Jump to content


Photo

Post-Flood Migration

post Flood migration australia madagascar lemur marsupial speciation tasmania Babel Calum

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:20 AM

On what grounds do you assert that this is possible?


I don't assert that it is possible. I have no way of knowing whether or not it's possible. I think it makes sense of why marsupials are only in particular locations and why some of them look so similar to placental mammals, but I don't see why it's impossible.

#22 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

Wow guys... first thread and I've already gotten so many responses! Thanks to you all.

JayShel:

You have ripped that verse from Job 12:7 completely out of context to twist it for your own agenda, and to your own destruction, and potentially other people's now that you post it online.


I can understand how you could be frustrated, but I really wasn't trying to be decietful. The context of the verse indicates that when we have questions look at nature and it will tell us. That was just the way I saw it. I posted Job 12:7 to see how it's telling us to look at Nature when we have questions. Here is the full context:
7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.
11 Does not the ear test words
as the tongue tastes food?
12 Is not wisdom found among the aged?
Does not long life bring understanding?

I don't think the point of the verse is to get us to go out into the backyard and talk to the sparrows in the birdbath or the fish in the Aquarium of the Pacific. It just seems to be referring to how when we have questions go to Nature and it will teach you. "Does not the ear test words," "Does not life bring understanding," "speak to the earth, and it will teach you," "ask the animals, and they will teach you." I don't think I ripped it out of context. If you still think I did please forgive me, I truly honestly wasn't trying to be decietful. The point I had was that Nature spoke for itself. It is only because of Nature can we draw valid conclusions on how it works. Here Job says when we have questions to look at Nature. So I looked at nature, and I thought of Australia and Madagascar and Kangaroos. The context remains the same. I appreciate your concern.

Chris:

Why would they have stayed mid-way on the stretches? Maybe some animals did, and those are the ones we find evidence for, and some decided to keep walking into South America.


While that may be true, the conditions on these land bridges would need to be hospitable for the animals to live in. A habitat the animals could thrive in so as to keep moving at all. Besides, the humans crossing the bridges sometime after would need to hunt the animals in order to survive, so some groups of animals must have remained on the bridges.

The ice age would have started soon after the flood and lasted 500-700 years. If the people are dispersing from Babel about 100 years after the flood, then wouldn't they have about 400 years or so to cross?


I don't know the scientific evidence for it lasting that short a time, but still, 400 years is a very short time window. The people must have been pressured to migrate like never before. In the old earth view, temperature fluctuations caused various habitats to change (the Sahara, for example) so people slowly spread from two factors, either they were living comfortably and these habitats stretched for miles (like the lush Sahara) and in other places climate changed and pressured people to find moister or drier places to live in. This was God's way of gently nudging people across the globe. It could have happened in only 400 years after Babel, but it's unlikely.

That's why I believe the marsupial characteristics evolved in these animals sometime after the food, after they already got to their new environment


But it just doesn't make sense that the defining characteristics of marsupials (so radically different from placentals) would evolve in Australia and South America. It's not like the environment pressured them to grow two mating organs instead of just one each. JayShel has a good point here too. They are very radically different.

It can't be considered a marsupial though?

(about Arcantiodelphys)
I suppose it could, but it's placed just outside of marsupials on the classification chart. It's so near it almost could be one given the anatomical similarities. As for the one in Uzbekistan (it's called Asiatherium) it is also placed just outside of it. It's practical to call it a marsupial, but technically it isn't. It was in 1999 anyway, so we can tell now.

Why would they have to be incredibly adaptive? I was thinking of things like storms and floods. Earlier you said, "Besides, many of them are/were predators. Some filled in the roles of lions, wolverines, and wolves, so death through predation isn't really a valid option."

Dinosaurs would've still been able to prey on the marsupial predators.


The animals would need to be incredibly adaptive so they could rapidly diversify into multiple forms after the Flood. Was it seven million species from the 20,000 on the ark? I might be mistaken, but it's something like that figure. Anyway, some YECs classify 'kind' to be in the Family range. Many of these families (classification) already show a lot of variety, so they would have to be very adaptable.
As for dinosaurs, it usually starts with me asking, "why did God put dinosaurs on the ark if they were to die almost immediately after?" a friend responded, "dinosaurs would have put selection pressure on some mammals, pressuring them even more along with the climate to diversify aftwerward."
So dinosaurs apparently helped mammals diversify. This would have been one of the reasons marsupials diversified, in response to having to live with dinosaurs (even though they would have been living with them for years prior) coupled with the post-Flood climate. The marsupials wouldn't have died off from the dinosaurs. If they did die off from the dinosaurs, they wouldn't have been able to reach Australia. I however agree with you, because if dinosaurs were put with modern mammals most modern mammals would go extinct.

I don't assert that it is possible. I have no way of knowing whether or not it's possible. I think it makes sense of why marsupials are only in particular locations and why some of them look so similar to placental mammals, but I don't see why it's impossible.

Because of the marsupials' anatomy. It's quite clear in the creationist perspective that God created these creatures separate from placentals due to genes, skeletal structure, organs, mating organs, etc. I think the saying 'do not judge a book by its cover' applies. It's like saying a Toyota sedan and a Chevy sedan come from the same company as they both have the same external shape. A good metaphor?

Do you believe that "all scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)? If so, how do you explain the Bible indicating that the earth is only about 6,000 years old?


I do believe scripture is God-breathed. However, it's a matter of interpretation. Just like you can interpret different verses in the Bible to say the earth is round and goes around the sun. The reason YECs have a date for 6,000 years is because of geneology count, which I believe only included the most important and relevant characters in the story. If God included all the roughly 5,000 generations it would be too large to include in the Bible, and too irrelevant. However, I'm sure you would have a good response to this, and we could probably go on about this forever, but for now let's just talk about faunal distribution.

Stripe:

Migration happened across a rapidly settling landscape. The path of escape, which might now be desert, polar, mountain or ocean was not that way at the time.


True. It most likely would have been barren desert, preventing the spread of the animals, which is why I suggested perhaps all modern environments sprung up fairly quickly and independently. however, given the animals' ability to rapidly adapt to post-Flood environments, there's no reason to think they would not still be there.

#23 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:35 PM

I don't assert that it is possible. I have no way of knowing whether or not it's possible. I think it makes sense of why marsupials are only in particular locations and why some of them look so similar to placental mammals, but I don't see why it's impossible.


Like I said, nothing is impossible with God, but we need evidence that points in that direction in order to assume that it did happen like that. Given the short timeframe (I am guessing 1-2 thousand years), and the huge amount of evolution that would have to have occurred, it would take divine intervention with no evidence supporting such an occurrence, either in the Bible, in nature, or the fossil record.

#24 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:51 PM

Global flood however I think is not debatable. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Just wanted to add that Calum.
I recommend you to my thread I posted a lecture series called Genesis Conflict. Great presentation.
Enjoy and God bless.

#25 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:56 PM

Wow guys... first thread and I've already gotten so many responses! Thanks to you all.

JayShel:


I can understand how you could be frustrated, but I really wasn't trying to be decietful. The context of the verse indicates that when we have questions look at nature and it will tell us. That was just the way I saw it. I posted Job 12:7 to see how it's telling us to look at Nature when we have questions. Here is the full context:
7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.
11 Does not the ear test words
as the tongue tastes food?
12 Is not wisdom found among the aged?
Does not long life bring understanding?

I don't think the point of the verse is to get us to go out into the backyard and talk to the sparrows in the birdbath or the fish in the Aquarium of the Pacific. It just seems to be referring to how when we have questions go to Nature and it will teach you. "Does not the ear test words," "Does not life bring understanding," "speak to the earth, and it will teach you," "ask the animals, and they will teach you." I don't think I ripped it out of context. If you still think I did please forgive me, I truly honestly wasn't trying to be decietful. The point I had was that Nature spoke for itself. It is only because of Nature can we draw valid conclusions on how it works. Here Job says when we have questions to look at Nature. So I looked at nature, and I thought of Australia and Madagascar and Kangaroos. The context remains the same. I appreciate your concern.


