Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Re: Created Man...looked OLD but was NEW

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Are you SURE Creationism is wrong?

Yes.

Consider.

Man, when he was created by God, wasn't created as a sperm or an egg.
He was created fully grown.

Only by certain literal interpretations of a human-written book that
is not considered valid scientific evidence of anything.

To be more specific, man (and every other
created animal and vegetable on the Earth) was created appearing to be
much older then they actually were. For example, a fully grown man
would have looked decades old (at least), even though he were really
only a few minutes old.

If he looked decades old but was only a few minutes old, then he would
not have had the coordination to control his body, nor the knowledge
of language needed to communicate in fluent Hebrew (a language that
did not yet exist, but that's beside the point), nor the skills to
feed himself and otherwise to take care of his basic needs.

Question: Why should the Earth and stars have been any different?
And, further, if created man and animals and plants were only a few
minutes old, could how they appeared have accurately described their
age? No. So, who cares if the universe and Earth appeared to be old,
like all of the rest of Creation, that doesn't mean anything as to how
old it actually was. God would have made the stars in an
instant...and in an instant, they would have looked like they were
older. God would have made the Earth's land, and it would have been
new but looked old...by the very nature of it being made habitable for
that second. Correct?

Your argument appears to be that science is wrong because God lied to
us by making things look differently than they fundamentally are.

It is a nonsensical argument.

lojbab

Hello,

I have never found the Bible to be out of harmony with true science.
If you think you have an example, I will share any knowledge I have on
the matter for you to consider.

Only by certain literal interpretations of a human-written book that
is not considered valid scientific evidence of anything.

If that were true, then that would make these Bible statements
concerning the astronomical nature of the earth to be false. Isaiah
40:22,

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (NIV)

The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which also has the
meaning of "sphere". Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the
globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth." (Moffatt).

Also, out of the Book of Job comes the statement at Job 26:7,

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (RSV)

So the Bible in its poetic style thousands of years ago, describes the
earth as a circular sphere 'hanging' upon "nothing" (floating) in a
"void" (space). Sound familiar?