Rocks formed naturally vs Rocks created by God in Genesis 1

[SavedByGrace3]

Could be held as true:
"God creates me along with everyone else except Adam/Eve (made later of clay)..."

We were all in the loins of Adam.

Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV
9. And as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Also, when it is said that Eve was the mother of all living, the author did not mean to imply she was the mother of every individual, as in she gave birth to 100 billion babies (estimated). But we were all in the loins and came from Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:20 KJV
20. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

[BeyondET]

A simple alternative to explaining the carbon-dating flaw is the fact that our Scientific knowledge of rock formation is limited to how they are formed now on their own; either igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks, a slow process and build-up of rocks over time, from volcanos, sea beds, heat and pressure...naturally formed on their own over a long period.

View attachment 331309

But the imperative for carbon dating disregards whether the first rock formation had a creator altogether.
Were the first Rocks formed within a day? That's the question, the next question is how do we measure the initial earth rocks that were formed in Genesis 1?

A rock formed in a day by an Omnipotent-Being does not show measurable results on a simplified carbon-14 apparatus. Technically nothing, can form naturally on its own in a day, especially a rock.


View attachment 331311

View attachment 331312

We can't measure the supernatural (definition: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature).

So Scientists base their Hypothesis on "what if" there was no creator, how would things exist naturally?


Overall, the same theory on our "evolution", if God didn't create humans in a day, then the hypothesis is how are we formed naturally, scientists theorise that this type of chance requires "millions of years of evolution". That's how complex creation is, it's an attempt to comprehend the supernatural, but without a creator.

As much as they want us to assume it is, Evolutionary science isn't an argument against Creation, it's a theory on a world and universe without a God.
Every Scientific hypothesis is based on the formulated template – "If there's no God, how did we get here?".

Has a rock that has no measurable results of carbon 14 in it been found?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm waiting for someone to refute Ohm's Law.

Do you want to wait for someone to show you that 90% of your body are empty space? It is a lie or not?

 

[juvenissun]

Has a rock that has no measurable results of carbon 14 in it been found?

I can find many for you in your backyard.

 

[juvenissun]

And that, my friend, is heresy.

-CryptoLutheran

No. It is backed by solid logic.

 

[juvenissun]

I'd love to see the Scriptural basis for that idea.

Jeremiah 1:5
and many others: What Does the Bible Say About God Knew Us Before We Were Born?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. It is backed by solid logic.

Well don't leave us all waiting, show this solid logic of yours.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

Well don't leave us all waiting, show this solid logic of yours.

-CryptoLutheran

Even tight logic needs assumption. God finished (ceased, stopped) His Creation on Day Seven is the assumption. Would you accept arguments based on this assumption?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even tight logic needs assumption. God finished (ceased, stopped) His Creation on Day Seven is the assumption. Would you accept arguments based on this assumption?

What does Jesus say?

"Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, 'It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.' But he answered them, 'The man who healed me, that man said to me, 'Take up your bed and walk.' They asked him, 'Who is the man who said to you, "Take up your bed and walk"?' Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, 'See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.' The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I am working.'" - John 5:9b-17

The creative week was finished on the seventh day. But, no, I don't accept the assumption that God has ceased His work. Because Scripture directly contradicts that assumption.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

What does Jesus say?

"Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, 'It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.' But he answered them, 'The man who healed me, that man said to me, 'Take up your bed and walk.' They asked him, 'Who is the man who said to you, "Take up your bed and walk"?' Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, 'See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.' The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I am working.'" - John 5:9b-17

The creative week was finished on the seventh day. But, no, I don't accept the assumption that God has ceased His work. Because Scripture directly contradicts that assumption.

-CryptoLutheran

If you think God creates is the same as God work, they you need to define "creation" first. You can not do logic without having that first.
To me, creation is becoming exists from nothing, in all elements such as time, space, energy and material.
Obviously, "work" or "(whatever)" can not be so defined.

 

[The Duke 007]

The Bible isn't a science textbook. Let's stop acting like ancient near east cosmology refutes 21st century science.

