Dwight: So if they appeared as young adults, but were only less than one day old, that isn't an appearance of age problem for you?TK wrote:I believed they appeared as young adults but with absolutely zero indications of any wear and tear that a young adult today would display (eg, teeth slightly worn).
Applying this to the trees in Eden, I would not expect them to have had growth rings. If they did, that would have created an appearance of age problem, at least for me.
Literally 6 Days
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Literally 6 Days
Re: Literally 6 Days
Nope- only if they also showed “pretend” signs of wear and tear. Do you understand the distinction I am making? If not, I am not sure how to make it more clear. I am not asking if you agree, but rather if you understand my point.
The idea that God created supernovas “brand new” or black holes “brand new” when we know these are formed over very long periods of time is what I have an issue with.
The idea that God created supernovas “brand new” or black holes “brand new” when we know these are formed over very long periods of time is what I have an issue with.
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Literally 6 Days
TK wrote:Nope- only if they also showed “pretend” signs of wear and tear. Do you understand the distinction I am making? If not, I am not sure how to make it more clear. I am not asking if you agree, but rather if you understand my point.
Dwight: You are being inconsistent. Adam and Eve showed "pretend" signs of being young adults, maybe looking like they were in their mid-20's, and yet they were less than one day old. A one-day old should look like a baby, because normally it is. So God made them look like they were 20-25 years older than they really were. How is it that you have no issue with that "appearance of age" problem, which you called "balderdash" before, but if God created the stars with light immediately appearing on the earth, that is a problem for you? Again, you are being inconsistent.
Dwight: Never mind the "pretend" signs of wear and tear. How about the elephant in the room - the fact that they appeared to be young adults and not one day old babies? I think I understand your point and I find it to be inconsistent. If you're concerned with stars appearing to be millions of years old, when in reality they were just created on Day 4, 2 days before man, then why wouldn't Adam and Eve's young adult appearance concern you, since they were just created?
The idea that God created supernovas “brand new” or black holes “brand new” when we know these are formed over very long periods of time is what I have an issue with.
Re: Literally 6 Days
You are right that it seems inconsistent but in my own mind there is a distinction.
When God created Adam and Eve and the animals he had to choose whether to make them babies or full grown. For practical reasons he could not create them as babies because there were no adults to feed and nurture them. Plus they would have just had to lie there like babies do.
There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
However, if He made them full grown AND with signs of wear and tear we have a different issue. Deception has now entered into the equation.
Do you think their bodies were pristine with zero signs of degeneration despite being created as young adults? Or do you think God “built in” some signs of degeneration? At any rate that’s not the best example because I don’t think they had any degeneration until after the fall. A better example would be whether He created full grown trees with tree rings, or whether he created eroded mountains.
I guess my point is that by definition when God created things He made them out of nothing, so He could create them to be fully grown if he chose. There is no deception in that. But if he created things fully grown or formed but with artificial signs of age or erosion, that seems deceptive, at least to me. And God is not deceptive.
When God created Adam and Eve and the animals he had to choose whether to make them babies or full grown. For practical reasons he could not create them as babies because there were no adults to feed and nurture them. Plus they would have just had to lie there like babies do.
There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
However, if He made them full grown AND with signs of wear and tear we have a different issue. Deception has now entered into the equation.
Do you think their bodies were pristine with zero signs of degeneration despite being created as young adults? Or do you think God “built in” some signs of degeneration? At any rate that’s not the best example because I don’t think they had any degeneration until after the fall. A better example would be whether He created full grown trees with tree rings, or whether he created eroded mountains.
I guess my point is that by definition when God created things He made them out of nothing, so He could create them to be fully grown if he chose. There is no deception in that. But if he created things fully grown or formed but with artificial signs of age or erosion, that seems deceptive, at least to me. And God is not deceptive.
Re: Literally 6 Days
TK, when it comes to stars and other astral objects, how can it be determined that particular characteristics of these objects indicates that they are millions of years old? Isn't it but speculation. that the observed characteristics of these objects have been caused by the effects of millions of years of existence?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Literally 6 Days
[quote="TK"]You are right that it seems inconsistent but in my own mind there is a distinction.
When God created Adam and Eve and the animals he had to choose whether to make them babies or full grown. For practical reasons he could not create them as babies because there were no adults to feed and nurture them. Plus they would have just had to lie there like babies do.
There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
Dwight: The exact same thing could be said about the stars and the trees, etc. That is, there was no one around to know any better or to care if God chose to have the light from the stars appear immediately upon their creation or to create trees with hundreds of rings or to create eroded mountains.
However, if He made them full grown AND with signs of wear and tear we have a different issue. Deception has now entered into the equation.
Do you think their bodies were pristine with zero signs of degeneration despite being created as young adults? Or do you think God “built in” some signs of degeneration? At any rate that’s not the best example because I don’t think they had any degeneration until after the fall. A better example would be whether He created full grown trees with tree rings, or whether he created eroded mountains.
I guess my point is that by definition when God created things He made them out of nothing, so He could create them to be fully grown if he chose. There is no deception in that. But if he created things fully grown or formed but with artificial signs of age or erosion, that seems deceptive, at least to me.
Dwight: Really? Who would have been deceived? Adam and Eve? They were not stupid - they knew exactly when they were created and when the stars and trees were created. Many have thought that their intellect was much greater than ours today. Would they question God and ask, "God, why are you trying to deceive us by creating trees with hundreds of rings and eroded mountains?" No, of course not. They would not have been deceived into thinking that the trees were hundreds of years old. God was not hiding anything from them.