Yet if we rely on the Bible as an accurate guide for history then we can see that miracles did happen. This is how Jesus proved that He is God. Logically, some of what happened in the flood could have been miraculous. Also, the Bible should be more reliable than nature to tell us how things happened in the past, being based on eyewitness accounts, and upheld by God. I agree with you that nature is a revelation of God, but I believe that our interpretations have been tainted with presuppositions, pride, ignorance (from lack of data and jumping to conclusions), and confusion. Therefore using our interpretation of nature to figure out history is not as reliable as reading the Biblical account, which explains history specifically. The Bible does not explain everything, but it does give clues.

I am glad that you are not intentionally twisting scripture. That verse describes nature testifying to the power and glory of God, not necessarily as a perfect means for discovering life and earth's history, since we can work our own presuppositions into the equation when studying nature.

#26 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:23 PM

JayShel:

I agree with you that nature is a revelation of God, but I believe that our interpretations have been tainted with presuppositions, pride, ignorance (from lack of data and jumping to conclusions), and confusion. Therefore using our interpretation of nature to figure out history is not as reliable as reading the Biblical account, which explains history specifically. The Bible does not explain everything, but it does give clues.


I can see what you're saying, but people with no presuppositions could obviously see marsupials didn't get to South America and Australia via Asia. It's just that there's a lack of evidence for global mass migrations. It's unconvincing.


I am glad that you are not intentionally twisting scripture. That verse describes nature testifying to the power and glory of God, not necessarily as a perfect means for discovering life and earth's history, since we can work our own presuppositions into the equation when studying nature.


Thanks for understanding. I think it is describing the power and glory of God, yet tells us to examine nature as well to better see and understand it. We can indeed work our own presuppositions into the equation, but when the facts speak for themselves it tends to fit one or the other. For example, nobody in the scientific community would care if they found a marsupial in Europe. They would merely change their model. However, all the evidence still shows marsupials distributed in Australia and probably originated in South America.
The young-earth creationist must figure out how the marsupials appear to have diversified in this manner, both in the fossil record and in modern times, nowhere outside of these regions, as well as in Madagascar and South American fauna. Of course, if it turned out marsupials never lived in Europe, ever, it wouldn't disprove the young earth global flood model. It's just that there's a lack of anything in the Bible describing anything extraordinary happening immediately after the Flood. No cataclysmic plate tectonics, no ice ages. It seems God would have just let the animals radiate from the Ararat mountains. When God produces a miracle, he usually doesn't hide it. Genesis 7 tells us God probably called the animals to the ark, but it never says God called them to their present locations.
I suppose it's inconclusive, as we don't know why God does some things. He might not have told us for an unknown reason, who knows.

Tubal:

Global flood however I think is not debatable. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Just wanted to add that Calum.
I recommend you to my thread I posted a lecture series called Genesis Conflict. Great presentation.
Enjoy and God bless.


I will check it out. I doubt the evidence will be overwhelming, but nevertheless I will take a look at it. Adios, and thanks.

#27 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:32 PM

Wow guys... first thread and I've already gotten so many responses! Thanks to you all.


No problem.

I don't know the scientific evidence for it lasting that short a time, but still, 400 years is a very short time window.


You can learn more about this particular ice age model here:

Michael Oard, Frozen in Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Bible (Master Books, October 2004); http://www.answersin...rg/articles/fit

David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, Don Batten, The Creation Answers Book (Creation Book Publishers, LLC); http://creation.com/...k/chapter16.pdf

The people must have been pressured to migrate like never before.


I just imagine some of the people groups exploring and wandering from Babel and crossing the land bridges. After the bridges were submerged, those that made it over were stuck there until they built a boat.

But it just doesn't make sense that the defining characteristics of marsupials (so radically different from placentals) would evolve in Australia and South America. It's not like the environment pressured them to grow two mating organs instead of just one each. JayShel has a good point here too. They are very radically different.


You guys are most likely right, but the similarities between those animals I've already mentioned do seem pretty staggering. I don't know why God would create two separate kinds of animals that look so similar to each other. I don't think apes look as similar to us as the marsupial mole looks to the placental mole.


The animals would need to be incredibly adaptive so they could rapidly diversify into multiple forms after the Flood. Was it seven million species from the 20,000 on the ark? I might be mistaken, but it's something like that figure. Anyway, some YECs classify 'kind' to be in the Family range. Many of these families (classification) already show a lot of variety, so they would have to be very adaptable.


I emailed http://creation.com a while back and asked them about this and they published the email and their response on their website here (the first email):

http://creation.com/...-amoral-atheism

As for dinosaurs, it usually starts with me asking, "why did God put dinosaurs on the ark if they were to die almost immediately after?" a friend responded, "dinosaurs would have put selection pressure on some mammals, pressuring them even more along with the climate to diversify aftwerward."


I don't think that dinosaurs died immediately afterward. I believe there are a few surving today in remote, mostly uninhabited, swamp and jungle regions (e.g., Africa, South America, Asia).

The reason YECs have a date for 6,000 years is because of geneology count, which I believe only included the most important and relevant characters in the story.


There's a lot more to be said on this issue, but James Barr was a Scottish Old Testament scholar and the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University.[1] He was ordained to the ministry of the Church of Scotland in 1951, but he believed that it was possible for the Bible to have errors in it and he was an outspoken critic of "conservative evangelicalism", so it's doubtful that he believed that the days of creation were ordinary days. He wrote:

" … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. ...

... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."[2]

When I read the genealogy in Genesis, it seems pretty clear that there are no gaps and that it's describing the direct descendants from Adam in the order that they appeared.

[1] "James Barr (biblical scholar)," Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia....iblical_scholar)

[2] James Barr, in a letter to David C. C. Watson, 23 April 1984.

If God included all the roughly 5,000 generations it would be too large to include in the Bible, and too irrelevant. However, I'm sure you would have a good response to this, and we could probably go on about this forever, but for now let's just talk about faunal distribution.


Okay, I just wanted to point out that the marsupials or creatures that became marsupials had to get off of the ark in the Middle East about 4,300 years ago or the scripture is not God breathed, because I think that's what it clearly indicates happened.

#28 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

Like I said, nothing is impossible with God, but we need evidence that points in that direction in order to assume that it did happen like that.


I agree with you, but what do you make of the similarities between the thylacine and canine, marsupial mole and placental mole, and marsupial mouse and placental mouse?

#29 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 May 2012 - 08:14 PM

I agree with you, but what do you make of the similarities between the thylacine and canine, marsupial mole and placental mole, and marsupial mouse and placental mouse?


God created them similar in some ways. They aren't an exact match, but they do have some highly similar features. Notice the thylacine skull vs the wolf. http://www.naturalwo..._comparison.htm

I suggest you study the differences between such animals, not just the similarities. I don't quite have time to seek out links to show you at the moment. I hope this helps a bit tho.

#30 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:48 PM

You can learn more about this particular ice age model here:

Michael Oard, Frozen in Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Bible (Master Books, October 2004); http://www.answersin...rg/articles/fit

David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, Don Batten, The Creation Answers Book (Creation Book Publishers, LLC); http://creation.com/...k/chapter16.pdf



I've found the rebuttal to Oard's book:
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/frozen/frozen_in_time.htm
The chapters are listed in a column to the right.

I just imagine some of the people groups exploring and wandering from Babel and crossing the land bridges. After the bridges were submerged, those that made it over were stuck there until they built a boat.


I agree. However I think this happened over roughly 10,000 - 20,000 years. It's much more plausible (seemingly) than the 400 year period global distribution and creation of genetic variation within humans (very early depictions tell us people looked the same as they do today)


You guys are most likely right, but the similarities between those animals I've already mentioned do seem pretty staggering. I don't know why God would create two separate kinds of animals that look so similar to each other. I don't think apes look as similar to us as the marsupial mole looks to the placental mole.


