How old did the Garden of Eden appear on Day 7?

Cavediver,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. 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.

Very true. I did not think this was relevant to the current discussion, but you are correct. Birds and aquatic creatures were originally formed from the waters of the sea. Sure, I was in somewhat of a hurry last post and didn't have time to go back and insert it. Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThat's not exactly what I was meant to convey. I was trying to say that those compounds which we consider to be "organic" (in the traditional since) are considered so only because they are the ones God chose pull out of the ground and use when He created life. These "organic" compounds are not necessarily dependent on living things for their formation. Many of them can already be formulated in labrotories. If we can formulate these compounds without using living things, wouldn't the one who created those compounds be able to do the same?To claim that God just put fake fossils in the ground is the same as claiming that organic compounds cannot be created in the absence of life. This has been clearly disproven through the field of organic chemistry.

Your point of view is not necessarily the same as anyone else's point of view, nor is it inherently true. You see the organic compounds in the soil of Eden and to you they have the appearance of age. I see the organic compounds in the soil of Eden and to me they are evidence that God created living things from the dust of the ground.When I was little, my parents bought me some toy guns that shot orange rubber darts, but they soon realized that they had a problem on their hands. You see, everytime that I would go outside to play with my dart guns, I would soon come running back in complaining that I had lost all of the darts. My parents would then come outside with me and see the darts sitting in plain view in the middle of the yard. They very quickly realized that I had inherited a slight colorblindness from my grandfather. From my viewpoint, the orange darts were the same color as the green grass, and it took me quite a while to realize that my viewpoint was flawed. For the longest time, I insisted that the darts were made with the appearance of the grass, but I finally realized that I had to abandon my viewpoint and admit the facts. The darts were orange, and the grass was green.From this, and many other such incidents in my past, I learned that appearances are fickle at best. My point of view is not necessariy the correct point of view, and I must always be willing to change it in light of the facts.You are trying to argue that God gave the ground the appearance of age, because that agrees with your point of view. I am trying to show a different, more accurate point of view. If you could see it from my point of view, you would realize that God did not cause an appearance of age. It is merely that you do not have a good vantage point.Edited by w_fortenberry, : No reason given.

As evidenced by history, the general human point of view and the scientific point of view are seldom in perfect agreement. In this case, I have already given evidence to prove that the scientific point of view is that decay is not necessary for the presence of "organic" material. Plants do not need dead things in order to grow. They do need certain elements and compounds to be present in the soil, but science has shown that those elements and compounds could come from sources other than dead plants and animals.If the scientific point of view and the general human point of view disagre with each other, then one of them must be more correct than the other, and we should all change our own personal point of view to reflect which ever of the two is more correct.