceiving God, and such a god is a false god. Therefore, since YEC says, to a greater or lesser degree (and it is a very popular position among rank and file YECs) that God did, in fact, create the universe with the appearance of age, then the god of YEC, according to Rich, is a false god. And if the logic weren't enough--and it is--he closes with an anecdote about how "A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me . . ." This "Christian friend" advocated a "deceiver" and an "unrighteous God." All because this "Christian friend" advocated for YEC. So not only does Rich slander YECs generally, he slanders this one YEC friend from high school in particular.

Please don't be so shameful as to defend this, Rick. What he is doing is wrong and sinful. It is divisive and hateful, and I expect better from you.

[crochet1949]

To say that God is a deceiver because He chose to create Adam and Eve with the appearance of age is Ridiculous. And it is Also dangerous because that is Also equating God with satan because satan IS the great deceiver of mankind.

God IS the creator Of and He does as He Chooses. Just because 'we' don't like how HE has chosen To create .... well......

[RickD]

RickD wrote:

I'm not sure he actually means that YECs believe in a false God.


Have you ever actually asked him if he means what you think he means

jac wrote:
Of course that's what he means.

Oh, ok. So you did ask him. And he actually told you that's what he means?

Jac wrote:
Please don't be so shameful as to defend this, Rick. What he is doing is wrong and sinful. It is divisive and hateful, and I expect better from you.

Jac,

I'm giving Rich the benefit of doubt. Like I said, I see what rich actually wrote. And I see what you think he means. But I'd like to hear rich say that he actually thinks YECs that believe in an appearance of age argument, believe in a false god. I'm not going to accuse someone, when what they meant is not clear to me.

And please Jac, don't patronize me with the "I expect better from you" bs. I'm here trying to be as objective and fair as I can be. I really don't appreciate you telling me what I should or shouldn't defend. That manipulative garbage doesn't work with me.

[Philip]

Rich is as close as a PM or EM! ASK him! Also, perhaps his post needs some clarity. All of the silly feigned offense, after years of these posts being linked to the site, seems rather ridiculous.

I will say that to assert YECs believe in a deceiving God is unhelpful and inaccurate. Really, it's not any different than YECs asserting that OECs don't care about truth or take Scripture as seriously as YECs do - fact is, both claims are not true. Neither camp believes God is a deceiver. But some in BOTH camps have painted others in the opposing camp in inaccurate ways. Sad, but it is often human nature to demonize those who don't agree with one's options, whatever the camps, whatever the subject.

But the issue at hand is NOT just the APPEARANCE of age. NO! It's that many, many PROCESSES are either observable or there is abundant evidence that they processes not only existed, but also operated for vast periods of time - which if they didn't happen at all, one must ask why they are SEEN at ALL, or are there so many evidences of processes that were carried out! Because if the countless processes that there are immense evidences all over that yet did not produce the END results as to what exists, then that means they SHOULDN'T exist. What you should see, instead, across all things tested, discovered, analyzed, etc., should be only END results with no evidence of traceable processes. But that is FAR from the case. And anyone who knows even a fair bit about the science of these things knows this.

And as GOD made scientific analysis possible, gave us the intelligence, tools, and immense curiosity to exhaustively study His OTHER testimony, given us great reason to trust the results of scientific analysis in which the same results are arrived at over and over, across a gazillion parameters, from a wide variety of fields of studies, ALL of which have been made possible by how God created a Creation that operates with great predictability and precision - well, I don't believe He would have us so casually dismiss what such a range and scale of studying His creation has revealed to us. And those so quick to casually dismiss such massively correlating conclusions have little credibility with me, because God gave us much more than JUST Scripture. THINK of how many things we know about the universe, our solar system and earth, and how many discoveries and inventions have been possible through - what, Scripture ALONE??!!! No, they came though study and research of God's OTHER testimony, and the abilities He has give us to study and learn from it. So to so casually dismiss unfathomably consistent results across so many fields doesn't seem to be a response I think God would have us make.

Not to mention the great consistency of scientific consensus on this issue makes no sense IF we are so wrong. Because IF we are so clueless, the results we've based our conclusions on should instead have immense conflict, confusion and contradictions - we should instead see a tangled mess of data and results that make no sense whatsoever. But that the studies and data across so many fields strongly suggest the same conclusion and supports each other, make no sense if we are that far wrong over this issue!

But the other issue of processes is very important. If the processes we can see and the massive evidences pointing to such processes having been at work for very long periods of time (millions upon millions of years) - and NOT just because of what exists, but because we also can see the PROCESS evidences THEMSELVES - well, WHY would God have created evidences of extremely long processes that He did NOT use to create things? That makes no sense.

[B. W.]

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?

Simple question - how do you define God's timelessness?

You stated and explained it before on the forum but can you do so concisely...

Thank You..
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

I do not believe it would show age but would be real wine.

