Exactly. Nothing is impossible with Iluvatar, either. ^_^
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Easy way to prove the Earth is at least a million years old
- Thread starter ninerbuff
- Start date
Exactly. Nothing is impossible with Iluvatar, either. ^_^
javajo
Well-Known Member
Still, if God can do anything, he could have created Adam and Eve as mature humans, as well as plants and animals and stars as mature. If all things are possible with God, then its still a possibility we should not dismiss so quickly. After all, to believe evolution, we must believe in millions of missing links that do not exist. That takes great faith as well.
Except that there's no indication that He did so, and if He did, that would mean He's either foolish, or one heck of a joker, because He basically created a world that pointed away from Him instead of towards Him. In other words, He's misleading us.
Yes, it does. Which is why the concept of a "missing link" was dismissed long ago.
Do you know what biological evolution is, and what the theories about it say?
javajo
Well-Known Member
I think if one takes a literal interpretation of Genesis, that God made man and woman in his own image, the words man and woman indicate a mature adult. The sun, moon and stars weren't created until the 4th day, I suppose because the plants needed the sun after being made the 3rd day perhaps.
I do not mean a missing link, but millions of missing fossils which would prove Darwin's theory. Truth is that in the fossil record all the animals and plants appeared as we see them today, with very little variation, and without all the millions of changes we would expect to find as Darwin admitted. I am not a biologist, I am a Christian. I am a Christian, I believe God created the earth and that however he did it is ok by me.
I do not mean a missing link, but millions of missing fossils which would prove Darwin's theory. Truth is that in the fossil record all the animals and plants appeared as we see them today, with very little variation, and without all the millions of changes we would expect to find as Darwin admitted. I am not a biologist, I am a Christian. I am a Christian, I believe God created the earth and that however he did it is ok by me.
What did the original Hebrew indicate? After all, the Bible wasn't written in English.
... what does that have to do with anything? (besides making no sense; without photosynthesis, i.e., without a Sun, there can be no plants, and besides, the sun is a star like any other.)
All the ones we have aren't enough? Why do we need millions?
Show me. Without the Tanakh.
Besides, we shouldn't expect to find them because fossilization is actually quite rare.
That being the case, I don't think you're in much of a position to judge a scientific fact that you don't understand.
Very well.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Yeah, its too much for me tonite. I respect your points, very good ones, there's a lot of them though. Enjoyed.
javajo
Well-Known Member
I don't know why God created Adam and Eve as adults, and I don't think he intended to trick us. I think he set up the Creation for us and this is the account we are given of it in the Bible. Some interpret it literally and others less so. I just was suggesting one possibility of many. I wasn't there so, I can only ponder what happened back yonder.
I was specifically referring to creating the stars (and the Earth for that matter) to appear as if they are billions of years old.
If the universe is only 10000 years old or so, I can't imagine a reason why God would have created them to look much older.
javajo
Well-Known Member
I don't know. Perhaps it was so that when Adam looked at the sky, he could see the stars, not having to wait for the light to arrive...I have read some theories, some are rather complex to me sometimes. Here is one link if that is something of interest. I really don't know why God did/does everything, but I trust him. Young Universe, Old Stars? How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Just seems very convoluted. God didn't need to make the speed of light at 186,000 m/sec. He could have made it much faster, or he could have created the stars much closer. Or he didn't need to create stars at all: He could have had giant fireflies that lived in our atmosphere.
Instead, if the universe really is only 10,000 years old, he deliberately chose a method of creating the universe that made it appear billions of years old.
"Why" is a very important question to ask. Maybe God really did create the universe billions of years ago, and the 10,000 year timeframe is a misinterpretation. Or maybe his purpose truly was to trick us. This would have implications as to the character of God.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it would not be in his nature to trick us from my understanding. Again, I'm not sure that it is something to be dogmatic about. Science and folks interpretation of scripture have seemed to be in disagreement throughout history. I think of poor Galileo for one. As I said, I do not know just how or why God created everything, and I wouldn't attempt to prove he even did to anyone. I just believe he did is all.
That's cool.
Because of the accuracy of microwaves the earth and universe can be dated.
CMBR [cosmic microwave background radiation]
There is nothing in Genesis that shows how long each of the creative days were.
Or if even each of the creative days were of the same length of time.
Genesis 2v4 just sums up all of the creative days as a day.
The 7th day has no close to it.
To make something 'appear' older or younger than it is would be 'fraud'.
God can not lie- Titus 1v2.
Where does the idea of a 10,000 year time frame come from?
None of the creative days are given a time frame.
How long is the 7th day?_______
javajo
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, as a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. However, some folks look at Gen. 1:5, and the lines at the end of each day that say:
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And etc. so in v.5 he establishes it is light in the day time and dark at night time. Then after each day, he says, "and the evening and the morning were the second,third, etc. day." So a literal translation would suggest these are 24 hour days, even though the light source spoken into existence on the first day was not the sun, which was perhaps not need 'til the 4th day for the plants and other life.
So, an argument can be made for literal days. I was not there, so I cannot be dogmatic about it, but it is a possibility nonetheless. God could have done it in a second I suppose, but one reason he may have done it that way as the Bible later says, to establish the week and the day of rest on the seventh day, as he rested the seventh day. Just a thought.
Where does one get the idea the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 4th day? According to Genesis 1vs 16-19 God made [not created] the already existing sun, moon an stars 'to rule'.
Isn't 'made to rule' different from 'create' ?
First God created on day one, then God made what he created do something or serve a purpose.
In Genesis the Hebrew words create and made are two different words.
Just like in English a parent, so to speak, can 'create' a child and then the created child can be 'made' to do something such as sit in a chair, etc.
sniper762
Well-Known Member
do you realize how rediculous that sounds?