Talk:FAQs about eternity
Recommended for Deletion
I have recommended this page for deletion on the grounds that it is erroneous and that it reflects negatively on the credibility of the creationist community.
I would counsel the author that, in my opinion, CreationWiki is not a forum for the presentation and discussion of new theories. The various peer-reviewed creationist research journals are available for that purpose (Journal of Creation, Answers Research Journal and Creation Research Society Quarterly to name three.)
Pftaylor 09:25, 24 June 2011 (PDT)
Severe Editing Required
In my opinion, this page is inappropriate for CreationWiki. It contains original and unreferenced material. Personal websites should be used for presenting one's opinions, not CreationWiki. The ideas expressed on this page have not, to the best of my research, been submitted to any of the peer-reviewed creationist journals.
At the very least, the page requires drastic editing, and the backing up of every point made with references. Otherwise, I will regretfully have to recommend it for deletion.
Pftaylor 06:55, 12 May 2011 (PDT)
Etermal Time creation
Open for ideas. This is a theory I have been working on that so far does not go against scripture or physical evidence.Ikester7579 22:51, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
The case AGAINST “Eternity Time Creation”.
The following is a point by point response to the FAQ section.
“1) Can eternity have anything birth into it? No. This is because that anything birthed would never age. And this applies to both living and non-living matter. Example (living matter): If a living creature were born into eternity, when would it grow up since eternity does not have the aging process? Example (dead matter): If a star, or planet were born into eternity, when would it cool down since aging is not a process of eternity?”
Much of this is based on the every beginning, where the author claims the eternity equals “Is where nothing ever dies. And nothing ever ages.” This is wrong and any dictionary would back me up on this.
Eternity is boundless and timeless. Thus it couldn’t have been in our universe, because our universe is bounded and is controlled by time. Relativity requires that time is a unique concept of the physical universe. Our universe was never in eternity.
“2) If nothing can be birthed into eternity, then how does it work? Because nothing can be birthed into eternity, everything has to be created. Hence the need for a Creator.”
Once the creator put something into the Void (the proper name of what we are talking about.), it no longer has an eternal nature (assuming that the author defination of the word is right.)
“3) If age is not the process of eternity, how are things created concerning a age-less realm? Because eternity has to be created in working order, because aging is not a process of it. Everything created in eternity is created with age already added. This applies to both living and non-living matter.“
To some degree, the author is right. There was some degree of the AA (appearance of age), but we must only take it so far.
“4) Is there biblical evidence of this type of creation? Yes, both man and animal were created and told to go forth and multiply. This means that both were created with enough age to do just that.”
It would also mean God is a liar. Please read The universe was created with apparent age (Talk.Origins)
5“) Is there physical evidence for this? Yes, the earth being created with enough age (4.6 billion years aged) to sustain life. The moon only having 3 inches of dust but dating to 4 billion years old.“
First, the earth is 4.6 billion year old, but 6,000-10,000 years old. The physical evidence supports this. Any close look at creationwiki articles show this to be true. As for the moon, it is often dated assuming it is older then the earth and moon recession gives a much younger date for it. I suggest the author read Index of Creationist Claims for a defense of YEC.
“6) So what does this mean as far as what we observe today? It explains how you can have an object date billions of years old, but yet have evidence for only 6,000 years of actual time passage. The old age dating explains the age which was added to the object upon it's creation in eternity (before the first sin). The young earth evidence explains how much actual time has past since it's creation with age (after the first sin). This is how you get both young and old evidence mixed.“
The assumes that evidence for such a old earth exist, but I argue it doesn’t. Thus the theory misses a prediction.
“7) How does this explain the existence of the geologic column? The geologic column was set up by the flood through hydrologic sorting. The layers contained the age markers of the earth being created with age. The fossils, which were also hydrolically sorted from the flood, were laid out in the layers. And because the layers already had age of being created with age. The layers cross contaminated the fossils.“
I argue that this is unlikely, I know of no physical way to mix radiometric dates like this and accelerated nuclear decay happen during this period, thus was ever “contaminated” the fossil wasn’t very much.
