Replies

"Adam would have been created with an apparent age of 20 years, at least. And trees, if mature, with an apparent age of 50 years.

Anti-creationsim and Creationism are completely incompatible, starting with the Genesis sequence of events.

No, Adam was exactly one day old, or mere moments old when he was created. Wht you fail to see is the form he was first created in. If you would have actually read scripture, you would know Adam and Eve had the same form as angels, as Jesus himself in Heaven.

The flesh came later. So did this earth, and the sin of death it is spoiled with. "Eden" wasn't on earth as we know it.

==If you would have actually read scripture, you would know Adam and Eve had the same form as angels

==Eden” wasn’t on earth as we know it.

What religious tradition are you getting this from?

If you would have actually read scripture, you would know Adam and Eve had the same form as angels, as Jesus himself in Heaven.

Fascinating, and condescending to boot. Please show me in the orthodox (OT & NT) scriptures where you derive this theolgy.

I do have a question, though. If Adam and Eve did not have flesh, and were like the angels, why did God make him out of the dust of the earth (Gen 2:6), and then tell him to proceate (Gen 1:28)?

1 Corinthians 15:44-46 reads If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

I think that the point jimmyray was trying to make was that in the conflict between science and creation, there’s a matter of interpretation.

On the day that Adam was created, he was created as an adult having the appearance of age. On that day, he was indeed one day old.

However, if a scientist came along and was asked how old Adam was, he would make his decision based on what he saw and Adam was a full grown man, so the scientist would say 20, for example.

Now the creationist would say one day, and the scientist would do exactly what the evos on this forum do; deny it. He could tell the creationist that he is wrong, go through all kinds of reasoning and contortions to prove it, no doubt mock the creationist for being such an ignorant knuckle dragger for not believing the evidence in front of his very eyes and yet who is right? The scientist or the creationist?

Science works on the observations made of the appearance of things. They have no way of determining if that conclusion is right.

Creating the universe and mankind with the appearance of age is not an exercise in deceit as so many evos would like to accuse God of doing. Rather it’s a practical matter of functionality.