[JoelWildtree]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I won't throw my hat into the ring here, however I don't think this is accurate. How would that be any more deceitful than when god performs miracles--which means suspension of an otherwise observed uniformity in nature.

Miracles were intended to be observed by those who would witness those events as something outside the ordinary nature of the world, as proof of the Divinity of Jesus. If I witnessed what I thought might be a true miracle I'd seriously start to consider the existence of a God.

As for the clash between the Genesis account of the world, and our scientific understanding ... either scientists are deceiving the general public on a massive scale, or the earth really is such as they claim, billions of years old. If it is billions of years old, as the large body scientific evidence shows, we can either logically accept that it existed from that many years ago and naturally followed the uniformity of nature until it arrived at its current state in time, or that unseen supernatural forces molded it such to look that way.

I don't see any purpose of God then molding an earth to appear old, but inspiring writers of the Bible to lead us to believe something different. After all, couldn't he have inspired the writer of Genesis to say something like ... "and the years upon the earth were like that of the grains of sand, like the stars in sky". It really is deceiving, if that is the case. I choose to stick with the more reasonable position that the Bible got it wrong, and trust that science has made accurate conclusions. Honestly I think my position is much more plausible.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JoelWildtree

Miracles were intended to be observed by those who would witness those events as something outside the ordinary nature of the world, as proof of the Divinity of Jesus.

My point to Bill was, the universe isn't naturalistic at all. God sustains all his creation and that it is us, fallen creatures as we are, who're unable to devise a methodology of inquiry that will fully reveal the truth of our universe.

I don't see any purpose of God then molding an earth to appear old, but inspiring writers of the Bible to lead us to believe something different.

Which is the matter at hand, it seems. Which is the most accurate exegesis of the creation account? In this regard it seems that you have no dog in the fight. As "the bible got it wrong" kind of rules all interpretations out.

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by slap_j

My point to Bill was, the universe isn't naturalistic at all. God sustains all his creation and that it is us, fallen creatures as we are, who're unable to devise a methodology of inquiry that will fully reveal the truth of our universe.

However the universe operates according to predictable natural law. Those natural laws along with the initial big bang event are supernatural i.e. established and created directly by God.

After the creation itself we can scientifically analyse cause and effect back to within the smallest fraction of a second after the big bang.

Essentially the existence of the universe is a miracle since it's original creation and the laws by which it currently operates and changes over time were established by God. The universe itself is material and not supernatural in any way nevertheless it declares God's glory.

Please don't mistake the preceeding as deism. I am a Christian and believe that miracles have and do occur.

Regards, Bill

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by JoelWildtree

So you accept the following on Evolution from Wikipedia, correct?

But you don't accept this on Common Descent:

Actually, I "accept" both. I "accept" that organisms change, and I "accept" that common descent "can and does exist". I put quotations for this reason: I believe that if you had a planet full of organic chemicals, with a continous source of energy input (a star), that life could theoretically evolve out of that planet and become extraordinarily complex. So yes, I accept the idea of common descent. However, I also think that if you put a baby in a room, with food and water provided of course, that it would grow into an adult. I believe that God created Adam as an adult, in his prime state. In the same way, I believe that God created the universe and the earth in their prime states. So, God created the world in 6 days, but it all evidences that the processes that sustain them caused them, just like Adam's age would seem to show that he had lived as a baby, though he did not. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by shakeybill

I have a fundamental problem with the "appearence of age agrument" as it makes God into a deceiver where the scripture repeatedly tells us that God does not lie.

Would God be a liar if he created Adam as an adult?
Is Jesus a liar because he deceived us when he caused the water into wine to have the appearance of age (wine must be aged to be wine)?

I accept Genesis as non-literal yet inspired scripture in the same way that much of Revelation is non-literal.

There is the problem. When scripture is meant to be taken figuratively (Revelation and other places) it says or implies in the text that it is. Genesis makes no such implication. What grounds are there to take Genesis figuratively? Couldn't you use the same grounds to claim that Jesus' resurrection was figurative, because God wouldn't deceive us by violating what seems to be the way nature works (one natural death for each man, no rising from the dead)?

[JerryLove]

Would God be a liar if he created Adam as an adult?

Would he be a liar if he gave Adam memories of a childhood that never happened?

OK. Maybe not memories. How about photos, trophies, and scars from a childhood that never happened.

The Earth has those... But this all seems apologetic.

[Danny]

Hey, we have a new atheist (agnostic? Deist? Something else?) on the boards and I never noticed. Welcome, Joel.

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Actually, I "accept" both. I "accept" that organisms change, and I "accept" that common descent "can and does exist".

I think what he was getting at is that you do not believe that all living things on earth actually do share a common ancestor.

There is the problem. When scripture is meant to be taken figuratively (Revelation and other places) it says or implies in the text that it is.

Can you provide examples for this? I've read Revelation a few times and I never recall John saying or implying that it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

Genesis makes no such implication. What grounds are there to take Genesis figuratively?

Okham's Razor? (On the one hand, the universe looks old because it is old and the Bible failed to mention this for whatever reason. On the other hand, the universe looks old because God supernaturally made it to appear old, even though it is extremely young, for no real discernible reason, and failed to mention it in the Bible.) If you're going to believe the Bible is true and also that we can learn things about the universe by observing it, the simplest and most reasonable conclusion is that the Genesis creation account is true in a figurative sense, and is not meant as a science lesson. It is aimed at describing the nature of man's relationship to God and God's relationship to man, not necessarily accurately describing the physical creation of the universe. (Where does the Bible mention other planets? Comets? Hell, everything in the heavens besides the earth, the sun, the moon, and the other stars are completely ignored in the Genesis account, and this is a pretty huge omission if God is actually attempting to convey to us precisely how he created Everything [capitalized intentionally].)

Honestly, I think the hypothesis that God created the universe to look older than it is is about as plausible as the hypothesis that the earth was created by mice and is actually naught but a giant computer running a program (with biological components) that will eventually calculate the great question of Life, the Universe and Everything. (Or at least, it would, except that it will be destroyed about five minutes before the program is to be finished running its course.) In fact, one could argue that the evidence for that hypothesis is greater than the other one, as its book actually mentions the fake fossil record, while the Bible does not.

Couldn't you use the same grounds to claim that Jesus' resurrection was figurative, because God wouldn't deceive us by violating what seems to be the way nature works (one natural death for each man, no rising from the dead)?

Apart from the "miracle" distinction, which has been described by others adequately enough, this is an invalid analogy. There's no physical evidence (that we've found, anyway) that Jesus is "still" dead. He didn't plant a fake body to stay back in the tomb after he got back up and ascended into heaven. But he did, evidently, plant lots and lots of fraudulent evidence for the history of the earth. I think Jerry's point is a very good one. It's not just that the earth "looks old" in the same way a grown man "looks old." It's the old, "Did Adam have a belly button?" problem. The earth has lots and lots and lots of belly buttons—and scars, and "memories," and "photographs," which not only imply that the earth has aged, but that lots and lots and lots of things have happened to it and left their footprints in it over the millenia.

The earth does not look like it aged in a vacuum, as we might expect if it was simply created as a fully-formed structure without actually being old (i.e., its matter did not really have to condense to solidity from gas and dust over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, but it has no actual history—Adam doesn't have a belly button because he never had an umbilical cord, but his body is fully grown). It looks as if lots and lots of things have happened to it over millions of years. (It's been struck by meteors, entire species have evolved and gone extinct, civilizations rose and fell—all before the date at which the Bible implies it was created. I.e., Adam had a belly button, and scars, and memories of a childhood, etc.)