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

#41 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:18 PM

Well, I'm glad you think my point is a valid one. :)

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.


Thanks, and no problem.

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.


I agree God created the physical laws in the beginning. However, he most likely did it through natural processes.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Whoa whoa whoa - slow down there, Genesis. Notice how it merely says God created the heavens and earth, then jumps onward to state the Earth was formless and empty and covered in water at one point in time, before life (or while life was appearing). Does it say how or how long God created the heavens (implying the sun, moon, and stars already existed, and probably not only 3d space) and Earth? Nope. To say God instantaneously snapped the heavens and Earth into existence has really no basis in scripture.

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.


First, Adam was probably created younger than that. I might say in his teens, depending on the ancients' definition of 'man'.
Second, if Adam would not have been created with scars or burns. Looking at scars or burns on skin implies there was something that caused the wound. Are you applying to the appearance-of-age argument? We certainly know that scars on planets weren't just created that way. Just look at Mercury and the moon. That's practically proof of an old solar system. As I stated before, God tells us to look at nature, and we shall find answers.

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.


Actually, I believe Exodus was the result of a supernaturally-caused volcano (I think it was Thera) that resulted in boils, ocean turning blood-red, caused darkness over egypt, caused locusts and flies to swarm, killed the firstborn, and might have - might have, mind you - caused the parting of the red sea. Pillars of fire are perfectly physically possible, if God caused a fault running from Egypt to Canaan (Thera, again) and put his presence within it, that only implies God manipulated nature. You'd have to see the Exodus Decoded. It also provides evidence for geneological gaps (though it is not mentioned) and corresponds to the Hyksos and volcanic eruption of the mediterranean. I cannot debate the science behind it, as it would take up space, so I would say it's up to you to look at the documentary and weigh the evidences.
Don't get me wrong. I know that sometimes God suspends nature, but he tends to intervene/direct/manipulate it. It's his work, I think he might as well enjoy using it.

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.


Of course God doesn't have to adhere to natural laws, but it's obvious he only manipulated nature here. Nowhere in the Bible does it say how God created the heavens and the earth prior to the appearance of life. I think we both agree.

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


However, I was not trying to redefine the terms 'evening and morning'. Again, I was only refuting the idea that 'evening and morning' always referred to twenty four hour days. I pointed out the verse on the grass, which disproves that statement. It is not equivocation. It's just reasoning with truth.
Remember, I think the context speaks for something else.

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?


You're right, I'll admit that it's an awful lot like circular reasoning. I don't remember what I was thinking about telling you that the first days were probably six hours long. Oops.

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.


Surely you know light needs to be moving at a certain speed in order to even be visible. Light wouldn't have just been a bunch of photons floating about in space with no direction. Then it would be no light.
God could create light in transit, but again it adheres to the appearance of age argument. Do you hold to that position?
First, we would need the light to be radiating without a source at some point in space. The Earth would be spinning on its axis in order to define day and night, unless the 'light' without the source would be rotating (somehow) around the Earth. This light would need to be in a definite part of space. Later, God describes the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. The sun governs the day, and the moon governs the night. It's the same kind of day and night that makes me think the Earth was already rotating, continually facing the 'light'.
It just doesn't make sense to say the light was 'glory-light' from God. It just doesn't...work. It's unnatural and strained. Just think about what I've said so far. You'll come to a conclusion eventually.

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?


You are 100% right on that. Genesis and Job tells us that at first there was no real firmament (space) between the clouds and the water, then God separated them. The light had already appeared, but when they were separated, the clouds became thinner and heavenly bodies became visible from the surface. Hence, the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. It's in perfect accordance with modern theories as to how the early Earth was like in preparation for life. Just thought I would point that out.

#42 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:56 PM

Given the extensivity of your posts, I'll have to address one at a time:

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


Not if he snuck off in the middle of the night. Another one of the whole points of the ark was so that Noah could have a platform from which to preach from. Something that would be so outrageous it would attract people. The Bible does say Noah was a preacher of righteousness...
Another reason to have the ark was so as to preserve the fauna and flora of that region.

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)


It's a bit too lengthy to cover entirely in this post, so I would suggest you look at the discussion between me and JayShel.


