Piorokrat wrote:
>
>>
>>Piorokrat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
> w
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins I read this message from "Piorokrat"
>>>><piorokrat@autograf.pl>:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My view of God is that he can simply call things into existence in an
>>>>>already completed and mature state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I thought this was what you meant, but I could not believe it.
>>>>You actually believe in a God who deceives people. That is what
>>>>you have said. God makes things look like they have a past, a
>>>>history. They look like they had gone through events that had not
>>>>taken place. So, for instance, God could have created the world
>>>>Last Thursday and just made it look old. How could you tell if
>>>>you have a God willing to deceive people like that?
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There is so much deceit in this world that if we are going to start
>>>
> blaming
>
>>>God for deceit we'll get nowhere regardless of what we think about
>>>
> evolution
>
>>>and creation.
>>>
>>>The point is he TOLD us that it was made perfect, ie. mature.
>>>
>>>If you chosse to believe otherwise, up to you.
>>>
>>>It's obvious that when Adam was made at creation, he already was made
>>>
> say 33
>
>>>years old, he didn't have to wait 33 years of earthly life like Christ
>>>
> did,
>
>>>who was never created but was made flesh in this world a baby.
>>>
>>>He and Eve were created already grown up people, with a language that
>>>
> they
>
>>>could speak normally learned for years from parents. Some people say
>>>
> Adam
>
>>>would have had no navel, but I see no problem with him even having been
>>>created with a navel. Everyone else has one.
>>>
>>>I don't see the deceit there, it only looks like deceit if you've been
>>>believing the humanist version of the world, which really is a deceit.
>>>
>>
>>So how far are you willing to take this? Did God create the world 6000
>>years ago with light on its way here from supernovae that never actually
>>happened? Miles of sedimentary rocks containing fossils of organisms
>>that never lived? Igneous rocks with radionuclides in various stages of
>>decay?
>
> Fossils are a point which can be discussed. They are much rarer than they
> should be bearing in mind what evolutionists say about the age of the earth.
> I tend to believe that they are flood victims.
What you tend to believe has no necessary relationship to reality, and
in fact the whole idea of the flood is ludicrous from many, many
directions. But wait -- I thought the earth was mature at creation. Do
you mean it didn't have miles and miles of sedimentary rocks in place at
that time?
And what about the radionuclides?
> The supernovae and the balls of light creating the stars could be notional,
> since the important thing that was created was the light. Gen 1.15 shows the
> only point in these heavenly lights was to give lights to the earth. The
> brightest one in the sky, the Pole star, was placed so that Man would always
> know where North is, as he spread out over the earth, for example.
Just so you know: Polaris is by no means the brightest star in the sky;
not even close. Not counting Sol, that would be Sirius. So why create
all that light that we can't see with the naked eye: the appearance of
galaxies millions of light-years away from us, and all sorts of
phenomena outside the visible spectrum? It only serves to fool us into
thinking there's a real universe out there (which, judging by your
opinion just below, you aren't sure of) and that it's very, very old.
> There may not actually be a Pole star.
Beg pardon? Are you saying that God, even now, is continually creating
light to give the impression that Polaris exists, when it actually
doesn't? Because it's only a few hundred light years away from us.
That's one weird deity you have there.
> Other than Edyta Gorniak, Basia Trzetrzelewska, Adam Malysz and a few others
> I could mention, that is.
OK.
>>In fact is the entire universe consistent with an age of billions of
>>years, through creation, a few thousand years ago, of all the evidence
>>for that age?
>
> I can't quite parse that one.
>
> Let's have it again, with a slightly different wording.
I mean is all the evidence scientists use for the age of the universe
and earth actually correctly interpreted as far as it's possible to do
(based on that evidence only, not revelation), because the universe and
earth were created a few thousand years ago with the appearance of great
age?
> I'm not being evasive or rude, I honestly can't work out exactly what you
> are asking here.
No problem.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|