Creation science seems to reject the notion of apparent age...
Perhaps certain groups do but many groups proclaim the notion of apparent age...as far as I know, and I am a YEC.
I would tend to think that the plants in the garden would have had the appearance of various stages of maturity, but that is speculation.
What were the constituents of the soil in Eden?
That is an interesting question. I would imagine it to be the best possible soil...most likely unlike any that we've seen. My personal theory is that our present soils are mineral deficient (and therefore so are we) when compared to the pre-flood soils. But again, that is pure speculation on my part.
I know of one organization that manufacturers colloidial minerals...the minerals are got from shale, I believe...supposedly rich in a host of minerals. The thought is that the shale is the remnants of the pre-flood plants...if that is true, then the high mineral content might be an indication of the mineral content of the preflood topsoils.
I take colloidial minerals, but I buy a cheaper brand, which may not be harvested from shale.
I believe that consideration of this question leads either to an apparent age or to a non-scientific miraculous event
Well, I'm not so sure that a soil necessarily indicates "apparent age" (however I understand what you mean...soil is formed by errosion today and therefore requires time). I wanted to point out here, however, that creation is miraculous.
Is there a group of creationists, who are proclaiming that creation is not miraculous?
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:33 AM
Another inconsistency in the Bible. But wait! On day six God populated the Earth with men and women, bidding them "prosper and subdue the Earth" or something like that. The "garden" story, which is the second story of creation in the old Bibles, is given us as a first Sabbath event. So, is the Bible wrong or what?
The natural state and home of life as we know it on Earth is in the many corresponding spiritual kingdoms which coincide with the physical planet. All "primative peoples" know this but Christian traditions omit it. Why? Probably because it's not necessary to be aware of until good answers are ernestly sought. The story of A&E is only a metaphore for the earlier life lost resulting in man being banned to an Earthly existance. There was no sin however as this was the plan all along. "Salvation" is another metaphore for our earned right to return to our true home so long fortold. This land we know of as the "Kindom of God".
As for the soil, well, as with the story of the lion and the lamb, life forms in that "heaven" are in super light, refined bodies like the one the ressurected Jesus used which do not require sustainance in the same way that we do. The menu has only one item on it, the direct intake of energy.
I thought many YECs accepted "apparent age" in their scheme(s)!
Btw: Day 7 seems to me to be God's (holy) rest day and might perhaps be interpreted to include *forever*. I.e., there is no "evening and morning" biblically stated therein.
Eden's soil constituents may have been those that exist today (sub-atomic particles, the 'known' elements, inorganic and organic compounds, etc.) plus 6 thousand years (or so) of additional radiometric decay.
Unfortunately, radiometric clocks might not synchronize validly with diurnal clocks (and/or other measuring devices of time) during the *creation event(s)* and interval(s) following. So your question may be 'flawed' and impossible to answer, scientifically.
Noah's global flood (which few YECs deny) may have jumbled up Eden's soil somewhat, but not enough to accelerate radiometric decay into that soil ... not without boiling all life to death.
The next inevitable phase seems that this thread will devolve into semantic quibbling about time and/or time-clocks.
If the soil in Eden were good, and natural, and normal, then we would expect it to include a considerable amount of dead and decaying organic stuff - cast off leaves, fallen twigs, animal excrement, etc.
Life depends upon death.
Come to think of it, I believe that is a Christian teaching as well. I think the Christian teaching specifies that:
quote: Life depends upon the death of a God.
Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
It appears to me that this thread is focusing on the "outward appearance of age" and is for that reason an inappropriate question.
To my mind such an outward appearance of age is inherent to the existence of things. And, we tend to resolve such a question with simple comparison too other things. Thus, we mark things with age and authorship indicators lest unresolvable confusion occur in the future about the age or source of a man-made thing.
The real question is...does nature exhibit the appearance of age at all levels of investigation (seeing)?
So, although Adam may ponder how long the Garden of Eden existed before he was put there his understanding depends on the validity of witnesses as to the actual age ,and/or some methodical means of determining age scientifically.
Sorry Philip, I'd completely forgotten this thread of mine and only just noticed your reply!
My point concerns what Adam would have noticed about the Eden soil, not observations from today. The questiosn is, would Adam have perceived "dead" organic matter and what would he have concluded.
I agree, there is often an implicit "apparent age" in YEC scenarios but mostly they stop short of "fabrication", in the sense of dead things that never were alive (supernova progenitors, fossilised life, and in this case decayed life).
I am more concerned about more obvious conclusions. For example, if Adam had dug down, would he have discovered fossils? Not in most YEC beliefs. But if he examined the soil, would he have discovered dead organic matter (leaves for example) that was never actually alive? Or was the soil of Eden of a totally different character?
You've asked an excellent question, and it reveals a very ordered and logical mind. For an answer let me first direct you to the following article from Wikipedia.
Organic material or organic matter refers to any material that is capable of decay or of being decomposed or is the product of decomposition, and is usually the remains of a recently living organism, and may also include still-living organisms. Polymers and plastics, although they may be organic compounds, are usually not considered organic material, due to their poor ability to decompose.
In soil science, organic matter refers to that of soil.
Organic matter is not necessarily created by living organisms, and living organisms do not only leave behind organic material. A clam's shell, for example, while biotic, is not capable of being decomposedâ€”largely because it is lacking in organic molecules. Conversely, urea is one of many organic substances that can be synthesized without any biological activity.
The equation of "organic" with living organisms comes from the scientifically abandoned idea of vitalism that attributed a special force to life that alone could create organic substances, which was first called into question by the abiotic synthesis of urea by Friedrich WÃ¶hler in 1828.
Now let me direct your attention to Genesis 1:24, 2:7, 2:19 and 3:19. There you will find that God created all living things from the dust of the ground and that when living things die, their bodies return to the dust.
So to answer your question, was the ground in the garden of Eden composed of organic materials? Yes and no.
According to the strictest definition on Wikipedia, the soil was organic in that it contained the same elements and compounds that are found in living things; but according to the traditional definition, it was inorganic in that those elements and compounds had never before been part of a living creature. Of course by the end of day six I'm sure that the garden of Eden had collected a significant amount of undoubtedly organic material.
... God created all living things from the dust of the ground and that when living things die, their bodies return to the dust.
Well, no. Not quite.
quote:Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Aquatic creatures - and birds - were made of water, not dust. Water is not "organic".
(By the way, would you please provide a link to Wikipedia instead of just a quote? I have some reservations about their definition of "organic". :) )
Other than that, your point seems to be that God put organic compounds into the soil just as if they were the result of decomposition? Since those compounds "normally" enter the soil by decomposition, what's the difference between that and putting fake fossils in the ground?