Actually, the similarities between humans and the bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans are staggering. We have more genetic and skeletal similarities in common than do the marsupial moles and the moles, or the tasmanian wolves and the wolves. Just because two animals have similar external shape doesn't mean they are the same. We know, for example, that elephants are more related to hyraxes than they are to tapirs. However, tapirs ought to be the same as elephants because they both have stocky bodies, walk on four legs (which look very similar), and even have trunks. Likewise, a platypus ought to be a duck because it's roughly 'duck-shaped'. It has the head, the bill, the feet. The reason a platypus is not considered a duck is because it has all the defining characteristics of a mammal. Namely, monotremes. Likewise, tapirs are not considered elephants for the same reasons. Just like marsupials. Marsupial moles aren't considered true moles because they lack many characteristics of placentals and carry all the defining characteristics of marsupials.
The reason God would create two separate kinds of animals that looked very similar was so they could live in similar habitats. We have two choices:
1) God guided the evolution of marsupials, placentals, and monotremes to thrive in new habitats as climate and other factors changed. Thus, similarities would abound between placentals and marsupials.
2) God created using a step-by-step process, making new animals to thrive in new habitats as climate and other factors changed. Thus, similarities between placentals and marsupials would abound, as obviously Australia would have various counterparts to placental ecological niches, just like the dinosaurs did.

I don't think that dinosaurs died immediately afterward. I believe there are a few surving today in remote, mostly uninhabited, swamp and jungle regions (e.g., Africa, South America, Asia).


Still, most dinosaurs, at least 90% of all dinosaurs, would have had to die out. I find this a doubtful idea, as it's obvious from the fossil record that dinosaurs and their oceanic/sky-faring counterparts occupied every ecological niche possible for land vertebrates. They came in a huge variety of shapes and sizes and colours and all. They would be able to out-compete any marsupial that dared stand in their way. Also, some predatory marsupials/placentals could prey on the smaller dinosaurs. It would be a perfect ecosystem. No reason to think they would die out. Dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded due to multiple lines of evidence. But let's not debate that here, I would rather make a new thread for it.

Dinosaurs brings up another question. The fossil record shows a huge diversity of dinosaurs taking place prior to the Flood. This calls into question that the post-Flood climate was what caused diversification.
Also, this diversification coupled with the fact that were are continually discovering new dinosaurs means the Earth would have been significantly overpopulated by all the dinosaurs, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. As well as the fish. Let's not debate that here. Again, I would rather make a new thread on it.

When I read the genealogy in Genesis, it seems pretty clear that there are no gaps and that it's describing the direct descendants from Adam in the order that they appeared.


It may seem clear to you because you are interpreting it in the light of modern or Greek forms of writing geneologies. It has been suggested that if the geneologies have gaps, it would make them ridiculously meaningless. This simply is not the case. The west is so obsessed with the little details. The Hebrews wrote it down to give the basic family line from Adam to Noah to Moses to David to Joseph and Mary. Even if they wanted to put in every single person in the line of roughly 50,000 years, it would be improbable God would tell them to do so because of the number of generations you would need to count. It would be too large. Imagine over 1,000 generations in the Bible! That would be quite some bit, wouldn't it. Incidentally, the Bible does state in Psalms 105 and Exodus 20 that God shows love to a thousand generations. IF to be taken literally, it would mean, if we were to understand a generation to be around 30 years, humans had been around for at least 30,000 years. The first generations were nearly 1,000 years, so it's easy to make it 50,000 years. However, this is only if it is to be interpreted literally, so I can't base anything on it.

Okay, I just wanted to point out that the marsupials or creatures that became marsupials had to get off of the ark in the Middle East about 4,300 years ago or the scripture is not God breathed, because I think that's what it clearly indicates happened.


"...about 4,300 years ago or the scripture is not God breathed, because I think that's what it clearly indicates happened."
I wouldn't say that. it doesn't have to be around 4,300 years old in order to be God-breathed. That's just your personal interpretation of the geneologies. My interpretation states that there are indeed gaps, and several tens of thousands of years ago a flood that covered the whole world (erets) wiped out all of humanity except for Noah. Note, the whole world, NOT the whole planet (tebel). The lands beyond the middle east were left untouched by the floodwaters that filled up the Caspian Sea drainage basin and parts of mesopotamia. You don't have to go on with nonsense like rapid evolution and catastrophic plate tectonics and volcanism and speed currents and mixing and sedimentation and fossil sorting and all that. There is no Biblical basis for any of this and the 'scientific' areas are derived from the interpretation of scripture. They did not get any of this merely by looking at the natural world. They started with their presupposed interpretation (the earth is young and the flood was global) and then tried fitting science into the Bible in all the wrong ways. It's not an attack on you, it's more of a critique of the ideas you propose.

Realize that we old earthers/theistic evolutionists look at science and compare things. If the science speaks so obviously for something, then we turn to the Bible (which is God's word, of course) and see if it allows for that specific interpretation. Of course, if there was absolutely no possibility the Bible allowed for an old earth interpretation, I wouldn't accept it, as I'm already christian. However, it does allow for long ages. The science alone, without being tainted by presupposed young earth ideas, fits so perfectly into the Bible it's both incredible and beautiful at the same time.

#31 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:43 PM

For Tubal:

To conclude, there is evidence of a universal flood, there is a universal chalk layer and other marine organism deposits on high mountains.


There is a universal chalk layer, but you are forgetting chalk can only form in shallow and relatively placid environments, not in the raging worldwide torrents at 190 mph. This only gives evidence for multiple shallow seas spanning millions of years in separation. If you are speaking of the Himalayas on fossils on high mountains, it is the result of India colliding with China, forcing up the fossils in the sea between them. We observe the movement today (India moving into Asia, Himalayas are rising, etc), and dating of certain fossils in India with other factors correspond with each other to indicate India was attached to Africa and Antarctica at one point in time, during Pangea.

If it was a local flood God needed simply to tell Noah to move to another location.


He wouldn't have told Noah to move to another location because the other people would merely move away with him. The ark was a tremendous spectacle, and anyway it preserved the life of that entire region. Seems logical to me. This ark would have demanded much attention. God always/usually provides a way out, but only Noah and his family were saved.

Old earth creationists say they believe in God and that the Bible is his word but they constantly make him a liar to fit into theories of godless men.


We're not saying God's a liar. And these theories aren't all by godless men. It's simple science. Untainted by young-earth presuppositions and looked at in the clearest most obvious light.

Why did ancient Israel keep the Sabbath? For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the waters and all that in them is and rested on the seventh day. If you believe in God and God says he created in six days, six literal days how can you compromise this?


God did create in six periods of time, so we as humans could establish a workweek. That's another point of Genesis. It's written in a certain narrative to allow for long periods of time. There really isn't another sensible way to establish a workweek and at the same time write it in a way that could indicate long periods. 'Yom' would be used in this way. There really isn't another way to indicate long periods of time while establishing a workweek example for us to follow now, is there? Nope.

I'm sorry but I cannot believe in the god you believe in because my God is all powerful and all knowing and if he said he created in six days who am I to call him a liar?


An empty claim. We do believe God created in six 'yom'. Not days, but 'yom', which can carry a slightly different meaning in Hebrew. It's not that different from the flat-earth model or the geocentric model that originated from different interpretations of the Bible. Just like yom, it can go either way. And we believe in the same god. He is all powerful and all knowing. I see no reason to say I have a different god.

If he says there was a universal flood who am I to call him a liar? This is not open to interpretation and anyone who denies this is willingly blind.


It was a universal flood. However, it wasn't planetary. That's a difference. The Bible says the waters covered all the world (ERETS) under the entire heavens. 'World', or 'Erets', is usually meant, in the Bible, to mean the known world, or the humans inhabiting the world. I believe people all lived in the middle east prior to the Flood, and there was no need to flood the entire planet. God could have used 'Tebel' to describe the entire planet underwater, but he didn't. He merely used 'Erets'. Scripture allows for this interpretation. It is only your interpretation (although what verse says this is beyond me) that says there can be no alternate interpretation.

#32 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 07 May 2012 - 01:24 AM

I've found the rebuttal to Oard's book:
http://www.answersin...zen_in_time.htm
The chapters are listed in a column to the right.


Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

It may seem clear to you because you are interpreting it in the light of modern or Greek forms of writing geneologies.


I quoted a highly qualified Hebraist though.

