 |
| 
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/20/2003 11:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Does the Bible give any indication of when Satan turned against God? I'm wondering b/c I'm curious of how long Adam and Eve were living in Eden before their fall. For all we know God might have created the Earth and everything in it long before Satan ever sinned, so Adam and Eve might have been living there together for thousands or even millions of years, which might possibly explain scientists' stance that the Earth is millions of years old. Yes, God created it in seven days, but Adam and Eve and all the animals might have been there for much longer than the tradional view.
The only flaw with this hypothesis is the question, why didn't they have any children? So, even though I thought of this possibility, I can't answer this other question. Not to mention science's evidence for organisms' and animals' apparent evolution over millions of years that seem to say that God couldn't have used a literal 24 hour period for each of those six days to create the Earth.
But hey, I'm not a scientist or a theologian, so I can just throw these questions out there and wait for everyone else to give me the answers!
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Well are you taking the Adam and Eve story as allegory or historical fact?
Even if it's fact, the Bible doesn't mention anything about whether there were other people created at the same time - also don't you think that there must have been - otherwise why weren't there a lot of genetic defects due to in-breeding ?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/20/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
The question you ask about "age of the earth" is somewhat related to your Adam/Eve question in your other thread, but I will attempt to answer clearly.
Should we take the 7-days story of Genesis literally? Some say "yes" arguing that in all other instances of the Bible, the word translated in Hebrew for "day" means 24 hours. Others who say "no" point to the verse in Psalm 90:4 stating "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (reiterated in 2 Peter). This would mean you could have your "millions of years" before humans arrived without contradiction.
One important thing to understand is WHERE scientists first got the concept of this age of the earth/universe/etc. There are many types of circumstantial evidence, but the 2 pointed out most frequently are carbon dating, and cosmic radiation.
With Carbon Dating, the idea is this: Every living organism has some carbon in it (why somtimes in sci-fi lingo you hear humans are called carbon based life forms). Carbon is an element, like Oxygen or Iron.
When living things die, the carbon in it begins to decompose at a certain rate (called half-life). Based on this "rate of decay" if you can have a guess at how much carbon a fossil has NOW and compare it to how much it had when it was alive, you could extrapolate how long ago it died. It can also work with other elements and compounds, but carbon is the most common.
There are a couple of flaws with this though. Meaning you have to be pretty sure of how much carbon something had when it died (it might've eaten something which would increase its carbon amount). Another is external factors which might affect its rate of decay. That's why in the short term (say within 50 years) carbon dating is effective, but in the long term (millions of years) can be iffy.
The other method is cosmic radiation (The Universe is 4 billion years old mantra). Basically what we do is figure out the relative location of things (earth, stars, etc) in the universe, and since we know light travels at a constant speed (roughly 186,000 mi/sec), we can calculate how long it would take certain things to travel. It's why scientists theorize the Universe is expanding, because ceratin signals between objects have been taking longer for those light rays to travel back and forth from them. So again, we extrapolate that if the rate of movement is X, if the Universe started a certain point, then it would take Y years for us to "Bang" out as far as we did.
The most convincing argument though AGAINST the whole evolution/age of the earth theory is that it relies largely on circumstantial evidence. Meaning that ever since the theory of evolution was formalized, it's been under many revisions since its inception to "fit the data".
Meaning at the start, scientists believed all evolution was gradual (meaning you had lots of half-animals for a long time). But when the fossil evidence didn't indicate this, they thought that evolution occured in major "jumps" (meaning within a few generations you went from bird to cat. Of course, HOW this happened they still can't answer). Again, fitting the data to the evidence, not the other way around like the scientific method is supposed to work.
On a related note, some ask "why did people live so long back then (Adam living 900+ years) compared to now". No one knows for sure. Some theorize it was just a different conversion system the Bible used. But this is improbable since if you applied it to "normal" lifespans (80 years) to everyone in Genesis, people would be having children at 5 years of age. The prevailing theory is that the Flood significantly changed the earth's atmosphere and had an effect on lifespan since it was first time it ever rained. Whatever the case, I don't find it too unrealistic to believe people lived that long back then if you accept the other things in the Bible as true.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/20/2003 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tigress,
Gen 2:8 and 3:23 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed . . . Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Tim: God put Adam in Eden after He had planted the garden there and sent Adam back to the ground from where God had taken him, when sending Adam away from the garden in Eden and here are some cool Scriptures about Satan too.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
Eze 28:13, 15 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God . . . Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Luk 10:18 . . . I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil . . .
1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Rev 12:7,9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels . . . And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/20/2003 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
That was a pretty good post on the errors of evolutionary thought. Carbon dating is only applicable for 50-70k years (usually about 10 half lives with C14's half life being 5230 years). The most common dating for "older" dates is K/Ar, by which they have supposedly determined the earth is 4.38 billion years old. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ has some very good articles on the latest errors being promoted, including K/Ar.
Tigress,
All people come from Adam and Eve. There weren't any others created. Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. This name was given before their expulsion from the Garden and there is also the reference to multiplied sorrow in child birth before their expulsion. Genesis 3.16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Any time a number is mutliplied by zero the result is zero, so there had to be at least one child birth before the expulsion from the Garden.
EDIT: BTW, it was 1/3, not 1/4 Rev 12.4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:
Edited by - Paul5388 on 05/20/2003 9:27:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/23/2003 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laplace,
That was a pretty good post on the errors of evolutionary thought. Carbon dating is only applicable for 50-70k years (usually about 10 half lives with C14's half life being 5230 years). The most common dating for "older" dates is K/Ar, by which they have supposedly determined the earth is 4.38 billion years old. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ has some very good articles on the latest errors being promoted, including K/Ar.
I know I've said this before in this forum, but I feel that every now and then I've got to pop in and say it again, to ensure the message stays out here.
In 17 years of layman's study, and more years than that as a Christian, I've yet to find a single creationist claim - whether of the young-earth or old-earth/progressive variety - contrary to established science which stands up to scrutiny. Established science is what it is for the very mundane and unsensational reason that it is the relatively-best interpretation of the available evidence.
While Answers in Genesis has a vast library, impressive in its quantity, coverage and attention to detail, I warn everyone to question everything they say which is contrary to the established longstanding scientific consensus (which pretty much is everything they say - since being of the young-earth variety, they are radically opposed to the last 200 years of mainstream professional consensus science in all fields touching, even tangentially, on prehistory). And I stand in the company of the vast majority of scientists, and Christian scientists, in saying this.
I would be happy to illustrate for anyone, with an example or two, should anyone insist. (But I will only do this if specifically asked, since I'm sure there are many people on this forum who don't want to see "another evolution debate" erupt.) But the whole issue is such that, if you really seek understanding, you should be prepared to research on your own. I can provide pointers to all the major viewpoints.
Finally, please accept that I say this in all respect and humility as a fellow in Christ. I don't mean to attack or appear haughty, and if I do, I apologize and repent. I only have concern over the false stumbling blocks to faith and false witness against science which creationism bears, well-intentioned and sincerely-held though they are. I do not want others to have the intellectual and spiritual wounds over this that I have.
Best regards,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
I appreciate your candor and honestly on the topic, and I believe you and I are intrested primarily in finding the TRUTH, even if it seems uncomfortable. For I'd rather place my faith in something that's true if it's hard to swallow than a pleasant lie.
To address your comments though I would like to point something out. That throughout human history "established science" has often been wrong. To cite but a few examples (of many):
- Views about the planets (oribits, etc.)
- Heavier-than-air flight
- Atomic physics
Most of these wrong views were not held necessarily by just the "religious folk" but were the "scientific views" of the day. Meaning, they were accepted as mainstream fact.
I propose that we have elevated our modern day professors and scientists to the positions of priests where we reason, "Well, they are more educated than we are so whatever they say MUST be true". History should tell us at the very least this is not the case. And even today, we continue to revise our views in all the sciences, including the field of evolution. To say that all scientists "agree" on everything is misleading.
I believe the reason for a wholesale acceptance of evolution as a scientific "fact" is that we're told that beliefs about science are factual and beliefs regarding religion are simply relative. However, as I have just shown, science can be just as relative and incorrect as any religion.