There is no need to reply to eight, due to the fact that it just repeats what 7 said.--Nlawrence 07:39, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
.....So do we get to know who this is that responded? Besides, this sounds like a evolutionists response because a creationist would never imply that God is a liar and use talk origins as a reference to prove it. I have been met with huge resistance from the evolution side since I came up with this. Makes one wonder what they are scared of.Ikester7579 00:40, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
No, I am a creationist. A die hard one two. I just disagree with your theory. It's unscienctific and is not needed. I did not use a TalkOirgins reference. What I cited was a responce to TalkOrigins.
I will create a rebuttal to your responce in good time. I have to go to my church's VBS right now. --Nlawrence 07:43, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, it is an intriguing idea, and one I don't believe I have considered before. However, I must agree with Nlawrence. This does not take into account such things as accelerated decay. Additionally, God created male and female, and such a setup would seem to lack much purpose if all new creatures were going to be continually created directly by God. In Genesis 1:11-12 , it also mentions how plants were made to produce seed, which would presumably go on to grow. Furthermore, having an "eternity time" where nothing aged would be contradictory with the proposed purpose of the theory, namely the explanation of the "apparent age" provided by radiometric dating. Still an interesting concept, and you've probably spent a decent amount of time on it, but I don't think it can float. Like the above poster mentioned, check out the Index. --Zephyr Axiom 00:46, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
(ps. I don't think you need a period at the end of the article title.)
(pps. The prior poster was Nlawrence. You can check the history tab up top.)
Response to question
1) Much of this is based on the every beginning, where the author claims the eternity equals “Is where nothing ever dies. And nothing ever ages.” This is wrong and any dictionary would back me up on this.
....God's word does say that death was not until man sinned. So what is time without death? If you don't die, how long do you live? If Adam and Eve did not sin, how long would they have lived?
a) Eternity is boundless and timeless. Thus it couldn’t have been in our universe, because our universe is bounded and is controlled by time. Relativity requires that time is a unique concept of the physical universe. Our universe was never in eternity.
....How do you do time comparisons with a realm that contains no time? 2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2) Once the creator put something into the Void (the proper name of what we are talking about.), it no longer has an eternal nature (assuming that the author defination of the word is right.)
....Where was the void? Was it in the spiritual realm, or physical realm? The void was the bounderies between Good, evil (both spiritual), and the physical (a trinity). The void was that the three heavens were not set up yet. 2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3) To some degree, the author is right. There was some degree of the AA (appearance of age), but we must only take it so far.
....Explain the need for only going part way? Is it biblical?
4) It would also mean God is a liar. Please read The universe was created with apparent age (Talk.Origins)
....What did he lie about? Or was it our misunderstanding? People are called liars all the time, and found out later it was a misunderstanding.
5) First, the earth is 4.6 billion year old, but 6,000-10,000 years old. The physical evidence supports this. Any close look at creationwiki articles show this to be true. As for the moon, it is often dated assuming it is older then the earth and moon recession gives a much younger date for it. I suggest the author read Index of Creationist Claims for a defense of YEC.
....God being the Alpha and Omega He would have control over time and age to create with what ever age that was needed to make His creation work. What would make God a liar, as you imply, is if God made the physical things look old, but left no dating markers for how old. The age markers are God's testament unto His power to create through time, without being bound to the laws of time (which is eternity).
6) The assumes that evidence for such a old earth exist, but I argue it doesn’t. Thus the theory misses a prediction.
....Then how would you compare a planet that is still molten, to one that is cooled down? Which one would you say is older, and how would you prove it? Does not the passage of time make things cool if the same amount of time passed for all physical object involved? But if you apply that God can create with age, then one planet could be hot, while another is cooled off. It's because God created them that way on the very day they were created. Does God have power over time, or is He bound by time? Power over time equals power over age as well. Because age is a direct process of time, correct?
