If God created...

[Jonahdog]

Do you have any idea just how many "annual" layers of ice they had to dig through when they unearthed a WW2 aircraft that had been frozen over? Hundreds of "annual" rings.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/u...-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html
http://evolutionfacts.com/New-material/frozen_planes.htm

I did not see any discussion of "annual" layers in the NY Times article.
evolutionfacts.com on the other hand is simply a creationist silly site. The "facts" it attempts to present are simply not "facts".

The earth is billions of years old, the universe even more billions of years old. Yes, if your deity is as powerful as you claim he could have created everything in a week and made it look old just to confuse. But why? Why would a loving god do that?
Sort of like if your parents said, "Please walk to the market, its only a 1/4 mile" when it was 10 miles away. Or, "Sure the ice is thick enough to skate on" but it was not. What's the point? Being able to have a godly laugh at humanity?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It was roughly 2000 years from creation to Abraham, 2000 years from him to Christ and 2000 years since.

Millions of years could never happen for so many reasons including population, magnetic field and natural resources.

Agreed.

In the last 200 years the population has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion plus people which means that Jesus will be coming in the next 10 to 20 years because that kind of growth rate is unsustainable. Or at the very least global war over resources will break out.

Unsustainable?

Let me ask you something:

Which regions/cities/countries tend to have a higher standard of living?

A. Those with a high population density
B. Those with a low population density

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am trying to find out if those words could be plural: "Evening and Morning"

Perhaps you could find out?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h6153

The Hebrew word for "evening" (H6153) occurs 136 times in 129 verses in the Old Testament.

It means evening, night, or sunset.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1242

The Hebrew word for "morning" (H1242) occurs 205 times in 189 verses in the Old Testament.

It means morning, break of day.
Morning, being of end of night, of coming of daylight, of coming of sunrise, of beginning of day, and figuratively of bright joy after a night of distress.
Break of day, being the morrow, next day, next morning.

There is no evidence to suggest that the words mean anything other than the period prior to midnight and the period after midnight in Genesis 1.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am trying to find out if those words could be plural: "Evening and Morning"

Perhaps you could find out?

Also something to consider, to make a word plural in Hebrew, you add "-im." For example, "cherub" becomes "cherubim," "seraph" "seraphim," "nephil" "nephilim," "El" or "Eloah" and "Elohim."

 

[JudgeRightly]

Interesting, you use other myths to support your particular favorite mythical account.

At the very least the universe appears to be 13+ billions of years old, despite your objection it appears to have developed naturally (yep I know, hard to believe, hard to understand---like health care---complicated).

So you think it looks old?

Tell me then, where are the Population III stars? They're supposed to be the oldest, yet we haven't found any at all.

I think our universe looks very young, especially when you consider that galaxies that are 13 billion lightyears away look mature, where secular scientists said they would look infantile.

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
http://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
http://kgov.com/list-of-solar-system-formation-problems
http://kgov.com/list-of-carbon-14-everywhere-it-shouldnt-be
http://kgov.com/list-of-the-transient-events-in-the-solar-system

And what is the exact temperature to keep whale sperm warm enough? Citation, please, thanks.

And since you mentioned whales:
http://kgov.com/list-of-whale-evolution-problems

So to shrug off the question of whether your deity created it just a few thousand years ago in a manner that wound up looking old is to ignore a basic philosophical/theological question---Why? What's the point?

I thought this thread was a discussion of the scientific evidence for the origins of the universe, as it pertains to Genesis 1, not the philosophical evidence...

Let's stick to science, because you and yours, Jonahdog, never seem to want to discuss the science, you only want to discuss the philosophical matters.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I did not see any discussion of "annual" layers in the NY Times article.
evolutionfacts.com on the other hand is simply a creationist silly site. The "facts" it attempts to present are simply not "facts".

The earth is billions of years old, the universe even more billions of years old. Yes, if your deity is as powerful as you claim he could have created everything in a week and made it look old just to confuse. But why? Why would a loving god do that?
Sort of like if your parents said, "Please walk to the market, its only a 1/4 mile" when it was 10 miles away. Or, "Sure the ice is thick enough to skate on" but it was not. What's the point? Being able to have a godly laugh at humanity?

You seem to have a lot of bitterness towards God your Creator. Why?

 

[Rosenritter]

I did not see any discussion of "annual" layers in the NY Times article.
evolutionfacts.com on the other hand is simply a creationist silly site. The "facts" it attempts to present are simply not "facts".