Incidentally, the Bible does state in Psalms 105 and Exodus 20 that God shows love to a thousand generations. IF to be taken literally, it would mean, if we were to understand a generation to be around 30 years, humans had been around for at least 30,000 years.


It seems like the passages are talking about future generations and it's also hard to determine whether or not the word 'dor', the Hebrew word for 'generations', means the same as our generation of 30 years. I found a lexicon using the word 'become' as a simple definition for 'generations.' Maybe it just means the birth of a child.

It doesn't have to be around 4,300 years old in order to be God-breathed.


It usually gets calculated from 4,300 to 4,500, but I think 4,300 is the more accurate number.

Note, the whole world, NOT the whole planet (tebel).


Most of the planet was already covered in water so it didn't need to be destroyed, but all of the land (erets) was destroyed.

The lands beyond the middle east were left untouched by the floodwaters that filled up the Caspian Sea drainage basin and parts of mesopotamia.


“I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:7)

Noah was told to bring two of every kind of bird on board the ark. Most birds are more than capable of escaping local floods because they have the ability to quickly fly out of the region experiencing the flood. Most land animals could have easily exited the region as well.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20)

Notice that even the mountains were covered. Once this occurred, the Flood could not have been a local event. Water will level itself out. Even if the Flood started in just Mesopotamia, it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered.

Wouldn't God have lied when he said that the waters will never again "become a flood to destroy all life."(Gen. 9:15) Plenty of life destroying floods have happened since that time, but there haven't been any floods that have destroyed all life since that time.

He wouldn't have told Noah to move to another location because the other people would merely move away with him.


On the night that God planned to send the disaster, he could've told Noah to leave in the middle of the night (so no other people would notice). Also, why would they move away with him? Nobody believed him and probably thought he was crazy. They would've been glad to see him leave. I'm sure there were also plenty of wicked people living outside of that region. Why weren't they judged?

The ark was a tremendous spectacle, and anyway it preserved the life of that entire region. Seems logical to me. This ark would have demanded much attention. God always provides a way out.


It was a huge wooden barge meant to carry a bunch of animals through a global flood. If it was just a local flood, God could've easily preserved the life of that entire region by sending them out of that region, without making Noah spend all those years building that huge barge. Why would God tell Noah to build such an enormous boat? Noah could have housed all of the local fauna on a much smaller vessel.

We do believe God created in six 'yom'. Not days, but 'yom', which can carry a slightly different meaning in Hebrew. It's not that different from the flat-earth model or the geocentric model. It depends on your interpretation of Scripture.


On what basis can you make the judgement that the word 'yom' in Genesis means a longer period of time than twenty-four hours? 'Yom' is used more than twenty-three hundred times throughout the Hebrew scriptures, but its meaning is only questioned in Genesis. Every time the words evening and morning are used, they're referring to an ordinary day and everytime a number is used with the word 'yom', it means an ordinary day. How did the plants (day 3) that require insect pollination (day 5 & 6) survive during the time period before insects were created?
  • Calum likes this

#33 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:54 AM

I quoted a highly qualified Hebraist though.



The thing is, he isn't the only highly qualified Hebraist/theologian who's looked into this. People like William Henry Green, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, James Oliver Buswell, R.K. Harrison, and Francis Schaeffer all believe there are gaps.

It seems like the passages are talking about future generations and it's also hard to determine whether or not the word 'dor', the Hebrew word for 'generations', means the same as our generation of 30 years. I found a lexicon using the word 'become' as a simple definition for 'generations.' Maybe it just means the birth of a child.



but then it would simply use 'begat' rather than generations. From Adam to christ there are roughly sixty-six generations that have been recorded. thousand generations is much longer than roughly seventy.

It usually gets calculated from 4,300 to 4,500, but I think 4,300 is the more accurate number.


But the geneologies were not intended to be counted to establish a chronology. They were given to name the basic line from Adam to the second Adam and the troubles they faced. Don't you agree..?
Naturally, there would be gaps. There is no reason to think that the Bible would include ALL 1,000 generations. That would take up too much space!

Most of the planet was already covered in water so it didn't need to be destroyed, but all of the land (erets) was destroyed.



Actually, given such huge amounts of volcanism and tectonic activity, this would, indeed, completely ravage and restructure/destroy the entire planet. Tebel is never used to describe the Flood. It would be simple to say, like we do today, the whole planet was underwater, which it was, rather than just the world. The Bible is seemingly careful never to use Tebel to describe the Flood.

Noah was told to bring two of every kind of bird on board the ark. Most birds are more than capable of escaping local floods because they have the ability to quickly fly out of the region experiencing the flood. Most land animals could have easily exited the region as well.



As soon as the animals left the region people would start to get suspicious. This is not what happened in Genesis, so we can be sure the animals did not migrate. In the local flood model this presents no problem.
The birds, however, would not fly out of the region when the rain began. During such thunderous downpour, as would be expected, they fly to their nests and would try to keep dry until they were drowned by the flood waters. That's why there were birds on the ark, besides Noah preaching to the people about judgement and such.

Notice that even the mountains were covered. Once this occurred, the Flood could not have been a local event. Water will level itself out. Even if the Flood started in just Mesopotamia, it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered.



It would cover all the high hills and all the high mountains in that region. Perhaps fluctuating sea levels (which were common at that time) rose quickly, at the same time as the Caspian Sea was flooding. The two might have connected, the sea and the huge lake, to engulf the entire region in water. It was so huge Noah could only see water all around him. Thus, it covered all the high hills and all the mountains and such. That doesn't mean it covered the Andes or the Himalayas. It merely covered the mountains in the 'world'. Noah was far from Ararat, so Ararat was not covered in water. Given the vast extension of the Ararat range, Noah could have alighted on any one of these mountains. Most probably were covered twenty feet in water. Basically, the verse implies there was water as far as the eye could see.

Wouldn't God have lied when he said that the waters will never again "become a flood to destroy all life."(Gen. 9:15) Plenty of life destroying floods have happened since that time, but there haven't been any floods that have destroyed all life since that time.



Recently we humans have begun to think globally. To us, 'the world' means the entire planet, because we now know the entire planet, we've conquered all of it. Before, the entire planet was not the world. Nobody would have lived outside the middle east, and thus the world would have been restricted to that region. Just like perhaps in the future (for the sake of illustration), if we colonize the entire solar system, the entire system would be considered part of 'the world', and might lead to misinterpretations of the Bible, indicating at one time the floodwaters covered the planet.. Just an analogy for you. Local floods never kill off all of humanity like they did during the flood of Genesis. So when the Bible says everybody died in the world, everybody did die in the world. God promised never to flood 'the world' again, meaning humanity.

On the night that God planned to send the disaster, he could've told Noah to leave in the middle of the night (so no other people would notice). Also, why would they move away with him? Nobody believed him and probably thought he was crazy. They would've been glad to see him leave. I'm sure there were also plenty of wicked people living outside of that region. Why weren't they judged?


God wouldn't have told Noah to leave in the middle of the night, because the people wouldn't be warned of the impending judgement and wouldn't have a chance to repent.
1,500 years is hardly enough time to migrate across the globe. People still lived together in the middle east, and thus nobody lived outside of that region(s).

It was a huge wooden barge meant to carry a bunch of animals through a global flood. If it was just a local flood, God could've easily preserved the life of that entire region by sending them out of that region, without making Noah spend all those years building that huge barge. Why would God tell Noah to build such an enormous boat? Noah could have housed all of the local fauna on a much smaller vessel.


If it was meant to survive the global flood currents of 190 miles per hour, I doubt it would be barge-shaped. I'm not an expert on seafaring, but I know this was left out of the young-earthers equations.
God wouldn't have sent them out of the region. There already probably were many other examples of the species living in mesopotamia outside of this particular region that could have, and would have, just filled back into the basin. However, Noah took two of every animal in that region (it doesn't say HOW he got them. Perhaps God indirectly guided them to Noah) and told the people there would be a flood that covered the whole world (which it did). Much more powerful sounding and purposeful than sneaking off in the middle of the night, and having all the animals file out of the region as well before the flood can engulf them. The reason it was so large might have been to accomidate the possibility of people repenting and going aboard the ark, or perhaps the animals on the ark were 'species' and not the YEC term 'kinds', and thus would make good use of all the space.