7) I argue that this is unlikely, I know of no physical way to mix radiometric dates like this and accelerated nuclear decay happen during this period, thus was ever “contaminated” the fossil wasn’t very much.
....But you cannot deny that it can happen, right? So how do you explain the blood and blood vessels of a T-Rex, but yet it is considered to be how old?
If you are seeking truth, you cannot allow yourself to accept one type of evidence and deny another to do it. You let the word of God speak to you to find the answers as to why both exist at the same-time.Ikester7579 01:31, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
“....God's word does say that death was not until man sinned. So what is time without death? If you don't die, how long do you live? If Adam and Eve did not sin, how long would they have lived?”
Valid point. However you are confusing time everlasting and eternity. They are two different things.
“....How do you do time comparisons with a realm that contains no time? 2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
We are talking about time in OUR universe.
“....Where was the void? Was it in the spiritual realm, or physical realm? The void was the bounderies between Good, evil (both spiritual), and the physical (a trinity). The void was that the three heavens were not set up yet. 2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.”
The Void in nothingness. It equals NOTHING.
“....Explain the need for only going part way? Is it biblical?”
Not only is it Biblical, it is also rational and required for creationism to remain a scientific theory.
I suggest you read The universe was created with apparent age (Talk.Origins) for more details.
“....What did he lie about? Or was it our misunderstanding? People are called liars all the time, and found out later it was a misunderstanding.”
Then most stars don’t even exist if your theory is right. I prefer models that are TESTABLE.
“....God being the Alpha and Omega He would have control over time and age to create with what ever age that was needed to make His creation work. What would make God a liar, as you imply, is if God made the physical things look old, but left no dating markers for how old. The age markers are God's testament unto His power to create through time, without being bound to the laws of time (which is eternity).”
Your theory is wrong because it contradicts the evidence. God didn’t create the earth this way BECAUSE NOTHING IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM IN YOUNG. The Bible says God created the earth the six EARTH days.
“....Then how would you compare a planet that is still molten, to one that is cooled down? Which one would you say is older, and how would you prove it? Does not the passage of time make things cool if the same amount of time passed for all physical object involved? But if you apply that God can create with age, then one planet could be hot, while another is cooled off. It's because God created them that way on the very day they were created. Does God have power over time, or is He bound by time? Power over time equals power over age as well. Because age is a direct process of time, correct?“
You can’t tell which one is older because the model that they are dated by assumes false and has flaws. Please read Nebula hypothesis. Plus God created the earth is six earth days, but what about time dilation? This type of model is testable and does not require the summoning of God. The earth is young, but the universe is ancient.
God is outside of time, not the universe. You are trying to claim that the laws of time did not apply in the early stages of the Cosmos. Wether God is outside of time or not is not an issue.
“....But you cannot deny that it can happen, right? So how do you explain the blood and blood vessels of a T-Rex, but yet it is considered to be how old? “
They young very young. Their existence is not an issue.
Your model is wrong because it unlikely, unscientific, and contradict observable evidence.--Nlawrence 22:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- Many Young Earth Creationists do not accept radiometric dating not only because it contradicts a young earth, but also because the very premise of radiometric dating rests upon naturalistic assumptions. Radiometric dating is not an evidence, but rather an interpretation. It assumes several things, including the uniformity of decay rates, the original ratio, and a closed system (when the "date" given agrees with the evolutionist's preconceived notion of a fossil's age). Young Earth Creationism does not need to make such assumptions, and indeed there has been found evidence of accelerated decay. It would seem that the only reason for this theory is the reconciliation of radiometric dates to a recent creation, but there is reason to believe that these dates derived from radiometric dating are in error.