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)


Simple. first, God wanted to set an example to us. A seven-day workweek, so he listed them as days and as distinct periods of time, knowing later we would find out how to interpret the verse with our scientific knowledge.
second, I would say pay attention to context. We obviously disagree on the context of Genesis. Besides, most of these times in Hebrew it is referring to a normal day is by use of common speech, which would be obvious, even if Genesis spaned 4.5 billion years. People tend to do things within 24 hour days than within millions of years, so this is easily explainable.
As for your second point, even YECs agree Adam and Eve were made at the end of creation week. We were the last creatures mentioned to be created on Earth. The verse implies that they were created at the beginning of humanity/the world, as would be obvious.

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"?


Because, 1) God wanted to present Genesis in an ordered and structured form to set as an example to humans. 2) the Bible says God commanded the Earth to produce vegetation. He only commanded it in the second day, he still could have been creating/evolving plants up to Adam and Eve. 3) it would be grammatically awkward, given the context.


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.


You couldn't be more right. God did write Genesis for everyone. That's why he didn't include 'billions of years' into Genesis. Precisely for that reason.

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.


Do pardon my ignorance, but what is the Mosaic account?
Besides, science advances with knowledge. Didn't Answers in Genesis (I only have other people telling me this, so I don't have proof) change their theories on the origin of Floodwater and the acceptance of what qualified as being a 'christian'? Science never changes, it's just our understanding of science changing. Interpretations of the Bible can change, too, even though the Bible remains the same.


How do you know that?


Due to word meanings of the included animals in Genesis.


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


Because nowhere else in the Bible are fish described as being nephesh. Fish can't relate to humans, they're just as isolated as cold-blooded reptiles and frogs. Beautiful, but isolated.

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


I like how you include numerous sources. However, my translation of the Bible, as well as several others, say in Isaiah 'fiery serpents' rather than 'flying serpents'. It could be a poetic reference, as serpents don't breath fire, but breath poison, and there's no reason to think that because they 'flew' meant they had wings. Besides, pterosaurs were furry animals. They would be considered birds, wouldn't they, and not reptiles? Where on Earth would they fit into Genesis?



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]


'the breath of life in their nostrils' more likely refers to the animals being soul-animals than anything else. Exactly my point as well, as insects are completely ignored in the creation account.
Tas Walker has been rebutted:
http://www.answersin.../tas_walker.htm
Insects couldn't have survived on floating debris. Churning floodwaters at 190 mph would have broken apart any vegetation mats, or submerged them. Most insects rely on soil and other environments that would have been impossible during the flood. How would the bees have survived? Or the wasps? Or the ants? To say ALL 'kinds' of insects somehow hopped aboard the ark undetected (Noah would have had to have been very strict on heigene if he wanted to care for all those animals) isn't really valid.

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.


behemoth is quite a different word than behema. They carry different meanings as well. I believe it's perfectly plausible God was talking to Job about the greatest creatures he had ever made, and put them in a modern setting to help him understand him. However, I have difficulty interpreting Behemoth to mean a brachiosaur because brachiosaurs couldn't have hid among the reeds along the river, did not have armour, the verse makes no mention of the long neck, sauropods were not water-dwelling animals, and I don't understand how a brachiosaurus could let the water rush over its small head and the river rush into its rather small mouth. It sounds more like a crocodile or a hippo. The crocodile's tail is strong and long - rather like a cedar tree, don't you think? If a hippo, it's merely referencing the movements of the tail, and not the actual shape of the tail. In fact, a hippo's tail, incidentally, looks a bit like a cedar, if you were to put it upside down :P Hippos and crocodiles strike terror into the hearts of people in those regions. Nothing can compare today. The crocodile has armour that is practically impenitrable, anyway, and the hippo has tough skin.

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


There's a difference between 'sheres' and 'remes'. It's merely the most direct translation.


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:


I agree. I've debated this subject before. I currently believe that humans were in fact first vegetarian (or perhaps after the Flood this was only part of the covenant, as God gave Noah something that humanity had already had - the world.) However, when talking about animals, it has quite a different context:

"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)


Is it not clear that God is setting the base for the entire sustenance of the Animal Kingdom? All animals rely on plants for food. Carnivores indirectly rely on plants for sustenance. It seems bright and clear.

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.


I have no idea where you could get the notation that this was a restoration. The creation was originally 'very good', not 'perfect' as the new creation will be. The new creation will most likely have entirely different physical laws. It's very different from the original creation.

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.


Not quite. There's no Scriptural indication of that at all. The Bible only says through Adam came death to all men. God does not judge the innocent along with the wicked. Animals, unlike humans, are pure and cannot sin. Why not just call the original creation 'perfect' rather than 'very good'.