When God created Adam and Eve and the animals he had to choose whether to make them babies or full grown. For practical reasons he could not create them as babies because there were no adults to feed and nurture them. Plus they would have just had to lie there like babies do.
There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
Dwight: The exact same thing could be said about the stars and the trees, etc. That is, there was no one around to know any better or to care if God chose to have the light from the stars appear immediately upon their creation or to create trees with hundreds of rings or to create eroded mountains.
However, if He made them full grown AND with signs of wear and tear we have a different issue. Deception has now entered into the equation.
Do you think their bodies were pristine with zero signs of degeneration despite being created as young adults? Or do you think God “built in” some signs of degeneration? At any rate that’s not the best example because I don’t think they had any degeneration until after the fall. A better example would be whether He created full grown trees with tree rings, or whether he created eroded mountains.
I guess my point is that by definition when God created things He made them out of nothing, so He could create them to be fully grown if he chose. There is no deception in that. But if he created things fully grown or formed but with artificial signs of age or erosion, that seems deceptive, at least to me.
Dwight: Really? Who would have been deceived? Adam and Eve? They were not stupid - they knew exactly when they were created and when the stars and trees were created. Many have thought that their intellect was much greater than ours today. Would they question God and ask, "God, why are you trying to deceive us by creating trees with hundreds of rings and eroded mountains?" No, of course not. They would not have been deceived into thinking that the trees were hundreds of years old. God was not hiding anything from them.
-
Singalphile
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm
Re: Literally 6 Days
Hi, TK. I understand the distinction you're making and I agree that it makes sense. However, I wonder if some signs of age or degeneration aren't actually useful or even necessary parts of their environment or system. For example, are astronomers certain that the starlight that has not yet reached Earth has no purpose in the universe? Are they sure that supernovas serve no purpose? What about tree rings? Do tree rings serve a purpose besides helping to establish a tree's age? I wouldn't be surprised if they do, in which case, those "signs of age" would not be so different than giving Adam and Eve muscles that they never developed.TK wrote:You are right that it seems inconsistent but in my own mind there is a distinction.
When God created Adam and Eve and the animals he had to choose whether to make them babies or full grown. For practical reasons he could not create them as babies because there were no adults to feed and nurture them. Plus they would have just had to lie there like babies do.
There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
However, if He made them full grown AND with signs of wear and tear we have a different issue. Deception has now entered into the equation.
Do you think their bodies were pristine with zero signs of degeneration despite being created as young adults? Or do you think God “built in” some signs of degeneration? At any rate that’s not the best example because I don’t think they had any degeneration until after the fall. A better example would be whether He created full grown trees with tree rings, or whether he created eroded mountains.
I guess my point is that by definition when God created things He made them out of nothing, so He could create them to be fully grown if he chose. There is no deception in that. But if he created things fully grown or formed but with artificial signs of age or erosion, that seems deceptive, at least to me. And God is not deceptive.
(Btw, I don't care about the age of Earth or the universe. Don't care.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Re: Literally 6 Days
Paidion-
I am not sure I understand your question 100%. If you are asking how we know that stars go through an aging process that takes a super long time, part of the answer must be that we see stars in different stages as I outlined. For example, our star (the sun) is at a certain stage (yellow dwarf). As the hydrogen fusion decreases it will ultimately become a red giant which will eclipse the orbits of Mercury and Venus. If earth still has life then it won’t survive. The fact that there are red giants observable means that those stars have been burning a lot longer than our sun.
I am not sure I understand your question 100%. If you are asking how we know that stars go through an aging process that takes a super long time, part of the answer must be that we see stars in different stages as I outlined. For example, our star (the sun) is at a certain stage (yellow dwarf). As the hydrogen fusion decreases it will ultimately become a red giant which will eclipse the orbits of Mercury and Venus. If earth still has life then it won’t survive. The fact that there are red giants observable means that those stars have been burning a lot longer than our sun.
Re: Literally 6 Days
Dwight wrote:
TK: There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
Dwight: The exact same thing could be said about the stars and the trees, etc. That is, there was no one around to know any better or to care if God chose to have the light from the stars appear immediately upon their creation or to create trees with hundreds of rings or to create eroded mountains.
_______________
But WE know. Surely God knew that man would one day use their brains to study what they observe?
TK: There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.
Dwight: The exact same thing could be said about the stars and the trees, etc. That is, there was no one around to know any better or to care if God chose to have the light from the stars appear immediately upon their creation or to create trees with hundreds of rings or to create eroded mountains.
_______________
But WE know. Surely God knew that man would one day use their brains to study what they observe?
Re: Literally 6 Days
Singlephile wrote:
In other words if a person argues that God created already-formed supernovas (ie that didn’t come from an exploded star) then the person making the argument has to explain why, because such an argument is non-intuitive and seems ridiculous to me.
I suppose such an argument could be made about anything so I can’t dispute it other than by saying the burden of proof is on the person making that argument.However, I wonder if some signs of age or degeneration aren't actually useful or even necessary parts of their environment or system. For example, are astronomers certain that the starlight that has not yet reached Earth has no purpose in the universe? Are they sure that supernovas serve no purpose? What about tree rings? Do tree rings serve a purpose besides helping to establish a tree's age? I wouldn't be surprised if they do, in which case, those "signs of age" would not be so different than giving Adam and Eve muscles that they never developed.
In other words if a person argues that God created already-formed supernovas (ie that didn’t come from an exploded star) then the person making the argument has to explain why, because such an argument is non-intuitive and seems ridiculous to me.