- That being said, I perceive certain contradictions in the theory as you have presented it here. You state that there would have been no birth in this eternity time, but you also state that man and animal were created mature with the purpose of going forth to multiply. Now, the latter has Biblical support, but the former seems to only be a necessity of this theory. I again point out that there were created male and female, and plants were told to bear seeds. Now, having an ageless period where there was no decay, such as with stars, would defeat the purpose of this theory explaining old ages given by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is the decay of one element into another over the process of time. --Zephyr Axiom 12:16, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
- Let's break this down then. What is time with and without death? One is time that includes sin. One is time that contains no sin (eternity). So before the first sin, what was time considered? Was it with or without death?
- What we can conclude is that time without sin has no process of aging or death. Or would you like to explain how heaven is "sin-less", and is considered eternity, and our time is "sinful" and is not eternal? The difference between the two time-lines is sin. Sin causes death in one time-line, but not in the other. So sin ends up being the activated cause of aging and death. So time without sin is eternal. So time can exist in both eternal and non-eternal realms. The determining factor of non-eternity is sin. Unless you can provide verses that say eternity has no time because time itself is not eternal? The only thing I have ever read in God's word that makes anything not eternal is sin. So if you have another verse that contradicts that, I'm always open to learn something new.Ikester7579 16:29, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
- Great post Ikester, I agree completely. --Tony Sommer 16:42, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
- Okay. Maybe misunderstood some of your points. Your last post makes sense, although I suppose I still adhere to the old concept of God being outside of time. Time starting at creation is always something I took for granted. To me, it feels like there may still have been a gauge of time passage, especially considering the day/night system. I may be wrong. However, I must ask how you came to the conclusion that the earth has the age of 4.6 billion years. I must also ask how Adam's age of 930 years fits into all this. Furthermore, you put in the article: "1) Can eternity have anything birth into it? No." How does this deal with Genesis 1:11-12 and the Lord creating male and female? Your answers to numbers 1 and 2 in the article seem to contradict number 4. Anyway, please don't take my messages personally. I merely want to us creationists to be using the most reasonable models and theories. Again, it's an interesting idea. I myself have some rather far out theories of my own.--Zephyr Axiom 23:46, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Birthing into eternity
Very valid questions Zephyr. As far as nothing being able to be birthed into eternity, I don't think one can truly be certain one way or the other, but one must take a leap of faith. To be honest biological beings need not be the only thing able to be birthed into eternity but matter or the natural itself could be considered.
Can the very point of existence of something other than God or eternity then be considered time? I believe so. Thus the natural world has time through the birth of it. Time can be established as a point of existence within eternity as the natural world.
To me, eternity isn't the absence of time completely but quite possibly the very presence of God. In that context, God has isolated His true nature from us through His natural creation which contains elements that we define as time-based. When that was established within the natural world by the supernatural it is then created to be interpreted as such.
I do believe that the moment God spoke elements of creation into existence that God attached certain creations, or essentially specific objects of matter to ultimately control the day/night cycle so clearly described. And for the record I do NOT agree the earth is 4.6 billion years old given the Scriptural support of a young earth. --Tony Sommer 03:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- When God created time, which was in the begining. He automatically became the Alpha and Omega of it. You see eternity has no Alpha or Omega. So that phrase shows God's power over time and that He would be there till it's end. Which maybe after the 1000 years. Time may actually exist in both realms so that they can be parallel. And so that God and the angels can work in both. And when time is not longer needed here, it won't be needed there either.
- So God being the Alpha and Omega also gives Him prior knowledge to what man would do. But what most Christians do not understand, is what makes good and evil different is that evil is a controlling force that makes you conceed to it. Good is a choice that is given as a gift. And it is your choice to recieve it. So God being good has to give Adam and Eve the choice. The snake (representation of Satan) being Evil made it sound tempting to Eve to make the wrong choice. When the snake talk to Eve, if you notice the wording, he only told one side of the story. Eve was compelled to the temptation of what this one side had to offer. If the snake were fair in view, he would have told Eve she would be thrown out of the Garden, and separated from God. If Eve would have known this, do you think she would have sinned? Of course not.