The earth is billions of years old, the universe even more billions of years old. Yes, if your deity is as powerful as you claim he could have created everything in a week and made it look old just to confuse. But why? Why would a loving god do that?
Sort of like if your parents said, "Please walk to the market, its only a 1/4 mile" when it was 10 miles away. Or, "Sure the ice is thick enough to skate on" but it was not. What's the point? Being able to have a godly laugh at humanity?

Your reading seems a bit shallow. You could do the calculations of inches per year and apply it to the plane, if you were inclined to invoke the brains that God gave you with some sixth grade mathematics. But perhaps I've misjudged you. Did you actually compare the numbers and do a division on paper or the like? Or are did you resort to "a creationist reported the evidence therefore he is lying!"

The point being that those aren't annual rings. You're seeing rings and you're calling them annual because the Old Age people need to invent fake evidence for Old Earth. When the layers are compared with objects of known age that fake evidence is blown out of the water. Very bad science, making up evidence against the facts, that was...

Just because it's laughable doesn't mean it's God's fault.

 

[Hawkins]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

To me. Creation inevitably involved the manipulation of time and space which goes beyond human understanding. Even today we are clueless about what time is conceptually. Our comprehension of time is based on our experience of how time progresses stably forward as we perceive. However this is not how time behaves under all circumstances. As Einstein once put, time is not even a stable physics unit, instead speed/velocity is.

So the point is, in the lack of a better understanding of what space/time is, how God should tell us humans (Moses in specific as one of the ancient humans) literally what creation is. The Genesis account represents the best literal explanation made to humans (like Moses) under the circumstance that no humans can comprehend the process conceptually and correctly. As an indication, "God speaks things into existence" is used to explain how part of the creation process is achieved.

That said, the scientists are left in the dark because their conclusions are drawn based on the assumption that no God exists. They have to assume that earth is in its current position (in terms of time-space) all the times from the beginning (with Big Bang marks the beginning).

This assumption however may not be valid if God exists. God can create the earth in another space then plug it into its current position on day 4. It's more or less like when you are asked to fry eggs, you don't have to use one pan to fry all the eggs. You can use multiple pans to fry eggs when necessary. God doesn't need to create earth and our universe using the same time-space we expect.

Similarly, dating methods work under the assumption that earth is in its current position (of time and space) all the times thus the radioactive materials are preserved in a way for us to use for timing purpose. However if God exists and ever moved earth out of its current position (of time and space) as a necessity at some point, then radioactive materials can thus be 'leaked' and beyond our comprehension and calculation.

 

[Epoisses]

Agreed.



Unsustainable?

Let me ask you something:

Which regions/cities/countries tend to have a higher standard of living?

A. Those with a high population density
B. Those with a low population density

Four Riders of the Apocalypse - False Christ's appear then War then Famine then Pestilence and Plague

Are you up to date on your rapture insurance?

 

[CherubRam]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h6153

The Hebrew word for "evening" (H6153) occurs 136 times in 129 verses in the Old Testament.

It means evening, night, or sunset.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1242

The Hebrew word for "morning" (H1242) occurs 205 times in 189 verses in the Old Testament.

It means morning, break of day.
Morning, being of end of night, of coming of daylight, of coming of sunrise, of beginning of day, and figuratively of bright joy after a night of distress.
Break of day, being the morrow, next day, next morning.

There is no evidence to suggest that the words mean anything other than the period prior to midnight and the period after midnight in Genesis 1.

Some of those words are also translated as a plural.

 

[6days]

Some of those words are also translated as a plural.

Which words?

 

[Rosenritter]

I did not see any discussion of "annual" layers in the NY Times article.
evolutionfacts.com on the other hand is simply a creationist silly site. The "facts" it attempts to present are simply not "facts".

The earth is billions of years old, the universe even more billions of years old. Yes, if your deity is as powerful as you claim he could have created everything in a week and made it look old just to confuse. But why? Why would a loving god do that?
Sort of like if your parents said, "Please walk to the market, its only a 1/4 mile" when it was 10 miles away. Or, "Sure the ice is thick enough to skate on" but it was not. What's the point? Being able to have a godly laugh at humanity?

If you talk to the people who deal with the ice, they tell you:

"THOSE ARE NOT ANNUAL RINGS. That's not summer and winter," replied Cardin. " It's warm -- cold -- warm -- cold -- warm --cold. You can get ten of those in one day."

...

Yet, the scientific elite was still calling them annual rings in 1998. (See Scientific American, February 1998, p.82).

 

[CherubRam]

Which words?

Day, Night, Evening, Morning.

Here is a good study tool: http://biblehub.com/

 

[Jonahdog]

If you talk to the people who deal with the ice, they tell you:

So, the questions are:
1. Is every layer seen an annual layer? Or are some based on intra day temperature?
2. Even if the answer to question 1 is that intra day temperature fluctuations can cause distinguishable layering, is it still possible to determine annual layers?
3. Is the process totally uniform?
4. Are layers at the bottom compacted by the weight of ice above or by the water being squeezed out?

