Question

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:32 pm

one thing both of you guys should remember is it takes two to keep an arguement going.
Everyone is intitled to their own beliefs right or wrong.
It's a constant struggle to come to understanding of the word of God, without fighting over it. Whether we believe in OEC or YEC is not the point, the point is God came to us in the form of Jesus Christ and sacrificed himself so that we may have a future with him, and a role model to base our christian lives on. It is faith and belief in this that makes us brothers and sisters in the family of Christ. Not whether we believe in OEC or YEC.

I look at it this way, when our creator created the universe, time as we know it did not exist. Therefore creation took place in gods time not ours.
Otherwise why would it be stated in the bible that gods time is not the same as ours.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:18 pm

I agree Deborah - the main thing is that we're saved.

Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with some spirited debate. Your interpretation is not so out of line with appearance of age, btw.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:55 pm

Felgar wrote:I agree Deborah - the main thing is that we're saved.

Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with some spirited debate. Your interpretation is not so out of line with appearance of age, btw.

Agreed

Felgar, I adhere to something like the appearance of age, with one big difference. I don't think God makes things that look old-I think it is our perception that makes them look old. If you were to ask Adam how old he was minutes after he was created, he'd say a few minutes...but he would have looked in his 20's at least. With the speed of light, my thing is that the speed of light could be decreasing. I don't where someone spoke against it, but somewhere they say that whoever cooked up this idea took the extraneous results and pieced them together-but even one of the earlier guys admitted that as he checked the speed of light over and over, his new answer could not have been just the result of error (the new number was greated than the possible error or something). And...I don't think God made the fossils. I think that they are the result of the Flood, and later fossilzation could have taken place-if the carcass were immediately covered and not left to the elements. And then I look to your next paragraph where you give an example of AOA with the tree story....(and reading the rings doesn't necessarily work with 100% accuracy....the different different rings don't symbolize summer/winter...they symbolize good growing conditions/bad growing conditions, so if it rained at the beginning of summer, and didn't rain until the very end of summer, there would be three rings...good/bad/good conditions...)

bearbite · Post by **bearbite** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:03 pm

Felgar wrote:...As another quick example, suppose I'm God and you and I are standing on my lawn. I decide that a tree would be nice for shade on this summer day, so I create one, right in the middle of the lawn. Now, a scientist drives up and you ask him to determine how old the tree is. Being logical, the scientist takes a core sample and determines by the # of rings that the tree is 50 years old. Is it? Yes it is, because I created an old tree. The scientist is only mistaken because of his limited perspective, and given the world in which he lives, he really isn't mistaken at all. Plus, I always point out that God appears to have created Adam in an aged state too - it's not like Adam was created an embryo and then breast-fed for a few years, then cradled for a few more... Lived an adolescence, etc. So to me, that right there is a precedence for God creating things already aged...

I'm still thinking about that question of why mammals are dated to have existed before birds. So according to the AOA, did God simply create mammals to be older than birds? I'm confused because a TE told me that mammals came 100 million years before birds...and the OEC articles here indicate that birds came at around 7.0 x 10(to the power of 6) and mammals came at around 15-30 x 10(to the power of 6) years ago. Where do they come up with such different dates?

Uhh I have an idea too, but it sounds kind of stupid. Could it be just that birds tend to live longer than mammals, and that's why bird fossils seem to have an earlier date than mammals?

And if any OECs read this, I would really like to hear from you too.

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Felgar wrote:I agree Deborah - the main thing is that we're saved.

Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with some spirited debate. Your interpretation is not so out of line with appearance of age, btw.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with spirited debate, but too often I have seen them turn to slurs, name calling and other insults. this is the reason I left the other message board, and the reason I felt at home here was because it was a friendlier place to reside!

and Kmart just the the record, I do believe that god can make things look anyway he wishes it to look, but his word does say prove all.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things, hold fast to the good.

Now I look at it this way, he said it, science LOOKS to prove it, and I do not believe that the lord would but such a stumbling block in the path of his children, especially after he commanded them to prove the truth of his word.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:16 pm

What does the rest of that chapter say? Too busy to look it up...the thing is, though, that you can't prove something that nobody was around to see. Second of all, the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine points to what Felgar and I are saying. Jesus spent an instant turning making something that, to the half drunk guy the servants served, seemed very old.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:31 pm

Yeah, those minor differences are not really worth arguing about even KM... Unless you want me to respond.

We're pretty like-minded in this regard.

Bearbite, I'll have to look closer at the science of mammals vs. birds. When I get a chance I definately will. Remember though, that one possible explanation could be like KM indicated, that all our fossils are a result of the flood... With those extreme conditions in the flood it's pretty easy to see how we could be thrown off if we're constantly thinking millions of years vs. major catastophe.

bearbite · Post by **bearbite** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:18 pm

If the fossils are resulted from the flood, then how could we defend that those really aren't millions of years old?

Anyway, back to the original question...I heard from one OEC that a possible solution was that God created birds and mammals in day 5&6 in Genesis 1, but later he created specialized animals for Adam again in Eden in Genesis 2...which could be why mammals are founded to have arrived before birds. Is that possible?

Umm someone previously said that the most important thing is that we are saved, and I agree. I'm struggling with this creation issue because I'm worried that there's no real, plausible proof for the Genesis account, that's why I keep asking questions about it. I know that neither evolution or creationism have been completely proven, but is there less proof for creationism?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:46 pm

Go to the article Mastermind has pasted in the theology & science section-this guy who seems to be an atheist says some very interesting things.

Dating techniques, basically, don't work.....well...C14 works with young ages somewhat....

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html
Read the red box

http://www.noahsark.20m.com/Radiometric%20Overview.PDF
About dating.

http://www.planobiblechapel.org/resourc ... lution.pdf

Go to point 5 on dating.