- But God being good "has" to give us the choice of good and evil. In this way He never looks like He forces His views or His ways upon someone who does not want it. Why? Because real true love requires a real true choice. Forced love is a conterfeit. So upon God having to give the choice, and knowing that man in general would choose evil. He prepared His creation upon being created to be able to deal with what sin would bring. But, if they had not sinned. These things would not have affected eternity because God's creation had no knowledge of how to be fruitful and multiply until they realized they were naked. If God would have had to recreate man because of sin, then He would not be all knowing. God knew what they would do given the choice. But the choice has to be given because it is a part of what being Holy and Rightous is. And what true love is.Ikester7579 04:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- Well, my counter arguments seem to be diminishing.... Guess that's a good sign for the theory :). Still three more questions: seeds, the method with which you got the 4.6 billion year date, and how that date meshes with Adam's age. --Zephyr Axiom 11:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Contradiction of scripture
You seem to be contradicting Scripture Ikester with this statement: "If Eve would have known this, do you think she would have sinned? Of course not." Concluding or essentially implying that Eve did not know she would be seperated from God for not obeying His word. Yet, clearly in Genesis before the fall Eve and Adam both knew that death would ensue once they disobeyed God, or ate from the tree. The snake didn't need to be fair, what is fair was established by God beforehand.
To think Adam and Eve or humanity for that matter would not sin simply because the one tempting them to do so tells the whole story doesn't make sense when Adam and Eve were in the very presence of God, already knew the consequences of their own choice over Gods, yet were still fooled.--Tony Sommer 13:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- Response to contridicting scripture. When the snake spoke to Eve, did he or did he not say that Eve would not surely die? Because Adam and Eve did not know what a lie was. She thought the snake was telling the truth. And the snake implied that God was not telling the wholw story, but it was the snake who did not tell it. Now You did bring up a good question, and it does go towards more of my opinion than fact. Because we cannot know exactly what Eve was thinking, or exactly their knowledge. But one thing is for sure. They must of had innocent minds (like a child) because they did not know they were naked until they ate the fruit. So I assumed if Eve knew better (had an adult mind) it would not have happened.Ikester7579 15:04, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- The snake indeed said that they would not die, which contradicts God's words. Whether or not it was labeled a lie it was obviously something that was denying Gods commands, Eve knew that. Perhaps not in the act of sinning because it was her will she was concerned with, but after the fact their actions are clear in that they knew what they had done and their recognition of sin can be found with their recognition of their nakedness. They knew what would happen, and I think Eve was intelligent enough to realize that her own will is worse than God's because again He was clear that you will die if you disobey Me and eat the fruit. However through the temptation that evil or Satan brought it blinded her to what was right by having her realize her own will to choose.
- I think that having an innocent mind means that they could not recognize sin until they invited it into their lives through their choices to go against God's will. I think our differences here are not to major Ikester, great article and great debate we are having!--Tony Sommer 15:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- Seeds. If you are speaking of living things not growing. Life itself is in the blood. lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
- This is why when God rejected Cain's offering of plants. Life is in the blood, plants do not have blood. So eternity does not apply to them as it applies to us as far as life goes. We may use the term that a plant lives and dies. But because plants do not have blood, it is not considered alive, nor do plants have flesh. Things that are not considered alive, cannot die because you have to be alive first. Also I don't remember reading any where in God's word about a plant dying. In fact, because it is our food, it's process is probably only considered a cycle that passes in order to give us food.