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


The verse doesn't imply that the animals immediately became cursed as the Fall happened. I don't know why the Bible calls cattle cursed. I don't know the reason, but that doesn't mean to say the serpent lost its legs (if that's what you're implying.) God is not talking to the snake or all kinds of snakes, he's talking to Satan. The snake is innocent.

#43 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:23 AM

"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]


Ross doesn't deny that geneologies can and do represent some father-son relationships. He discusses the reasons. If there is a significant character in the Bible who is interacting with his family, and if his story is important, doubtlessly it will include his father or son. Not ALL persons in the geneologies represent this.


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


I honestly don't know. 'Begotten' would most likely mean being the progenitor of the one who was begotten. Jesus was begotten of David, who was begotten of Noah, that kind of thing. That's what I think it represents. Progenitors and Descendants that only include immediate family when it is relevant.


The generations would continue past Christ.


So therefore the second coming would be around 100,000 AD? That's quite some time..

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]


Note that this was written in 1984. Perhaps this was before extensive studies on geneologies existed like they do today? Perhaps their knowledge did not include the fact that Hebrews would have most likely written geneologies in a different way? Perhaps James Barr is merely mistaken. There certainly are experts in Hebrew who believe the Old Testament geneologies are filled with gaps. Just look at Reasons to Believe staff members. They have official Hebraists up there.



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.


I am assuming 'generations' is roughly on average 30 years, but even if they were 12 years it overshoots the YEC date for creation by around 6,000 years.
I doubt the passages are speaking of the future. I suspect we are already in end times, due to multiple signs that we're supposed to look out for in prophecy - but it would take up too much space to go in-depth in.
True I am assuming the passages are to be taken literally, but due to science telling us Addam arose 50,000 years ago, there have been on average 1,000 generations in 50,000 years, and that we're probably nearing end times, it only strengthens the argument more.


'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).


But in order to Flood the whole world (sin being the cause) you would need to have people living all over the world. Thus, tebel. Isn't that reasonible?
Most times in the old testament, 'erets' is used to describe the human world. The entire known world. It's obvious from the context that God is ruling over all creation.
Let's use one example. People came from all over 'erets' to see Solomon. Does that mean the Eskimos and Aborigines heard of him? Not likely. There are many other verses like this. This is just one example.


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).


I don't quite see how this strengthens the case. Can you elaborate here?


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.


But the whole point was to attract attention.

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


Not really a problem, as the flood waters would probably exceed the total population area of humanity at that time, and thus would not have been 'influenced' by sin. God wanted to flood out all the nephesh creatures associated with humanity as well as humanity itself.


"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.


Of course, assuming there was a lot of wind prior to the Flood. It's most probable it just began to rain. Hurricanes did not cause the Flood. It most likely happened like that, without warning.

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


No, but I know the topography supports it. I think the Flood took up the Caspian sea drainage basin and flooded parts of Mesopotamia. Even all the lowlands flooding, Noah would not be able to see any mountains anywhere at the horizon. There were higher mountains and hills (depends on sea level), but nothing like the peak of Ararat.

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]


I don't see how this is relevant. ALL humanity drowned. ALL the high mountains and all the high hills were covered in water. That is, in erets. If taken literally, mountains on Mars and Jupiter would be flooded, as they qualify as being under heaven (space?). Ross agrees that context is key.

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


Again, not if he snuck off in the middle of the night. The ark was used as Noah's platform to preach to the people.

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.


It wasn't designed to handle extreme conditions. The YECs who did the studies on ark design forgot to factor the strong currents in as an influence. The ark was best designed for floating on a calm sea, not open ocean.

Why preserve the animals on an ark at all then?


1) it would make people realize impending judgement was coming
2) it would save local wildlife
3) it would demand faith and attention.
4) it would be a great way to get people to listen to you preach.
5) God wanted to destroy all nephesh life associated with humanity.

Makes sense...

"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.


Indeed, it says they would come to him, but it does not directly say that there was a huge line of animals filtering into the ark. For example, this was early in humanity's history and perhaps animals had less fear of humans. Or, God could have easily made them not fear him. Animals could have come slowly bit by bit, they could have been brought to him, (it just says they will come to you) even before the completion of the ark. They might have been attracted to him, even. This is all speculation, of course.

I'm writing this a bit late at night, so I'm tired and don't write as well as usual. I hope it's coherent enough for you. Try to respond to both my posts in a single post (if possible). Thanks.

#44 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:39 PM

I agree God created the physical laws in the beginning. However, he most likely did it through natural processes.


Wow...im speechless...if logic means nothing to you then there's no point in carrying this conversation any further..I really don't have time for such word and mind games.