On what basis can you make the judgement that the word 'yom' in Genesis means a longer period of time than twenty-four hours? 'Yom' is used more than twenty-three hundred times throughout the Hebrew scriptures, but its meaning is only questioned in Genesis. Every time the words evening and morning are used, they're referring to an ordinary day and everytime a number is used with the word 'yom', it means an ordinary day. How did the plants (day 3) that require insect pollination (day 5 & 6) survive during the time period before insects were created?


"but its meaning is only questioned in Genesis."
Well, the context is different. All 2,300 times used in the OT is in reference to ordinary everyday spectacles, like the sun going down and the moon coming up. Of course the usual meaning of yom (yes, it can mean a period, even AiG accepts this but demands the context is different) means 24 hour days, but given that this is an entirely different context (the creation of the universe) and the fact that days are established prior to the actual things that establish them (sun, moon, stars) leads us to question if ordinary 24 hour human earth days are what God really intended us to believe in this era, when science (detailed observation of nature) tells us how God did it, as he commanded us to use science to determine things.
Every time the words evening and morning are used, does NOT always indicate a single day. That's a mistake by other young earth proponents. For example, the grass flourishing and withering described in Psalm 90 is using 'morning' to simply mean in the beginning, and evening to mean the ending. In Genesis, it is used in this very same beautiful poetic way, as it should be. The whole point of making it seven days is to set an example for humans, whether it be poetically described or literal. Of course it would say evening and morning. It's only natural.
As for your plant problem, first of all the Bible is separating the creation of individual organisms into days. In reality the plants were indeed created first (along with the billions of microoranisms it somehow leaves out) and God continued creating plants, probably up to the present day. I know it sounds incredible, but it's called creation day overlap and is commonly accepted in old-earth circles. "And it was so." translates better into "and it did come to pass." Does this imply theistic evolution? I don't know, but it's a possibility.
Another example would be the fifth day. Note that it uses tanniyn (big whales and such) and for the 'swarming' things', it uses 'nephesh', to describe them. The fifth day only includes the creation of 'soulish' mammals, whales and (the swarming things) dolphins and porpoises. It completely ignores fish, which we know are not soulish. As for the animals in the sky, it uses the word 'owph', which is normally restricted to birds and bats, which are soulish. This is the same term used to describe the birds that went onto the ark. If we were to interpret it to mean 'insect' as well, it would obviously mean there were all 'kinds' of insects on the ark as well, and we know that is impossible.
The sixth day is used to describe 'behema', large four-legged mammals like oxen and buffalo that are easy to domesticate (no triceratops or apatosaurus here), 'remes' (small mammals like rodents and POSSIBLY small reptiles. Notice it is not SHERES, but REMES), and 'chay', mostly carnivores, wild and free. Lions, cheetahs, dogs, etc. The creation account obviously leaves out the creation of other animals. It was only mentioning the animals directly relevant to us. It completely leaves out things like dinosaurs (which Answers in Genesis tries squeezing so disharmoniously into Scripture), insects, spiders, snakes, plesiosaurs - they're all left out. The facts tell us that the text does not support the idea that all flying creatures were made in day 5, nor the sea creatures, nor all the land animals to include the dinosaurs. It's as simple as that, and practical only in the old earth/theistic evolution viewpoint.

#34 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:46 PM

So Calum, given you think of Yom as time periods and not literal 24 hour days, I have a few questions;

Do you think it is impossible for God to have created the world in 24 hour days?
What would He take much much longer as you suggest?

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:3-4

So the above verse says that God made the darkness night and the light day (yom). Every day after that is called a day (yom). So we are to believe that there were thousands of years of day(yom)/light, and thousands of years of night/darkness so that you can fit long ages into one yom? I hope you have a better story than that to explain your OEC views...that just doesn't add up.

#35 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:07 PM

Do you think it is impossible for God to have created the world in 24 hour days?


Of course it's possible. He could have. However...

What would He take much much longer as you suggest?


Assuming you mean 'Why' would have take much longer to create: He created the universe with physical laws... I'm not saying he couldn't break them, but he probably wouldn't. I would say God manipulated nature, as there's no reason to break the laws of physics immediately after they had been established.

So the above verse says that God made the darkness night and the light day (yom). Every day after that is called a day (yom).


Yes, but the main issue is that you cannot have the light coming from the sun before the sun even exists. Which leads me to believe Genesis is written not from a celestial perspective but from an earthly perspective. The thick cloud layer we know existed during Creation Week would have prevented light from entering. The sun already exists, so the cloud layer lifts a bit and God lets light appear. 'let there be light'. So there was. Then after the creation of light-sensitive plants the cloud layers become transparent, so as to make the sun and moon visible.
In the young earth interpretation, you really shouldn't have sunlight appearing before the sun itself.

So we are to believe that there were thousands of years of day(yom)/light, and thousands of years of night/darkness so that you can fit long ages into one yom?


I don't think there were thousands of years of daylight and thousands of years of night. As I already explained, the morning represented the beginning, and the evening represented the ending, or, given Hebrew meanings vary from English, the evening represented the beginning and the morning represented the ending.

I hope you have a better story than that to explain your OEC views...that just doesn't add up.


On the contrary, I think it adds up rather beautifully. I think it's your view that needs a better story to explain, as it describes plants surviving without heat (impossible), sunlight appearing before anything like the sun to generate it (impossible), and the obvious interpretation of a cloud layer existing right after God lays down the foundations of the Earth, which YECs can't come up with a reasonable explanation for but fits wonderfully into what scientists have been saying for years: "The early Earth was covered in a dense cloud layer that blocked out all light".
It really is rather easy to explain.

#36 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:24 PM

Assuming you mean 'Why' would have take much longer to create: He created the universe with physical laws... I'm not saying he couldn't break them, but he probably wouldn't. I would say God manipulated nature, as there's no reason to break the laws of physics immediately after they had been established.


God performs miracles which defy nature all throughout the Old Testament, such as appearing as a burning bush, or a pillar of fire, parting the Red Sea. Creating life from non-life would be miraculous, and against natural laws as well. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

Yes, but the main issue is that you cannot have the light coming from the sun before the sun even exists. Which leads me to believe Genesis is written not from a celestial perspective but from an earthly perspective. The thick cloud layer we know existed during Creation Week would have prevented light from entering. The sun already exists, so the cloud layer lifts a bit and God lets light appear. 'let there be light'. So there was. Then after the creation of light-sensitive plants the cloud layers become transparent, so as to make the sun and moon visible.
In the young earth interpretation, you really shouldn't have sunlight appearing before the sun itself.


I agree that light cannot come from a source that does not exist, and I never said that it can. Your explanation of what a YEC's position is is a straw man argument since it is not the YEC argument at all, I notice you have done this a lot in this thread. You should really ask people what they believe about a subject before you attempt to rebut it. Not every YEC agrees on everything either.

There was light, but no sun, moon, or stars. How is this possible? I must admit that I do not know everything, but I believe God created light without a sun, moon or stars, perhaps radiating from Himself. Not outside of an omnipotent beings abilities. Just because we have no concept of something that God reveals does not mean it could not have happened. Quite the opposite, we were told that is what happened. We DON'T have to AGREE on the age of the earth, or settle every detail, but I don't like peoples ideas being misrepresented.

I don't think there were thousands of years of daylight and thousands of years of night. As I already explained, the morning represented the beginning, and the evening represented the ending, or, given Hebrew meanings vary from English, the evening represented the beginning and the morning represented the ending.


Beginning and the end of the "time period"? Then why does it mention darkness and light when yom is first used? You seem to be equivocating on the term yom.


On the contrary, I think it adds up rather beautifully. I think it's your view that needs a better story to explain, as it describes plants surviving without heat (impossible), sunlight appearing before anything like the sun to generate it (impossible), and the obvious interpretation of a cloud layer existing right after God lays down the foundations of the Earth, which YECs can't come up with a reasonable explanation for but fits wonderfully into what scientists have been saying for years: "The early Earth was covered in a dense cloud layer that blocked out all light".
It really is rather easy to explain.