But basically Scott, it's all going to boil down to faith. Will you accept the claims of "science" as true, or the claims of the Bible? And if you place more faith in "science", then I wonder why you would only dispute the Genesis account as "science" says that many other things in the Bible could not happen either. The parting of rivers, the blind receving sight, and the resurrection of Christ (our foundational event).
Conclusion: I'm not saying that EVERYTHING in the Bible is literal or should be taken as such. Again, I myself am not sure we should take the word "day" literally as in 24hrs in Genesis. But the point is to show you that ultimately you cannot play both sides of the fence, what the Bible says and what "established science" says. If you pick and choose your scientific viewpoints, then science is not so "true" after all. If you leave it up to the authorities of the PhD's, you are trusting in a person more than God. If you pick and choose what the Bible says, then you are either calling God a liar or saying you put more faith in science then Scripture.
As to why I accept the claims of the Bible as true? Part of it is the external and internal evidence (archeological discoveries, etc.), the unity in a vast array of books with different authors and time periods and regions, and of course the impact on people's lives. But the key for me is what Christ himself said. "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life..." He also said that the WHOLE Bible (Law, Psalm, Prophets) were written about him. And because He Himself claimed to be God, I accept His words as true.
If I have offended, my apologies and repentence.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/23/2003 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
Thanks for your thoughts.
On the point that mainstream science has been wrong before and could be wrong about this, I certainly agree. That is certainly possible in principle. However I don't think anyone should be "getting their hopes up".
There is nothing even-close-to-comparable-in-magnitude in the history of science to what the overthrow of mainstream science by young-earth creationism (YEC) would constitute. YEC disputes the age of the universe and earth, the reality of the geological epochs, all of the cosmological, astronomical and geological events postulated to have taken place over that time, all of the dating mechanisms and present-day "operational" physical theories that underpin all these conclusions...and that's just in the area of the physical sciences. The biological sciences are even more impacted/rejected by YEC.
In fact, nowhere in history is there an overthrow of so many paradigms (it would include not just natural selection, but common descent, geological superposition, parts of relativity and nuclear physics, stellar evolution, etc), for so long (decades or in some cases centuries) supported and validated by so many experimenters (tens if not hundreds of thousands) from so many backgrounds with no common allegiance to anything other than modern scientific method. And not just that, but an overthrow where the overthrow is total, ie the overthrown paradigms are realized to not even be approximately right but instead are realized to be totally and completely wrong. And not just that, an overthrow resulting in the triumph of, not a very new and previously-unconsidered theory, but the one originally and gradually supplanted by those same paradigms. Yet its that kind of overthrow that the overthrow of mainstream science by YEC would be. There's a vast difference between such an overthrow and the Copernican or quantum revolutions, even, let alone the discovery of heavier-than-air flight or the latest flip-flops you read in the news about whether oat bran is good for you :-)
As far as goes progressive or, as its sometimes called, old-earth creationism (OEC), the case is considerably less extreme. But in general, similar comments, toned-down or limited in direct proportion to the degree with which any particular OEC view generally comports with mainstream science, would apply to the likelihood of triumph of that OEC view over mainstream science.
So, I don't think any Christian should rationally feel warranted in confidently looking forward to the overthrow of mainstream science. We may believe that on faith, of course, which leads to your other point, about believing scripture over science, God's revelation over man's murky sight.
Again, I agree that God's revelation has authority over us. The problem, though, is that applying such an argument to any particular controversy, like this one, is only valid insofar as it is uncontroversial what God's revelation is. Only the modern doctrine of "biblical inerrancy" (what I call total factual inerrancy) necessarily dictates (among many other particulars) that what God reveals in Genesis he intends and endorses as an accurate scientific and historical account. Total factual inerrancy is nowhere explicitly taught in scripture and is only arguably implied, however. Without even looking at the extrabiblical evidence, I find that instead scripture assumes its own inspiration and authority in matters of faith and practice while continually accommodating to the culture and times in other matters (God allowing such accommodation so as to better communicate his point - which is always one of proper faith and practice - in a way respecting human freedom).