I made that clear in my original post.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The first five books of the Pentateuch were written 500 years after the remaining books.
This means the author had the other books committed to memory before writing the
first five.

What you may seem to be implying isn't the only way out of your dilemma. I think the content of the first four books was known verbally (and probably in small numbers of copies to support verbal learning) long before Joshua's time.

Gen ch 1 depicts the earliest incident remembered (the reappearance of landscape in a region) (which was given as icon to illustrate that God was behind our being given a habitat) but earlier creation didn't happen while there were tear-off calendars on desks. Perhaps the palonium halo idea referred to (which I haven't looked up yet), holds clues as well?

Thus in the thread title, only two, non-contradictory, statements separated by the word "versus" confused the entire conceptual framework for any answers to the thread.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What you may seem to be implying isn't the only way out of your dilemma. I think the content of the first four books was known verbally (and probably in small numbers of copies to support verbal learning) long before Joshua's time.

Gen ch 1 depicts the earliest incident remembered (the reappearance of landscape in a region) (which was given as icon to illustrate that God was behind our being given a habitat) but earlier creation didn't happen while there were tear-off calendars on desks. Perhaps the palonium halo idea referred to (which I haven't looked up yet), holds clues as well?

Thus in the thread title, only two, non-contradictory, statements separated by the word "versus" confused the entire conceptual framework for any answers to the thread.

Not a dilemma, but an understanding of the text.

There were four oral traditions used to teach about God long before Moses wrote one of them.

Yahwist. Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly. One was a mighty old man in the sky, another God was in a human like form
another a strong judge who punishes for sins, and yet another as a gentle merciful spirit. These were mythical descriptions
and not literal examples of God.

Yet, taking the creation story in the Old Testament of the Bible literally, as
various people have done over time and changed their interpretation.
as science provided nformation that doesn't line up with the story creates
the actual dilemma.

 

[The Duke 007]

Don't take the creation story of Genesis literally.

The first five books of the Pentateuch were written 500 years after the remaining books.
This means the author had the other books committed to memory before writing the
first five.

The books are more about the relationship between God and humans and that humans
failed to hit the mark, which resulted in the fallen state of our world. The Creation Story
is mythical, nothing more.

Are you Catholic?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Are you Catholic?

Yes I'm Catholic.

 

[The Duke 007]

Yes I'm Catholic.

I asked because I'm aware that most Catholics don't believe the bible is God's divine word, am I correct to assume that's your belief?

 

[Valletta]

I asked because I'm aware that most Catholics don't believe the bible is God's divine word, am I correct to assume that's your belief?

It was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible. No Catholic Church--no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. Now non-practicing "cultural" Catholics are poorly educated. But practicing Catholics should know the Bible is God-breathed. As the Catholic Catechism states: 135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24). Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 135

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I asked because I'm aware that most Catholics don't believe the bible is God's divine word, am I correct to assume that's your belief?

Most Catholics don't believe what you posted.

In fact, it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible in 257AD.

Ask yourself, which came first, the Bible or the Church?

 

[The Duke 007]

Most Catholics don't believe what you posted.

In fact, it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible in 257AD.

Ask yourself, which came first, the Bible or the Church?

Sounds like Catholics haven't learned to revise their own debates...

Correction- The catholic church curated the Latin collection of Holy books. The Catholic church did not "give us" the bible. With that logic basically the Ethiopian Church created the bible first, not Rome.

The Old testament is the Jewish Torah, and the New Testament is a collection of books from the apostles. It has nothing to do with White European Catholicism.

 

[The Duke 007]

It was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible. No Catholic Church--no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. Now non-practicing "cultural" Catholics are poorly educated. But practicing Catholics should know the Bible is God-breathed. As the Catholic Catechism states: 135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24). Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 135

Sounds like Catholics haven't learned to revise their own debates...
The brainwashing you received in Catholic school is pretty low-grade.

Correction- The catholic church curated the Latin collection of Holy books. The Catholic church did not "give us" the bible. With that logic basically the Ethiopian Church created the bible first, not Rome.

The Old testament is the Jewish Torah, and the New Testament is a collection of books from the apostles. It has nothing to do with White European Catholicism.