I don't posit that plants could survive without heat. There was light the first day, so probably some heat too, maybe also some radiating from the earth. I don't think God would overlook something this simple. Is there no heat on cloudless days? I would definitely differ on this. I don't claim something without a reasonable explanation like you suggest. Your argument is another straw man.

#37 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:08 PM

God performs miracles which defy nature all throughout the Old Testament, such as appearing as a burning bush, or a pillar of fire, parting the Red Sea. Creating life from non-life would be miraculous, and against natural laws as well. Your argument is a non-sequitur.



Personally, I believe the Exodus was not suspended physical nature, but a miraculous and divine act of manipulating Nature. It is completely relevant. It is not non-sequitur.

I agree that light cannot come from a source that does not exist, and I never said that it can. Your explanation of what a YEC's position is is a straw man argument since it is not the YEC argument at all, I notice you have done this a lot in this thread. You should really ask people what they believe about a subject before you attempt to rebut it. Not every YEC agrees on everything either.



It is to my understanding that YECs put the creation of the sun after the creation of plants, which were created after light. Isn't this one of the largest complaints of "old earthers' interpretation of Genesis does not fit" ? I do ask people, and they all say that light (day and night) was created before the sun. That's what you get from the plain and most straightforward (yet shallow) reading of the text. I've never met a young earther to this date who believes the old earth interpretation of the appearance of light fits. So you agree with me then that the early Earth was covered in a thick cloud layer, and Genesis merely describes the appearance of light and the celestial bodies, and not the actual creation of them?

There was light, but no sun, moon, or stars. How is this possible? I must admit that I do not know everything, but I believe God created light without a sun, moon or stars, perhaps radiating from Himself. Not outside of an omnipotent beings abilities. Just because we have no concept of something that God reveals does not mean it could not have happened. Quite the opposite, we were told that is what happened. We DON'T have to AGREE on the age of the earth, or settle every detail, but I don't like peoples ideas being misrepresented.



I thought you had said "verse says that God made the darkness night and the light day (yom). Every day after that is called a day". I assumed you agreed with me that the light was sunlight, because every day after the creation of the light was considered 'days'. I don't think it was the glory of God, as this glory does not shine today (it's every reason to believe sunlight today is the very same light to appear in Genesis) AND it would imply that God was only at one spot, so the Earth would be turning on its axis to face him continually. That just doesn't make sense, as God is everywhere and his glory would fill the universe. It's obvious from the text it's describing light from the celestial bodies.


Beginning and the end of the "time period"? Then why does it mention darkness and light when yom is first used? You seem to be equivocating on the term yom.


Equivocating? Nonsense. I was comparing. There's a difference. If young earthers can compare yom used in other passages in the Bible to mean a single ordinary day, why can't I compare it to other passages to imply yom was not an ordinary Earth day?
I'm not sure what you mean by saying how it mentions darkness and light. This was a stage withina day. It was describing that the light became distinguished from the dark. He separated it, implying the cloud layers lifted so as to let light in, and distinguish light from dark. In fact, the earliest days on planet Earth (before Theia impact) might have been six hours long.

I don't posit that plants could survive without heat. There was light the first day, so probably some heat too, maybe also some radiating from the earth. I don't think God would overlook something this simple. Is there no heat on cloudless days? I would definitely differ on this. I don't claim something without a reasonable explanation like you suggest. Your argument is another straw man.



No it's not a straw-man. I said plants couldn't survive without heat (from the sun). Plants couldn't survive, for instance, beyond the orbit of Pluto, where the heat of the sun cannot reach it. The heat from within the Earth wouldn't supply them either, so heat radiating from the Earth isn't a good option.
God could have done it, but the text implies he just created them. There's no mention of special sustenance. It's obvious that there already was heat.
On cloudless days there is heat. However, that's only because the sun's there supplying it, of course. Without the sun there would be no heat.
Don't you agree that it's the most sensible interpretation? Instead of having to read into the text to think God somehow sustained the plants, and God's glory (which I think is different from photons) radiated both light and heat. I'm not the one without the reasonable explanation. It just doesn't seem logical - to me anyway. Everybody's open to their own interpretation...

So therefore you believe the light created on day one "Let there be light" was God creating his own glory to shine with photons and be a substitute for the sun until he created it? It does say he called it 'day' and 'night'. The celestial bodies only became visible so as to support more advanced life forms (for navigation and body regulation) and eventually us. It seems doubtful the glory of God was the substitute. That would mean 'day' would be the glory of God, wouldn't it?
As for your earlier quote, I was not misrepresenting you. I assumed you believed the light to appear on day one was sunlight, which is a declaration of the obvious in Genesis. If you still think I assumed too much, do forgive my error.
But seriously, man, Genesis is describing sunlight here.

#38 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 May 2012 - 04:41 PM

Personally, I believe the Exodus was not suspended physical nature, but a miraculous and divine act of manipulating Nature. It is completely relevant. It is not non-sequitur.


God created the physical laws in the beginning, when He created matter, so there is no need for the creation of the heavens and the earth to take billions of years.

Time is not require to create that which appears old. Adam was created as a 30 (ish) year old man. He was not created as a baby.

You are quibbling over semantics instead of considering my point. Think about it, gravity is suspended for God to lift water up out of the Red Sea to separate it, a pillar of fire is also unnatural, requiring laws of physics to be suspended.

Your answer was a non-sequitur because it does not follow logically from what was previously said. God does not have to adhere to natural laws during creation, and if He did it implies that creation could not have happened, not that He would take a lot longer.

No pressure to respond at all, but if you do, please take the time to respond to my answer as a whole and not to a small portion of what I wrote, ignoring the rest as you did in the answer above. I think you missed some good points of mine.

Equivocating? Nonsense. I was comparing. There's a difference. If young earthers can compare yom used in other passages in the Bible to mean a single ordinary day, why can't I compare it to other passages to imply yom was not an ordinary Earth day?
I'm not sure what you mean by saying how it mentions darkness and light. This was a stage withina day. It was describing that the light became distinguished from the dark. He separated it, implying the cloud layers lifted so as to let light in, and distinguish light from dark. In fact, the earliest days on planet Earth (before Theia impact) might have been six hours long.


I was wrong, you were equivocating by attempting to redefine the terms morning and evening when the context is clear.

Six hour days do nothing to help your argument of creation needing to be created over long periods of time. That is circular reasoning: assuming deep time, days might have been six hours, which proves...deep time?


It is to my understanding that YECs put the creation of the sun after the creation of plants, which were created after light. Isn't this one of the largest complaints of "old earthers' interpretation of Genesis does not fit" ? I do ask people, and they all say that light (day and night) was created before the sun. That's what you get from the plain and most straightforward (yet shallow) reading of the text. I've never met a young earther to this date who believes the old earth interpretation of the appearance of light fits. So you agree with me then that the early Earth was covered in a thick cloud layer, and Genesis merely describes the appearance of light and the celestial bodies, and not the actual creation of them?


Let me clarify: Light cannot come from a source that does not exist: therefore light cannot come from the sun when there is no sun. This does not mean that light cannot exist without a source, merely that it would be supernatural for light to exist without a source since it would be created by God in transit. E=MC^2. Light=Mass*(Acceleration Squared) Light is matter, and if God can create matter, He can create light in transit without the need for a source to radiate it.

I thought you had said "verse says that God made the darkness night and the light day (yom). Every day after that is called a day". I assumed you agreed with me that the light was sunlight, because every day after the creation of the light was considered 'days'. I don't think it was the glory of God, as this glory does not shine today (it's every reason to believe sunlight today is the very same light to appear in Genesis) AND it would imply that God was only at one spot, so the Earth would be turning on its axis to face him continually. That just doesn't make sense, as God is everywhere and his glory would fill the universe. It's obvious from the text it's describing light from the celestial bodies.


