How literally do you take the creation story?

[Ceeboo]

Well if snakes could walk back then... why not talk as well?

Not exactly, there is no conclusive proof that snakes ever talked. The fact is, there is proof they did indeed fly!

The "sneagle", (the snake that evolved into an eagle) could fly.

These found fossils of the "sneagle" have been dated (BY SCIENTISTS WITH PAPERWORK) to be 34 and 5/8 million years old (with an age variance of 3 to 5 hours either way)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

An oft repeated heresy is still a heresy.

[Hughes]

This hasn't the remotest relationship to what is really done. In real life multiple stands of evidence are used, sophisticated physics, statistical analysis, systems of differential equations etc. Thousands of pages of mathematically intense, deep and careful analysis in done which is clearly light years beyond what you imagine.

There is no naivet

[Hughes]

One word; Evidence! (tons of it)

Evidence that isn't direct, but indirect can be interpreted in different ways and all of the evidence supporting the age of the earth are indirect. It isn't good science to say that only one interpretation of the evidence is the only way to view it or the only proper conclusion.

[Calm]

I guess the spacious building without a foundation would have to be an image of the tree of Knowledge. Intesting that those in the building that are mocking, can be likened to Darwin and his band of modern Scientists with their ever changing theories on a shifting sand foundation. They are also in a a man made structure. Where as the tree of life... Just IS and always has been.

You are comparing the tree of knowledge (a gift from God that gave men an attribute of godliness...being able to discern right from wrong, that allowed them to progress) with the great and spacious building? Where in the world did you get that connection?

I think this one of your jumps is a bit too far, Zak.

[Calm]

Here's a thought=

If the Flood can be regional, can the Garden Story be as well?

Could Adam & Eve have been two people living in the Fertile Crescent of Ancient Mesopotamia, the most lush and 'paradisiacal' region of the known world?

Not sure if this has been pointed out or not, but the Garden had to be a 'local region' as Adam and Eve were able to leave the Garden to go out into the World and an angel was required to stand to block entrance back into it...not something that would be possible if the Garden was the entire world and then it was altered into a fallen state as there would be nothing left to guard (assuming here a literal interpretation), especially when we are told the Garden remained and in the story remains unchanged by the Fall, man and woman being the ones who are changed and therefore have to leave the perfect state of the Garden.

Scriptures say the world was created and then the Garden was planted "eastward, in Eden". Joseph Smith in identifying Adam-Ondi-Ahman also localizes the Garden.

Whether or not they lived in the Middle East or the Midwest, the Garden---that perfect place---only existed in a part, possibly small part (one angel blocking the way back? how many border patrol agents are required for the US? ) of the world. And the rest of the world appears to have been in a lone and dreary world with no indication that I can see in the scriptures that it had been altered because of the Fall rather than already being in that state, not having the blessings of God lavished upon it as had the Garden.

[Hughes]

Create the appearance of age?

What are his options? Which would you choose if you were all powerful?

1) Create with no appearance of age, and wait billions of years for the laws of physics he's created to actually develop or "create" what he really wanted...

2) Create with the appearance of age and set things up as he wanted in the beginning, and use the 6 days of creation as an example of a work week.

It doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God would choose the first option.

What is time to God? To God, is there a difference between a day and a billion years?

I'm really curious, how would you answer the question I posed. What would you do if you were all powerful?

[Calm]

I'm really curious, how would you answer the question I posed. What would you do if you were all powerful?

If I made something I would be satisfied for it to look its age.

There are plenty of things to test our faith that are a natural consequence of our lives, why would God throw in a monkey wrench (the deceptive appearance of the earth) that was unnecessary to all indications?

[mfbukowski]

I'm really curious, how would you answer the question I posed. What would you do if you were all powerful?

Give me a break. I would not be worrying about THAT.

First I would not be worried about how one of my kids saw me since I could probably alter my appearance considerably at will anyway. It would be so far beyond me thinking about it that it would be.... not very important.

[Tarski]

I'm really curious, how would you answer the question I posed. What would you do if you were all powerful?

I would make sure to arrange the universe to tell a tissue of lies to test faith. I would only want people in heaven who refuse to use their minds and believe things contrary to evidence. /end sarcasm.

[Brade]

I'm really curious, how would you answer the question I posed. What would you do if you were all powerful?

Well, If I had no limitations, not even logical ones, I'd just instantly make a world populated by creatures whose company I'd enjoy, who didn't suffer, who weren't simply automata, and we'd live happily ever after.

[mfbukowski]

No, they believe that there was no sin/death before Adam (thousands vs billions is interesting indeed though)

Are you saying that all participating Catholics believe that?

[Hughes]

If I made something I would be satisfied for it to look its age.

There are plenty of things to test our faith that are a natural consequence of our lives, why would God throw in a monkey wrench (the deceptive appearance of the earth) that was unnecessary to all indications?

If God told you that he made it fully formed, how is that to be considered deceptive?

[Hughes]

Well, If I had no limitations, not even logical ones, I'd just instantly make a world populated by creatures whose company I'd enjoy, who didn't suffer, who weren't simply automata, and we'd live happily ever after.

