Just another clever attempt to marry Biblical creation to evolution. However billions of years remain missing from the Biblical creation account, because despite human philosphy, God still did it in six days, just like He said.
Ah! Ah! You have yet to even attempt to prove that your interpretation of Genesis is "Biblical creation."
Rephrase that, "Just another clever attempt to marry Jason's opinion to evolution...."
So the question is how can God create the earth 10,000 years ago but the earth also be billions of years old? It is my opinion that God is not limited to only being able to create objects with the appearance of age. It is my opinion that God is able to create objects with an actual age. What is the difference?
Well the most striking difference is that objects with an appearance of age are lacking some vital history. For example: if God created a woman with the appearance of being 20 years old then that woman would not have parents and thus we could tell that she only appeared to be 20 years old. Another thing we would notice is that she wouldn't have a birthdate since she was never born. There would also be no records of her birth anywhere. She would be quite an abnormal woman with all of the history she was lacking.
Now consider a similar example except this time imagine God created a woman that was actually 20 years old. By actually being 20 years old this woman would have to have parents, a date of birth, a place of birth, a doctor and nurses that delivered her, and also many other things. But if God just created her how would she have these other things like a date of birth and parents? Well, God would have to create those other things at the same moment he created her. Except he would have to literally create them in such a way that things like her parents would have been on earth before her even though he is creating both of them at the same moment.
Thus the difference is that something with actual age has a complete history. Something with an appearance of age will not have a complete history. So God can create an object with a complete history at any time, he just has to go in and create its history at the same time he's creating it.
It is my opinion that the earth itself has an actual age. It is my opinoin that it has a complete history. For example: we know the "mother and father" of the hawaiian islands. They were created by volcanoes. However, we don't have a birthdate. The only date we have comes through extrapolation and extrapolation can never tell us whether something is apparent or actual because extrapolation is based only on the appearance of an object. So we can't say conclusively that the hawaiian islands are actually old and not just apparently old. That doesn't mean the hawaiian islands don't have a birthdate though.
I said all that to say this. Given the above reasoning and examples why is it impossible to think that God created a universe 10,000 years ago, but went back and filled in ALL its history over the last few billion years. And if he did that why would it be wrong to say the universe is 4 billion years old even though creation only happented 10,000 years ago?
Why WOULD He do that or need to?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Did evolution just stop?" Beck asked rhetorically. "I haven't seen the half-monkey/half-person yet. ... There's no other species that's developing into half-people."
"I don't know how God creates. I don't know how we got here," he continued, wondering what God might tell him after he dies. "If God's like, 'Yup, you were a monkey once,' I'll be shocked, but I'll be cool with it."
Beck explained, "If God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator.
Even Glenn Becks religion has space to consider a Creator.
Ah! Ah! You have yet to even attempt to prove that your interpretation of Genesis is "Biblical creation."
Rephrase that, "Just another clever attempt to marry Jason's opinion to evolution...."
Actually no one was present at Creation. It was not observable.
That explains why you panic when I help you remember you have no empirical evidence to provide either.
There are many examples of "living fossils" in nature. It's just that no one had really plumbed the depths of the Agulhas Current until the 1950s and discovered the living descendants of the fossil coelacanth, so they had assumed (Jason's favorite word) that it must have gone extinct at some time.
I'd actually be happy if Brendan Fraser had really discovered dinosaurs alive somewhere on earth. That would be pretty cool AND it would not invalidate a single fact that we know about vertebrate evolution.
So the evoas "assumed it was extinct" 60 million years ago.
1 It shows who makes assumptions when you have no facts
2 It proves one more time that you have no continuous fossil record but rely on hunches as to what it contains if you did.
3 The fish didn't change Nope
4 The flippers never did turn into feet did they? Ooops Busted again.
5 We see no progression toward fins becoming arms and legs for "400 million years"
A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs.
Sorry they never did turn into limbs. Never.
Fairy tales claim they did.
So the evoas "assumed it was extinct" 60 million years ago.
1 It shows who makes assumptions when you have no facts
2 It proves one more time that you have no continuous fossil record but rely on hunches as to what it contains if you did.
3 The fish didn't change Nope
4 The flippers never did turn into feet did they? Ooops Busted again.
5 We see no progression toward fins becoming arms and legs for "400 million years"
A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs.
Sorry they never did turn into limbs. Never.
Fairy tales claim they did.
Do you think that evolution says that every line of descendants of every member of a species will evolve in the same way?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