- As far as the age of the earth. That time never passed because in eternity everything, except plants, were created with age. Plants are considered food for us to eat. So they are a separate creation. So on the first day, the earth was created with a 4.6 billion year aged (not time passage) matter. So a 4.6 billion year old earth was created 6,000 years ago. So it's not a bible contridiction. And because God left the age markers for what He did, He was telling us the truth by allowing us to find this out. This is why we can find evidence for accelerated aging. To make the earth 4.6 year old the same 24 hour day it was created, is accelerating it's age.Ikester7579 15:38, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- I think instead of stating that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, essentially reiterating the evolutionist position, perhaps the term mature should be used to define creation science thought better? --Tony Sommer 15:41, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- ^^That seems to sum up one of the gripes I'm having. By 4.6 billions years old, do you mean that creation took that long, or do you mean that in six days (or less) those elements decayed to an extent that it would have taken current processes 4.6 billion years? If it's the second meaning, then I agreed with you from the start on this point. --Zephyr Axiom 15:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
- Now I know it is hard to understand. First know that God has power over both time (one process) And aging (another process). In His creation, He aged the matter in which the earth would be created from. There was no decaying. To understand this, you need to get away from trying to explain how God did everything naturally. Because God is spiritual, not everything will be explainable that He does. Like breathing life and a soul into man. That is a God only power. The creation of earth with age already added is a God only power. Creating animals of all sorts from the existing elements, and dead matter is a God only power.
- Not everything in creation is explainable. But you have to watch out for the trap in which many creationists fall into is where they debate evolutionists so much. That to explain God's creation they start to believe that it has to be scientific. Evolutionists will never understand the spiritual side, nor the spiritual power of God. So you have to accept that there are some things they will not understand. But don't let that allow you to ever deny the power of God to create.
- 2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.... Being afraid of being tagged with the God did it label, is caving in to the evolutionists naturalistic views of explaining everything. If God were that easy to understand, then we could become god. But we cannot because God is beyond our comprehension. So if evolutionists don't understand what you are speaking of when it comes to God's power to create in a un-naturalistc way, so what? God did not promise anyone on this planet such knowledge. For even evolutionists have god did it answers, but without god.Ikester7579 00:16, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
The unexplainable parts of creation require faith
jn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Those who required site or reasonable explaination are denying what faith is, and Why God requires us to have it. Why? Faith requires commitment. It is a more powerul bond than having knowledge of said subject. Faith requires you to commit your heart. Evidence requires you to commit your mind. And your mind can close your heart to faith if your mind requires evidence that is expalinable, or see-able, before your heart commits. This is why Jesus resides in the heart when He is accepted as part of a person's life. A Christian is supposed to be heart guided, not mind guided. This is the problem that does not allow us to see or understand God's calling upon our life. Because when we cut off the very thing that will show us, what do we expect? Christ does not live in the mind. So if we search for truth only using our minds only, we will never find it.
Are we afraid of the "God did it" label? Or are we afraid of a commitment of faith so strong that "God did it" would be the answer in a lot of cases? The evolutionists that are disconnected from their heart on faith issues, and will never change their heart. This is because they allow their mind to be the gate keeper of what their heart will accept as truth. So their truth ends up being controlled by a part of their flesh that is not apart of where Christ would reside if they were to accept Him. The heart is the only organ that can communicate with the brain in four different ways:
1) Neurological communication (nervous system)
2) Biophysical communication (pulse wave)
3) Biochemical communication (hormones)
4) Energetic communication (electromagnetic fields)
Neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), bio-physically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain's activity. It is now believed that this is the very reason our heart actually hurts when we lose someone near and dear to us. And that the heart plays a role in our emotions, and can actually affect the way we think. Christ residing in our heart upon being saved shows that the Creator knew more about His creation then we will ever know.
So a faith foundation is required because the commitment that has to be done to acheive such faith. Faith is not found in the minds of men, it is found in the hearts of men. Right where our faith should start after Christ is living there. So either "God did it", or He did not do it. Don't fall into the trap evolutionists set that makes one separate from their heart felt guidance. Because once you allow your mind to dominate, then their ideas can enter your mind, and eventually your heart. And when that happens, your faith of one thing can be stolen for the faith of another thing. And when that happens:
gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.Ikester7579 23:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
- Good points. For the record, I have a policy of not seeking any naturalistic reasoning for the cause of the Flood or how God made matter out of nothing. Neither would I try to give a naturalistic explanation for something such as Hezekiah's shadow. Yet I still think the position described in The universe was created with apparent age (Talk.Origins) is a reasonable one.