Why don't you track down the "scientific elite" meaning the people who actually do the work in the field and ask them?

 

[Rosenritter]

So, the questions are:
1. Is every layer seen an annual layer? Or are some based on intra day temperature?
2. Even if the answer to question 1 is that intra day temperature fluctuations can cause distinguishable layering, is it still possible to determine annual layers?
3. Is the process totally uniform?
4. Are layers at the bottom compacted by the weight of ice above or by the water being squeezed out?

Why don't you track down the "scientific elite" meaning the people who actually do the work in the field and ask them?

Obviously it is impossible to tell any accurate length of time when the rings are determined by freezing and thawing. Even with the best records (which we don't have) there are other factors as you suggest. I don't need to hire someone who makes his pay on propagating fantasy based on lies to try to spin around the recorded fact, that those ice rings aren't annual by any means.

Would you be able to state, for the record, whether you're still maintaining that those rings each represent a year or not? If you're not there's really no point in debating any further. It just means that one specific item that depended on that flawed assumption isn't good. You still have plenty more chances.

 

[Jonahdog]

Obviously it is impossible to tell any accurate length of time when the rings are determined by freezing and thawing. Even with the best records (which we don't have) there are other factors as you suggest. I don't need to hire someone who makes his pay on propagating fantasy based on lies to try to spin around the recorded fact, that those ice rings aren't annual by any means.

Would you be able to state, for the record, whether you're still maintaining that those rings each represent a year or not? If you're not there's really no point in debating any further. It just means that one specific item that depended on that flawed assumption isn't good. You still have plenty more chances.

No, I cannot state that each ring, or layer?, represents one year. That is why you ask the experts. And yes they do get paid to do research.
Are you one of the people who asks their car mechanic for medical advice?

 

[Rosenritter]

No, I cannot state that each ring, or layer?, represents one year. That is why you ask the experts. And yes they do get paid to do research.
Are you one of the people who asks their car mechanic for medical advice?

Allright then, we have the potential for progress. Can you please show us the names of the experts that are studying ice rings, and show us how they were cited by those claiming that the ice rings prove that the earth is millions of years old?

It seems to me that you are neglecting to trust your own intelligence. When we have a plane from a known era (WW2) and it's covered with X amount of ice, it's not too hard to get a general idea of how quickly that ice can build up. If you want to get an average of rings per year, you do a division. Or ask the people who harvested it... which is exactly what the person from that article did. He asked the expert.

The expert was the person who had first-hand experience with the evidence, without having a financial or egotistical stake in the outcome. Which is better information that the people who made up the "annual ice ring" theory and used that as their proof of "millions of years."

 

[Lon]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

It could be thousands, millions, billions? Science is estimating. Theologians are estimating. Somewhere in there, God created. With apparent age? Well, "evolution" (don't like the autonomy of the word) would/might account for such. Creating with age would/might account for such.

We do know carnivores need herbivores, or they'll die. We know herbivores need plants or they'll die. We know that plants need sunshine, or they will die, and so, imho, a 'primordial ooze' just isn't gonna get-er-done.

Very basically, design, not random chance is the ONLY thing that will produce a Novel. It requires an author. A car requires a builder. Creation? Moreso.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

Works for me:

The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

Our world looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin. And even as this cosmos is the theater of God’s glory, it is the theater of God’s glory for the drama of redemption that takes place here on this planet in telling the story of the redemptive love of God.

Is this compatible with the claim that the universe is 4.5 billion years old in terms of earth, 13.5 billion years old in terms of the larger universe?

Even though that may not be the first and central question it is an inescapable question and I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the gospel an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters.

At the end of the day, if I’m asked the question “why does the universe look so old?” I’m simply left with the reality that the universe is telling the story of the glory of God. Why does it look so old? Well that, in terms of any more elaborate answer, is known only to the Ancient of Days. And that is where we are left.

AMR

 

[Jonahdog]

It seems to me that you are neglecting to trust your own intelligence. When we have a plane from a known era (WW2) and it's covered with X amount of ice, it's not too hard to get a general idea of how quickly that ice can build up. If you want to get an average of rings per year, you do a division. Or ask the people who harvested it... which is exactly what the person from that article did. He asked the expert.

What were the experts qualifications, other than digging up the plane?

And I have a question. I just came back from an ocean beach, the water was rising, the tide coming in. So if I average the rise per hour, then I'll know when it will flood my house that is 30' above sea level, right?