Curious... seriously, how would you make "non-automata" people who didn't suffer?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Since I'm all powerful I can do whatever I want.

[cinepro]

Not sure if this has been pointed out or not, but the Garden had to be a 'local region' as Adam and Eve were able to leave the Garden to go out into the World and an angel was required to stand to block entrance back into it...not something that would be possible if the Garden was the entire world and then it was altered into a fallen state as there would be nothing left to guard (assuming here a literal interpretation), especially when we are told the Garden remained and in the story remains unchanged by the Fall, man and woman being the ones who are changed and therefore have to leave the perfect state of the Garden.

Scriptures say the world was created and then the Garden was planted "eastward, in Eden". Joseph Smith in identifying Adam-Ondi-Ahman also localizes the Garden.

Whether or not they lived in the Middle East or the Midwest, the Garden---that perfect place---only existed in a part, possibly small part (one angel blocking the way back? how many border patrol agents are required for the US? ) of the world. And the rest of the world appears to have been in a lone and dreary world with no indication that I can see in the scriptures that it had been altered because of the Fall rather than already being in that state, not having the blessings of God lavished upon it as had the Garden.

Here's the relevant scripture:

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.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife

[tplay]

It seems to me that radioactive decay rates are more like soda bubbles in a glass. Leave the glass alone and they disipate at a pretty steady rate. Bump the table or glass, or stick your finger in the foam and the disipation accelerates.

THAT is what the data seems to show.

http://www.icr.org/a...tes-not-stable/

I have a few problems, with their methodology and their conclusions:

Alpha particles won't penetrate through the thickness of beaker glass, and they specifically said the detector was outside the vessel. How did they detect changes, or anything at all?

Why didn't they measure the amount of thorium before the experiment? Why only after?

Thorium's decay products weren't present in the amount expected for thorium decay, isn't the better explanation that the amount they assumed to be concentration of thorium in this solution, measured in the parts per hundred billions, was wrong?

If anyone, anywhere, can accelerate the decay of nuclear material, and turn nuclear waste back into nuclear fuel, they would very quickly become the richest person in the world, only to follow that by becoming the richest person in the world several times over.

[Brade]

Curious... seriously, how would you make "non-automata" people who didn't suffer?

Hughes:

Since I'm all powerful I can do whatever I want.

Exactly.

But, specifically as to this:

What are his options? Which would you choose if you were all powerful?

1) Create with no appearance of age, and wait billions of years for the laws of physics he's created to actually develop or "create" what he really wanted...

2) Create with the appearance of age and set things up as he wanted in the beginning, and use the 6 days of creation as an example of a work week.

It doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God would choose the first option.

Assuming I'm using 'all powerful' in the same way you are, I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense to go with option 1, but then, that's also the case for option 2. Why, if I'm all powerful, would I create for 6 days? Why not 5? How about just 1 day? Or, why not just instantly? I don't think the question you raise does what you hope it to do in this discussion.

[Calm]

If God told you that he made it fully formed, how is that to be considered deceptive?

There is a difference between a man who is fully formed at the age of 21 and at the age of 65, is there not?

[urroner]

There is a difference between a man who is fully formed at the age of 21 and at the age of 65, is there not?

You decide Cal.

Me at the age of 21:

Me, when I'll be 65:

[Hughes]

sorry double post.

[Hughes]

"Hughes:

Since I'm all powerful I can do whatever I want."

Exactly.

All powerful never means that you can violate logic. In essence, you said that you would create a perfect people, with no suffering, but not be an automaton.

Here's what God did. He created perfect people, without suffering. And what happened? They (us) used their non-automaton selves (called free will) to bring suffering into the world. How is it that you think you could do any different?

But, specifically as to this:

Assuming I'm using 'all powerful' in the same way you are, I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense to go with option 1, but then, that's also the case for option 2. Why, if I'm all powerful, would I create for 6 days? Why not 5? How about just 1 day? Or, why not just instantly? I don't think the question you raise does what you hope it to do in this discussion.

Why create for 6 days? Isn't that rather obvious? He used it to demonstrate to us that we are to work 6 days, and rest one day. Understand, Yes, he could have done it in all in a micro-second.

[Hughes]

There is a difference between a man who is fully formed at the age of 21 and at the age of 65, is there not?

Not sure your point. Please explain more.

[mfbukowski]

There is a difference between a man who is fully formed at the age of 21 and at the age of 65, is there not?

I don't think we are ever "fully formed", but always becoming.

[Calm]

Not sure your point. Please explain more.

You claim the current apparent (as opposed to the actual) age of the earth is not deceptive, but that the fully formed state it is in naturally possesses the apparent age of a much older earth. This is what you are claiming right? In response to questions about why God would make the earth look older than it is?

My next question if I am correct in interpreting your position is why does a fully formed earth look so aged when it's not?

A fully formed man at the age of 21 looks 21, not 65. A fully formed man of 65, looks 65 not 21.

I would think that a fully formed earth that is only 6000 years old would still look only 6000 years old instead of much, much older.