- Now, I was about to bring up Gentry's conclusions about granite radiohalo's, but in referencing pleochroic halos, I came across RATE's research on the subject. Guess I have to look into it more, and in the meantime go on the assumption that there are no creation halos. Shows how I can be behind the times.
- Anyway, I realize that we shouldn't be searching for a naturalistic explanation for everything. That's why I'm holding to a literal six day creation only a few thousand years ago, despite "the earth being billions of years old" through naturalistic interpretations. --Zephyr Axiom 00:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- BTW, how do we break this page down as the edit warning suggests?
- Probably by putting titles, like this: ==Title== --Tony Sommer 00:03, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- You use three of those things on each side of the word instead of two.Ikester7579 03:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
As you have figured out by now, I disagree. I will not respond in detail because there is no need to do so.
We shouldn't just go out find find natural reasons for why the world works. You are right, we must just find the BEST and RIGHT explaination for the data around us. Many times that means natural ones.
On the other hand, though I tend to seek natural ones, you ALWAYS seek spiritual ones. Thus the reverse logic works against. Lighten up dude, enjoy the natural law God created for us.
Finally, this whole thing assumes that the Creation is unexplaionable. We have models that combine the natural and spiritual factors good enough. We don't need your model and your model is untestable.--Nlawrence 08:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- So are you suggesting that I leave the wiki and tak my model with me? Ikester7579 11:23, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. I simply meant that these models are better in MY opinion. It is CreationWiki policy to review all new articles. When I disagree with something, I put my opinion in the talk page.
I am sorry for seeming so blunt.
- We are on the same side. No one here is your enemy. You prefer the science explaination. I prefer the biblical explaination. But we are after the same goal.Ikester7579 21:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Growth and neurons
After mentioning this to someone, I received the following question. How does the theory take into account increase in knowledge and the subsequent growth of neurons in the brain? As Adam learned, would not new brain pathways have had to form? --Zephyr Axiom 14:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- God being the Creator. And Adam being created to be an adult age. Having a mind that was not preprogrammed would mean Adam would not even be able to communicate with God, or take care of himself. So in order for God creation of man to be perfect, God already gave Adam the knowledge needed. The only knowledge hidden was the knowledge of good and evil.Ikester7579 23:18, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- What about the formation of new memories? Also the names of the animals were selected by Adam, which would have been a mental process of assigning a name to creatures that did not have a name in Adam's mind before.--Zephyr Axiom 12:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
- I have to wonder: what is the goal of the questions? Growth of knowledge is not a decaying of knowledge. So therefore it does not affect eternity.Ikester7579 05:31, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- Growth seems to be connected to aging by your own statement in the article:
- "If a living creature were born into eternity, when would it grow up since eternity does not have the aging process?"
- So by your answer to growth of knowledge, what rules out birth? Isn't the growth of a child maturation and not decay?--Zephyr Axiom 12:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
You still did not answer my question. What is your goal for this nick picking that you are doing? Maybe I should find a article of yours and just nick pick it until it gets on your nerves.Ikester7579 03:39, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- The goal of the question was to find out why birth could not occur before the Fall in the case of your model. Perhaps I got a little carried away. If so, I apologize. I shall step out of this conversation now. However, you are free to critique any of my articles. I like to see the strengths and weaknesses of my beliefs. --Zephyr Axiom 12:11, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- You are not carried away. Ikster asked for his article to be critiqued and now he is getting upset because you are doing just that. Zephyr is only doing what you wanted him to do, he is merely trying to understand your theory. He isn't nit-picking but in reality haleping you better understand your own theory Ikster, it is through your answers, or essentially having to teach us about your theory that helps your knowledge grow in the subject. --Tony Sommer 12:44, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Prehaps this is a carry on attitude from above. For that I apologize. Maybe the correct word to use in place of growth is age. After all, that is basically the difference between eternity and non-eternity.Ikester7579 18:39, 24 June 2007 (EDT)