This sentence makes about as much as sense as this: "I do not believe it is has three sides but it is a triangle." You aren't following my argument, ACB. The wine Jesus created necessarily has a false history. Likewise, we make a more general statement: every instance of special creation necessarily entails the creation of a false history in the thing created. The nature of that false history is directly related to what that thing is. So the creation of wine entails a false history of grapes, yeast, and the process of fermentation. The creation of Adam entails a false history of immunity fortification, keratin production, calcification of bone cartilage, etc. Similar false histories could be pointed out with reference to the bread and fish (fish! think about that!!!) Jesus multiplied, of Elijah's oil and flour, of Elisha's oil and flower, and so on. That's just part and parcel of what it means to create from nothing. So the question is whether or not the creation event/s itself/themselves described in Genesis 1-2 are to be understood as creation ex nihilo. If so, then we can expect false histories. YEC and OEC both say that those events do describe acts of special creation. But they hypocritically accuse YEC of having a deceptive God when they point out some of the (possible) false histories associated with the YEC view while ignoring their own false histories. It's absurd, and it is a line of argument that should be dropped immediately. And if someone doesn't drop it, then once they have been shown the obvious error, if they persist in it, they should either be ignored or mocked mercilessly for persisting in stupid slander.

I'm not so sure Jac but you do make a persuasive argument about how you think the wine would show age.If something is new,it is new,like a new car take like the case of Adam when he was created he would be brand new,also the bible talks about us drinking new wine in heaven so perhaps it was made into new wine.In the case of the earth it would be created brand new and it would be new,not old.

As for YEC's being accused of believing in a false God? I do not like how people get so angry over their creation interpretation,I don't and it bothers me why it seems we cannot discuss creation without anger. I mean I personally like to discuss creationism and its why I try to discuss it if\when it comes up,but I try to be respectful about it.Instead of possibly finding common ground,putting our Christian thinking hats on and honestly trying to find common ground,it seems to divolve into mean-spirited debate where we are divided on different teams defending our interpretation and talking past each other when I'm convinced we all no matter the interpretation we choose all have important things to contribute to have better understanding of creation. I think we all have some truth however we all cannot be right and one is more right than the others.

I must say though that to be honest it is YEC's that are the ones that judge,condemn,and come very close to considering you a heretic if you don't go along with YEC. It is they that teach their followers to think of those who have accepted OEC as gospel compromisers and it is so over the top that it kinda seems like a cult leader fleecing their people. You go back and listen to Ken Ham or Kent Hovind in their teaching seminars to children,church groups,etc and how they teach and promote YEC and a few other people also,not only do they teach that we OEC's are gospel compromisers but they don't even know the difference between evolution and OEC and they group them all together as gospel compromisers,people who have abandoned the word of God,implying we are not Christians,yet on their web-sight somewhere it will say somewhere that it is not a salvation issue.It is OEC's that are much less judgmental about it and although teach why they think they are right,they just think YEC's are wrong on their interpretation and creation science but they are not nearly as judgmental about creationism as YEC's are.

[Jac3510]

And please Jac, don't patronize me with the "I expect better from you" bs. I'm here trying to be as objective and fair as I can be. I really don't appreciate you telling me what I should or shouldn't defend. That manipulative garbage doesn't work with me.

I don't think you're being objective or fair. If it were anybody else, you'd immediately take their words to mean exactly what they do mean and react accordingly. But because it's the site owner, you're being unbiased and refusing to recognize the slander. I don't really care if you don't appreciate me telling you what you shouldn't defend. I don't appreciate you giving aide and comfort to someone openly attacking fellow Christians because of your own bias. Sorry if you mistake a request for Christian charity for manipulation. Heck, Phil is completely ignoring the substance of my argument and refusing to call out Rich by name, but at least he's appreciated the divisive nature on the substance of saying YECs don't believe in the God of the Bible if they hold to appearance of age. You haven't even given me that much, and Phil is the one who has been leveling personal attacks. So as I said, sorry, but I expect better from you.

Simple question - how do you define God's timelessness?

You stated and explained it before on the forum but can you do so concisely...

Thank You..
-
-
-

I'll thank you for explaining the relation of your question to the subject matter. I've not the time or interest in a theology quiz. You're the one who raised the issue, which seems to me entirely unrelated. So if you'd like to make a point, then feel free to do so. Otherwise I don't see any point in addressing this further.

[Philip]

Jac: and Phil is the one who has been leveling personal attacks

NO, Jac! I'm sure you know the difference between attacking a person and some uncalled thing they've done or said! What I RESPONDED to and attacked was your arrogant and insulting response to what could be and should be a civil discussion - EVEN IF we disagree on some point.

YOUR words, 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.

So, you think it's perfectly fine to accuse those who do not believe - or who even might just be skeptical - of your take on the time issue as not being "interested in facing the truth as squarely as YOU" - REALLY???!!! "Honesty is a little more important to" YOU???!!! Give me a freaking break! How incredibly insulting, asserting other Christians here are not as concerned with the truth or as YOU are, don't take Scripture as seriously - all because they have a different take on an issue that SCRIPTURE itself never makes out to be a big deal! And then YOU'RE UPSET WITH RICH WHEN YOU SAY STUFF LIKE YOU DO???!!! Jac, you got called out for the same behavior that has repeatedly gotten you in trouble on this forum - your smart, unnecessarily-insulting mouth. You not only insult people unnecessarily, when they disagree with you on one of your sacred cows, but every time,you then immediately begin playing the victim card, all the while subsequently showing as much disdain and disrespect you can offer to those you've insulted.