Re: Non-truths that do not transform

From: Sheila Wilson <>
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 10:39:11 EDT

My comment should say "a fully functional universe . . ." Clearly I have not met the fully functioning criteria in email proof-reading.

Sheila Wilson <> wrote:
To further Paul's line of thought, I fully functional universe is not necessarily mature. A fetus is fully functional in the womb, a baby is fully functional, a teenager is fully functional - each in their own setting - but none are mature.
Astronomers believe our earth is a second or third generation earth created from other material. God said His creation was good and very good but He did not say complete.

Paul Greaves <> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
...I trust you would agree that anything created by divine fiat ex nihilo (as strongly implied by the words of Genesis 1) must be fully functional from day one, and hence must inevitably assume an 'appearance of age'. Surely, to deny this is to question the capabilities of the Creator. So, if we believe in a God for whom nothing is impossible (Gen.18:14), how can we Christians deny the possibility of something being younger than it appears?

I don't post a lot to the forum, but thought I'd respond to this one since it's a subject I've given a lot of thought to. On the surface of it, I think Vernon is right... if God created a functional creation, it might appear "old" to an observer. However, there are different kinds of evidence for age.
For example, I might expect Adam to be created as a fully formed man. However, I would not expect him to have scars apparently from old injuries such as broken and healed bones, a healed burn, or a missing and healed finger. Likewise, I might expect the trees to be of full size, but I would not expect them to have evidence of dry years and wetter years in the rings, or healed scars from old forest fires.
I've spent a lot of time examining the geologic evidence, and it is exactly this latter type of evidence for age that convinces me that the earth really is old. I can handle God creating the earth instantly and even recently ( I don't really care) but since I do see evidence of _processes_ and specific events preserved in the creation I must conclude that those processes really happened. Creating the evidence of those events strikes me as totally deceptive unless they really happened. In summary, the argument that appearance of age doesn't imply actual age sounds good at first, but it just doesn't hold up to examining the actual evidence...
-Paul Greaves

Sheila McGinty Wilson

Sheila McGinty Wilson
Received on Tue Apr 26 10:40:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 10:40:08 EDT