So, looking at the extrabiblical evidence, when I find not just marginal but overwhelming support for a scientific/historical account different than what's in the Bible, I merely see accommodation in that, not threat. Conversely, when I see no such conflict, or a less-than-overwhelming conflict, I find no trouble in accepting the general historicity, at least, of the account. For example, I don't see overwhelming extrabiblical evidence against the historicity of the resurrection. Indeed, such a pinpoint event could not possibly pass down to this day overwhelming evidence either way as to whether it really happened - and such also characterizes most of the miracles reported in the Bible, for that matter. So I see no necessary slippery-slope here on these grounds.
Incidentally, Greg Boyd's own book (with Paul Eddy), "Across the Spectrum", has a good chapter presenting the controversy over what inspiration means, if you're not familiar with it (and it is good to be fully aware and cognizant of this controversy, so as not to slip unquestioningly and inadvertently into one view or another). I encourage everyone to study the inspiration issue, since from it flows the inerrancy doctrine which permeates much of evangelical Christianity today, and in turn from which flows all sorts of (IMO) dubious apologetics, ranging from creationism (which at its heart is an apologetic based on inerrancy) to resolving so-called "Bible contradictions".
Again, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your irenic tone and hope you find the same in my reply :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 5/23/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
quote:
For all we know God might have created the Earth and everything in it long before Satan ever sinned, so Adam and Eve might have been living there together for thousands or even millions of years, which might possibly explain scientists' stance that the Earth is millions of years old...The only flaw with this hypothesis...
The only OTHER flaw is that "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died" (Genesis 5:3-5).
My math might be pretty shabby but I am sure 930 years does NOT equal "thousands or even millions of years."
Payaso 
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/23/2003 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
You know, Laplace is really right on this issue. NASA reported finding "life" on a meteor(s). One of those meteors was the Murchison (Australia) Meteor, but what was actually found was amino acids that are found on earth also. Finding amino acids really isn't that big of a deal, since Stanley Miller had been forming "life" (read amino acids) since 1951 in the famous Miller-Urey experiment. The big deal was the supposed excess of levo rotatory amino acids. This is where the true situation is revealed. It's an abstract from the University of Arkansas, but the chemistry of it all originated at Arizona State. Their conclusion is basically this, "point to a terrestrial contamination, possibly dating to the time of fall." How many headlines do you see retracting their first proclamation? Why won't you see a retraction other than in obscure places? What is the driving force behind the space program? That driving force is the mandate to find life or a mechanism for abiogenesis, so evolution can have a beginning to work with.
EDIT: Here is a thread on another forum that deals with the flaws of abiogenesis in detail. The discussion on abiogenesis may not start until the second page or so.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 05/23/2003 10:13:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/23/2003 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
You wrote:
quote:
You know, Laplace is really right on this issue. NASA reported finding "life" on a meteor(s)...How many headlines do you see retracting their first proclamation?
On the Murchison meteorite: well, I'm not sure I follow your point exactly with this specific example. The Murchison meteorite's status doesn't have anything essential to do with the mainstream understanding of prehistory anyway - whether its amino acids are extraterrestrial or not, either result can be made consistent with either mainstream or creationist thinking. BTW and FWIW, I have heard of the Murchison meteorite's "fall from grace" (at the hands of mainstream science, note) so the "coverup" doesn't seem to have been too effective :-)
On abiogenesis in general: this is indeed one of the most speculative areas in all of mainstream science's research into prehistory. But we should beware "God of the gaps" considering how many other once-equally-speculative-and-contentious areas in science have since been filled-in (and not just in prehistory but areas even creationists accept, like reproduction and embryonic development). Sorry I don't have time to read the thread you referenced at the moment.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/24/2003 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
The reason the Murchison Meteor has a bearing on what is discussed is its example of NASA (science) jumping on anything that might sway people to their way of thinking. I'm quite sure you didn't read about the Murchison fiasco in the mainstream news.
About abiogenesis, evolution has no beginning for whatever to evolve into something else if there isn't that first whatever. Either that, or you have to team up with SETI for that beginning. You can't evolve nothing into something.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|