No it's not a straw-man. I said plants couldn't survive without heat (from the sun). Plants couldn't survive, for instance, beyond the orbit of Pluto, where the heat of the sun cannot reach it. The heat from within the Earth wouldn't supply them either, so heat radiating from the Earth isn't a good option.
God could have done it, but the text implies he just created them. There's no mention of special sustenance. It's obvious that there already was heat.
On cloudless days there is heat. However, that's only because the sun's there supplying it, of course. Without the sun there would be no heat.
Don't you agree that it's the most sensible interpretation? Instead of having to read into the text to think God somehow sustained the plants, and God's glory (which I think is different from photons) radiated both light and heat. I'm not the one without the reasonable explanation. It just doesn't seem logical - to me anyway. Everybody's open to their own interpretation...


For the record, your argument about Pluto is more correct because the plant would freeze so far from a heat source, not necessarily because it is not close to the sun. They also require sun-like light (such as from grow bulbs) in order to make food, but not necessarily the sun. Without the sun, there would need to be an alternate source of heat, not necessarily no heat. These are all just technicalities, I am not saying they make your argument about the sun moon and stars being formed on Day 1 moot. Actually, reviewing the Bible, it does say that waters were divided by the sky, so there may have been some vapor blocking the sun. Heavy clouds? Mist?

So therefore you believe the light created on day one "Let there be light" was God creating his own glory to shine with photons and be a substitute for the sun until he created it? It does say he called it 'day' and 'night'. The celestial bodies only became visible so as to support more advanced life forms (for navigation and body regulation) and eventually us. It seems doubtful the glory of God was the substitute. That would mean 'day' would be the glory of God, wouldn't it?


I see enough logic in your responses to accept it as valid. I am still studying the exact wording on this. I think this is one of the more tricky parts, that God will confirm when I meet Him face to face.

As for your earlier quote, I was not misrepresenting you. I assumed you believed the light to appear on day one was sunlight, which is a declaration of the obvious in Genesis. If you still think I assumed too much, do forgive my error.
But seriously, man, Genesis is describing sunlight here.


Assumptions lead to misrepresentation, which is why I pointed it out to you. I forgive you for your presumptions about my position. Please forgive me for being so cantankerous.

#39 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:05 PM

The thing is, he isn't the only highly qualified Hebraist/theologian who's looked into this. People like William Henry Green, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, James Oliver Buswell, R.K. Harrison, and Francis Schaeffer all believe there are gaps.


Warfield had a bias though. He had to believe in long ages because he believed in Darwinian evolution. I'm going to quote from an article by a Dr. Rick Freeman on the Answers in Genesis website:

"There is no doubt that widespread acceptance of Lyellian geology and Darwinian biology, rather than sound hermeneutical principles, fostered the new interpretation. Green and Warfield, the source of the new interpretation, admitted their purpose was to save the credibility of the Old Testament in the face of the new science. In attempting to do so, they ignored over two thousand years of interpretive history. Other evidences are telling as well. The presence of the fathers' ages at the birth of their sons is clearly superfluous, even misleading, if generations are missing between fathers and sons. One strains without success to even imagine why the Genesis author would include these ages unless he meant to tie the generations together in a continuous sequence. Since no one has yet pointed out another example in all of ancient literature where omissions are known to exist in a genealogy which gives the age of X at the birth of Z, what ground exists for the interpreting of Genesis 5 and 11 in such a way? To date, no such ground has been offered, let alone established."[1]

[1] Freeman, Rick, "Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps?," Answers in Genesis (June 20, 2007); http://www.answersin...es-contain-gaps

but then it would simply use 'begat' rather than generations.


But isn't 'begat' a verb, while 'dor' is a noun? Maybe it's describing the thing that was begotten?

From Adam to christ there are roughly sixty-six generations that have been recorded. Thousand generations is much longer than roughly seventy.


The generations would continue past Christ.

But the geneologies were not intended to be counted to establish a chronology. They were given to name the basic line from Adam to the second Adam and the troubles they faced. Don't you agree..?


They were certainly to name the line from Adam to the second Adam, but according to James Barr, " ... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: ... the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story ... "[1]

[1] James Barr, in a letter to David C. C. Watson, 23 April 1984.

Naturally, there would be gaps. There is no reason to think that the Bible would include ALL 1,000 generations. That would take up too much space!


You're assuming that the word 'generations' in the Bible means 30 years, that the passages aren't speaking about the future, and that the passages were meant to be taken literally, as opposed to representing the unshakable promise of God to the many people who descended or will descend from Abraham. It seems like the passage in Psalms is speaking about the covenant with Abraham, so this wouldn't have anything to do with the population of the pre-flood world.

Actually, given such huge amounts of volcanism and tectonic activity, this would, indeed, completely ravage and restructure/destroy the entire planet. Tebel is never used to describe the Flood. It would be simple to say, like we do today, the whole planet was underwater, which it was, rather than just the world. The Bible is seemingly careful never to use Tebel to describe the Flood.


'Erets' can refer to the entire earth or all the people of the earth. The universality of 'erets' is seen in Psalm 97:1 and 5.

"Yahweh, He reigns; let the earth (erets) exult; Let the many coastlands rejoice." (Psalm 97:1)

"The mountains are melted like wax before the presence of Yahweh, Before the presence of the Lord of all the earth (erets)" (Psalm 97:5)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (erets)." (Genesis 1:1)

When used, 'tebel' carries the connotation of the peoples of the world, not the physical planet. Compare 1 Samuel 2:8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the Earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them." It refers to the'civilized world' (like the Greek word οικουμενη/oikoumenè).

There was no need for God to use the word 'tebel' to describe destroying the 'civilized world' because he already said that he would destroy the humans (Gen. 6:7; 9:15).

As soon as the animals left the region people would start to get suspicious. This is not what happened in Genesis, so we can be sure the animals did not migrate. In the local flood model this presents no problem.


Not all of the animals would have to leave the region, only the ones God wanted to save. God could've chose to save the animals on the outskirts of the region, so they could just leave the region without a hassle and without attracting attention. Even animals that God didn't choose to save could escape the flood if they were living on the outskirts of the region. Some could have also avoided the attention of the humans.

The birds, however, would not fly out of the region when the rain began. During such thunderous downpour, as would be expected, they fly to their nests and would try to keep dry until they were drowned by the flood waters.


Some birds would escape the judgement if they lived near the outskirts of the region.

"Birds normally fly around to look for food, shelter, perhaps a better nesting area. So when they feel stronger winds coming in, they have no problem finding a new location to visit for a while."[1]

I'm sure a lot would try to fly back to their nests, but there were certainly some birds that would've tried to escape.

[1] Lisa Shea, "Birds Surviving Hurricanes and Storms,"; http://www.bellaonli...es/art13084.asp

It would cover all the high hills and all the high mountains in that region. Perhaps fluctuating sea levels (which were common at that time) rose quickly, at the same time as the Caspian Sea was flooding. The two might have connected, the sea and the huge lake, to engulf the entire region in water. It was so huge Noah could only see water all around him. Thus, it covered all the high hills and all the mountains and such. That doesn't mean it covered the Andes or the Himalayas. It merely covered the mountains in the 'world'. Noah was far from Ararat, so Ararat was not covered in water. Given the vast extension of the Ararat range, Noah could have alighted on any one of these mountains. Most probably were covered twenty feet in water. Basically, the verse implies there was water as far as the eye could see.


Do you know what the highest mountain in that region is?

"We do not know of any commentator, old-earth or young-earth, who would dispute that hyperbole is used many times in the Bible.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof still falls on Ross because 'all' and 'every' do often have an absolute sense. For example, when Romans 3:23 says all have sinned, that is not hyperbole—literally all (each and every one) people have sinned. Jesus literally has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18) and literally every knee will bow to acknowledge Him as Lord one day (Phil. 2:11). Furthermore, a cursory reading of Genesis 6-9 reveals numerous references to total destruction. For Ross's view to be correct, every single one of these must be interpreted as hyperbole. Some verses contain two words or phrases that indicate a worldwide event. Ross cited Genesis 7:19 as an example of hyperbole. It reads, 'And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.' Of course, Ross wants the phrase 'all the high hills' to refer to a local area. This interpretation simply cannot be because the text says all of the high hills under 'the whole heaven' were covered. The second phrase demonstrates conclusively that the text is not simply referring to all the hills of the area, but rather all the hills under the entire sky (the 'whole heaven') (i.e., all the high hills on earth). In order for Dr. Ross's view to be correct, both of these phrases would have to be hyperbole, when the context shows that neither one of them is."[1]

[1] Tim Chaffey, Jason Lisle, "Defense—A Local Flood?," Old-Earth Creationism on Trial; http://www.answersin...nse-local-flood

God wouldn't have told Noah to leave in the middle of the night, because the people wouldn't be warned of the impending judgement and wouldn't have a chance to repent.


