Believe the Gen 1 narrative or not, it describes events and circumstances radically different than those at present. Yet whenever someone suggests a set of conditions which might be radcially different, that is dismissed.

Science fiction writers can imagine and propose fore-field bubbles (as just one example) of how we might approach black holes, but in these discussions any imgainative solutions are dismissed as radical.

What we end up with are sort of engineering school discussions of why this can't be done within current constraints. This then somehow disproves creation.

And that's why I seldom spend time in these so-called discussions of origins. The terms of discussion are designed in such a way as to make only one outcome possible. So why bother.

I guess I'm a bit surprised to see you arguing on this particular side of this particular argument, Ed. (Though perhaps all that means is I don't know you as well as I thought, which is good to know and I hope to learn to know you better.) I would have thought these solutions amount to attempted accommodations with science... in fact, attempts to tweak the Genesis account to fit science. In our past discussions that's a move that you've tended to resist.

I should have made the disclaimer: "I don't have a strong position either way on these questions, I'm just trying to explore them." There's a huge range of possible permutations of Genesis and relativity, and I tried to outline some of them. There are more, and I'd be happy to see them outlined... but bevin is correct in saying that time passes in an undilated way *within* any particular frame of reference.

Shane has also pointed out that millions of relativistic years on earth drops us right into the whole 'death problem' that we've discussed here at length.

Quote:

---

What we end up with are sort of engineering school discussions of why this can't be done within current constraints. This then somehow disproves creation.

---

Because they don't solve the problem - namely...

Why does the Earth look as if the current natural laws have been acting for millions of years?

Postulating a different set of laws doesn't help, unless they can explain (for instance) where the White Cliffs of Dover come from.

Something no short-age creationist has yet managed to do.

/Bevin

The problem too is that it isn't just Genesis. If it was we might be able to figure that Moses made some mistakes, mistakes were made in the handing down of story before it was written or mistakes were made in copying the story generation after generation. However since other inspired writers believed that death came as a result of sin, the belief that it came before sin impacts more than just the inspiration of Genesis.

The evidence does seem to indicate that plants and animals were dying for years before any humans started dying. To me that means that either the Biblical record is not correct, the evidence isn't saying what we think it is or there were events that occured that impacted the evidence in a way we don't understand.

Whatever exactly happened in Creation, it had to be set down in a way that Moses and his audience could comprehend.

This places sever constraints on the Genesis account. The more accurate and detailed it is in ways we would like to see it, the more incomprehensible the whole thing becomes for Moses.

For example;

"And God spoke, and His Word contained the entire DNA sequences for all the basic kinds (using Genesis' word) of birds, and these were instantaneously encoded and the organizm instantly accelerated to maturity."
(Don't bother to nit-pick the description, it's just an example)

Even assuming God tells this to Moses, how does Moses write it down? And after Moses writes it down, what does it look like and how do we understand what he meant?

So we're not going to get the kind of detail we want out of the Genesis account. Having said that, there are still some things we can take away from the text.

God cannot lie, but humans can misunderstand what God intends to communicate, and, as indicated, God is constrained by human understanding in what he does reveal.

I should make this caveat: this is a top-of-the-head lits, so I'll probably miss some things.

What's clear:

1. Seven literal days of creation. The repetitive mantra of "the evening and the morning" were the first, second, etc. day makes it clear that that is an important issue in the narrative. Any literary analysis of the text would take note of that.

2. There is a special area called "the garden." God planted it, and designed it for human habitation.

3. There is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is forbidden to humans, and ignoring this prohibition leads to death. Death affects the entire natural order, starting with Adam & Eve, quickly affecting animals whose hides must be used to substitute for some of what has been lost, and eventually to death for Abel.

4. The Earth is cursed for Adam's sake, yet another indication of the consequences of sin for the natural order.


What's uncertain:

How long the Earth was here before the beginning of Creation week.

"Without form and void." This phrase in Hebrew has echoes of the behemoth, of the chaos dragon.

Does this indicate simple lack of organization and life, or does it indicate the presence of the Sea Serpent/Chaos Dragon/Devil? And if so, for how long?

What was outside the garden?

How did light exist without the sun?

What did animals we now see as carnivores eat?

OKay, there may be others, but that's a start.

NOw, whatever problems the Genesis account presents us with, it does have one significant advantage over science, to wit: the Genesis account originates with an eye-witness to the events catalogued.

As we saw on another thread, some scientists have different explanations for the various geologic phenomena we see.

150 years ago, geologists were "uniformitarians," brlieving that "everything procedes as it is today," while today, most geologists are "uniformitarian lite," that is, "everything procedes as it is today, and at the same rate--except when it doesn't."

Thirty years ago, scientists were warning against a new ice age. For the last twenty years, scientists have warned against "global warming."

In 1970, at then current consumption rates, scientists warned us that we only had enough oil for the next thirty years.

Thirty-six years later, we have enough proven reserves for several centuries at current rates of use.

So "scientists say" doesn't impress me. Science today has become its own religion, as Michael Crichton has pointed out.

For me, the question isn't whether the Bible account is correct, but how do we understand the Bible and the data we collect together.

And, just to clear this question up, the Bible does not have anything to say about the age of the Earth. Therefore, all arguments about how the Earth has to be more tha XXXXX years old are of little interest to me. Arguing that the Bible is wrong because of the apparent age of the earth is therefore mistaken.

Quote:

---

And, just to clear this question up, the Bible does not have anything to say about the age of the Earth. Therefore, all arguments about how the Earth has to be more tha XXXXX years old are of little interest to me. Arguing that the Bible is wrong because of the apparent age of the earth is therefore mistaken.

---

Correct - the actual and only interesting question is "how long ago did LIFE begin on Earth"

and all the evidence, as Shane says, points to millions of years, with tens of thousands of years of human existence, and no global Flood 4,000 years ago.

Mind you, the Bible doesn't require a GLOBAL Flood. Just the area around the author of the story is adequate. Generalizing it to the whole world is unnecessary.

/Bevin

It can be easily argued that there is evidence for a global flood. How conclusive the evidence is would be the subject of debate. Also, the account we have of the Biblical flood is not an eye-witness account, but rather a divinely imspired account. Moses did not personally witness the flood, it was revealed to him by God. So if it wasn't world-wide, that brings into question the inspiration of God.

Quote:

---

and all the evidence, as Shane says, points to millions of years

---

Just to set the record straight. I acknowledge there is evidence that seems to indicate millions of years BUT I do not conclude that it is "all" the evidence or that our understanding of the evidence is correct.

My position is that the Bible is clear that the earth was created in six literal days and there was a world-wide flood. I leave room for the Bible to be wrong although I don't personally believe it is.