Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

In a message dated 2/1/2005 3:29:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:

> The Lord expects us to exercise our minds in these matters. And that is
> particularly exemplified in respect of 'creation ex nihilo'. Here, we might
> readily conclude that God deceives us in that the bringing into being in this
> manner _must_ result in an appearance of age. But having told us clearly how
> things happened, using the formula, 'And God said let there be...and it was
> so.', we surely can have no reasonable complaint.

Here we are back to this absurd appearance of age argument, which is
inherently deceptive. One could argue that Adam created mature had
an appearance of age in order to be fully functional, but impact craters on
the moon, dead stars like white dwarfs and other astronomical and
geological items which are due to long processes and are non-functional,
therefore God creating, say, white dwarfs, is a deceptive God.

Incidentally God did not say "And God said let there be...and it was so.",
but the authors of Genesis, who were inspired by God to write within their
cultural framework of the day.
 
>
> You will find that in my exchanges with George I have suggested possible
> deceptions by Satan - carried out, of course, with God's acquiescence. Those
> deceived having been adequately warned of the consequences of their unbelief, no
> charge of deception can be fairly levelled at the Creator
>
And here we are again using Satan as an explanation. Using Satan, God,
angels or goblins as a scientific explanation is not scientific, as there is no way
of testing
this assertion. I've noticed a tendency of creationsts to use the appearance
of age arguments or Satan as an explanation as a cop-out when they have no
other arguments.

Christopher Sharp

http://csharp.com/creationism.html
Received on Wed Feb 2 01:04:09 2005