They would've been warned of the impending judgement prior to Noah leaving.

If it was meant to survive the global flood currents of 190 miles per hour, I doubt it would be barge-shaped. I'm not an expert on seafaring, but I know this was left out of the young-earthers equations.


The barge was able to handle extreme conditions. The design was perfect. Also, there's no reason to assume that the water was behaving the same way everywhere on the earth. It could've been calmer in the region the ark was in.

God wouldn't have sent them out of the region.There already probably were many other examples of the species living in mesopotamia outside of this particular region that could have, and would have, just filled back into the basin.


Why preserve the animals on an ark at all then?

However, Noah took two of every animal in that region (it doesn't say HOW he got them. Perhaps God indirectly guided them to Noah) and told the people there would be a flood that covered the whole world (which it did).


"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." (Genesis 6:20)

It says that the animals came to Noah.


#40 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:06 PM

The reason it was so large might have been to accomidate the possibility of people repenting and going aboard the ark,


They could've just faithfully walked out of the region with Noah and the animals.

days are established prior to the actual things that establish them (sun, moon, stars) leads us to question if ordinary 24 hour human earth days are what God really intended us to believe in this era, when science (detailed observation of nature) tells us how God did it, as he commanded us to use science to determine things.


The sun, moon, and stars do not establish days. They separate the day (already established) from the night and serve as signs to mark the days (already established). The sun was made to govern the already established day. He established days on the first day of history:

"God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day." (Genesis 1:5)

the grass flourishing and withering described in Psalm 90 is using 'morning' to simply mean in the beginning, and evening to mean the ending. In Genesis, it is used in this very same beautiful poetic way, as it should be.


Thank you for pointing that out to me. What about the claim that 'every time a number is used with the word 'yom' in the Hebrew scriptures, it means an ordinary day' and the claim that 'God made them male and female at the beginnning'? (Matt. 19:4)

As for your plant problem, first of all the Bible is separating the creation of individual organisms into days. In reality the plants were indeed created first (along with the billions of microoranisms it somehow leaves out) and God continued creating plants, probably up to the present day. I know it sounds incredible, but it's called creation day overlap and is commonly accepted in old-earth circles. "And it was so." translates better into "and it did come to pass." Does this imply theistic evolution? I don't know, but it's a possibility.


It says that he made the plants on the third day though. It doesn't mention him making plants on any other days. Why wouldn't he mention those day and why would he mention only one day if it was something that was going to continue to happen for a long time? Why not word it like, "God began creating plants on the third day"?

Charles Hodge wrote:

"It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis 1] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense [long ages] avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other."[1]

God seems to be interested in everyone. Not just scientists or Americans or this and that group. He sent his son to die for everyone, so it seems like God would choose to speak to us in the most natural way and and teach the truth about reality in the most natural way, so everyone around the world can understand what he's saying.

The most natural understanding of the Mosaic account isn't in conflict with the facts and the problem is that the scientific "facts" promoted by Hodge have changed over the years since that statement, while the Bible has remained the same.

[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, originally published 1872 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), p. 570-571.

The fifth day only includes the creation of 'soulish' mammals, whales and (the swarming things) dolphins and porpoises.


How do you know that?

It completely ignores fish, which we know are not soulish.


How do you know that fish are ignored in Genesis and that fish aren't 'soulish'?

As for the animals in the sky, it uses the word 'owph', which is normally restricted to birds and bats, which are soulish.


Don't forget pterosaurs and flying serpents.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]

[1] Isaiah 14:29

[2] Isaiah 30:6

[3] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus 1(2):75-6, translated by G. C. Macaulay; http://www.gutenberg...707-h/book2.htm

[4] Ref. 3., 1(3):107-8; http://www.gutenberg...707-h/book3.htm

[5] Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddon's Königs von Assyrien" 1956, [Archiv fur Orientalforschung Beiheft 9; Graz: E. Weidner, 1956], 9:90.

[6] Strabo, Geography book xv, p. 97, translated by W. Falconer; http://rbedrosian.co...c/strabo15b.htm

[7] Aristotle (350 BC), The History of Animals (1):5, translated by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson; http://classics.mit....y_anim.1.i.html

[8] Josephus, Flavius, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book II "From the Death of Isaac to the Exodus out of Egypt" Translated by William Whiston, p.58.

This is the same term used to describe the birds that went onto the ark. If we were to interpret it to mean 'insect' as well, it would obviously mean there were all 'kinds' of insects on the ark as well, and we know that is impossible.


Why would it be impossible for all the different 'kinds' of insect to be on the ark? Also, I'm not sure if I'm completely convinced, but some people say:

"Insects were probably not collected and housed on the Ark. They do not have nostrils (Genesis 7:22) to breathe air, and can survive floods on floating debris such as vegetation mats. No doubt many insects hopped on board anyway."[1]

[1] Tas Walker (March 2007), "How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark?," Creation 29(2):51; http://creation.com/...mals-on-the-ark

The sixth day is used to describe 'behema', large four-legged mammals like oxen and buffalo that are easy to domesticate (no triceratops or apatosaurus here),


How do you know that's what is specifically being referenced? What four-legged mammal has a tail that can be compared to a tree (Job 40:17)? The tails of mammals are more comparable to ropes, sticks or twigs than entire trees.

"He [behemoth] is the chief of the ways of God: ... " (Job 40:19)

Some say that the word 'chief' or 're'-shiyth' here means that he is the largest land animal God made, which would be a sauropod.

"He [God] that made him can make His sword to approach unto him." (Job 40:19)

The creature is so powerful that only God can come against it.

"The word 'Behemoth' (Job 40:15) is literally a plural form of a common Old Testament (OT) word meaning 'beast'. However, practically all commentators and translators have agreed that here we have an intensive or majestic plural, so that the meaning is something like 'colossal beast'. This case is similar to the word 'Elohim', which is actually a majestic plural form, but is always used with a singular verbal form, just as is encountered in this passage. Also, we read in verse 19 that Behemoth was the 'chief of the ways of God', which suggests that Behemoth was one of the largest (if not the largest) of God's creatures."[1]

[1] Allan K. Steel (August 2001), "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?," Journal of Creation 15(2):42-5; http://creation.com/...been-a-dinosaur

'remes' (small mammals like rodents and POSSIBLY small reptiles. Notice it is not SHERES, but REMES), and 'chay', mostly carnivores, wild and free.


How do you know what 'remes' is specifically referring to?

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Genesis 9:3)

Before the flood, men were vegetarians. The Bible mentions God giving humans only the green plants to eat, during the same time that it mentions God giving only the green plants to the animals:

"Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; and it was so." (Genesis 1:29,30)

Just as man was only given plants to begin with and then later given everything, so were the animals only given plants to begin with and then later allowed to eat other animals.

"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.
Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den.
They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9)

This is talking about the future and things being restored back to a more peaceful state. Just as bears grazed and lions ate straw before the curse, so they will in the future.

"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain' says the LORD." (Isaiah 65:24)

"For as by a man came death, ... For as in Adam all die, ... " (1 Corinthians 15:21,22)

All die because of Adam's sin (Gen. 2:17; 3:6; 3:14-24), so there couldn't have been carnivores at the very beginning. The curse was for the animals too.

"The LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field;" (Genesis 3:14)

The serpent was cursed more than all of the other animals, but all of the other animals were still cursed.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: post Flood, migration, australia, madagascar, lemur, marsupial, speciation, tasmania, Babel, Calum

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users