#45 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

Wow...im speechless...if logic means nothing to you then there's no point in carrying this conversation any further..I really don't have time for such word and mind games.


Whoops, my bad. Honestly, I misspoke. Ha ha, how embarrassing.

I meant something more like 'God created the physical laws in the beginning. However, he most likely CREATED through natural processes (meaning the laws of physics).' As you might know, I believe the Big Bang was God creating physics, then created by natural processes.

So I'll have to ask you to once again forgive my error (although for an entirely different purpose), although it really is simple and doesn't matter that much. I just had to word it differently. Given the entire context of my post, I would have assumed you would have understood my point.

#46 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:28 PM

Whoops, my bad. Honestly, I misspoke. Ha ha, how embarrassing.

I meant something more like 'God created the physical laws in the beginning. However, he most likely CREATED through natural processes (meaning the laws of physics).' As you might know, I believe the Big Bang was God creating physics, then created by natural processes.

So I'll have to ask you to once again forgive my error (although for an entirely different purpose), although it really is simple and doesn't matter that much. I just had to word it differently. Given the entire context of my post, I would have assumed you would have understood my point.


Well in that case its still illogical. As I have pointed out many times, creating life requires God to defy natural processes. He must organize atoms and molecules into a human being. There is no reason He could or would not do the same when forming the heavens and the earth. Your posts are dismissive, illogical, and if you think I am going to keep up a debate with these troll tactics, you are mistaken.

#47 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

Well in that case its still illogical.


No it's not.

As I have pointed out many times, creating life requires God to defy natural processes. He must organize atoms and molecules into a human being.


Yes, but I don't know how God organized the atoms and molecules into a human being. The Bible says man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Whether this was gradual or instantaneous, I don't know, so I remain progressive creationist for the time being, but admit theistic evolution is biblically compatible.
That's not to say God couldn't cause miracles to happen, though. I agree with you on that.
Before I used to think evolution did not fit into the Bible. However, when I did some of my research, I reluctantly came to accept that evolution is valid within a Biblical framework. I remain a progressive creationist simply because I do not know enough of the science behind it. I concentrate more on the old earth/young earth issue.

There is no reason He could or would not do the same when forming the heavens and the earth.


Of course he's not restricted to doing the same thing. The Bible, however, does not tell us how the heavens or Earth were formed. It just says they were formed. He just made them appear. Whether they suddenly 'appeared', as to indicate instantaneous creation, or caused to 'appear' as to indicate becoming visible, we disagree on. The phrase 'God created X' does not include how 'X' was created.

Your posts are dismissive, illogical, and if you think I am going to keep up a debate with these troll tactics, you are mistaken.


1) I was not trolling.
2) you had said I had enough logic in my responses to accept them as valid.
3) to say I was using 'troll tactics' is simply not true. As I said, it was a simple grammatical error. A simple grammatical error. You haven't demonstrated how my posts were illogical.
4) dismissive? No, no... they are corrective, or, in the case of my two mistakes, an attempt to be corrective. I think I payed very well attention to what you had to say. If not, you can tell me the few things I might have missed, if you are willing to continue. I'll gladly examine the problems you have with my viewpoint.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:14 PM

to say I was using 'troll tactics' is simply not true. As I said, it was a simple grammatical error. A simple grammatical error. You haven't demonstrated how my posts were illogical.


I would have to disagree... You seem to be doing this on posts other than this one. And Jay has indeed provided illogic in your processes...

#49 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:17 PM

1) I was not trolling. (SAME AS POINT 3)
2) you had said I had enough logic in my responses to accept them as valid. (ON AN UNRELATED SUBJECT)
3) to say I was using 'troll tactics' is simply not true. As I said, it was a simple grammatical error. A simple grammatical error. You haven't demonstrated how my posts were illogical. (I WILL DEMONSTRATE THIS IS NOT TRUE, AND AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT FROM THE POINT I AM MAKING BY CALLING YOU A TROLL)
4) dismissive? No, no... they are corrective, or, in the case of my two mistakes, an attempt to be corrective. I think I payed very well attention to what you had to say.(I WILL DEMONSTRATE HOW THIS IS ALSO UNTRUE) If not, you can tell me the few things I might have missed, if you are willing to continue. I'll gladly examine the problems you have with my viewpoint. (YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED MANY TIMES THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE)


Yes, but I don't know how God organized the atoms and molecules into a human being. The Bible says man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Whether this was gradual or instantaneous, I don't know, so I remain progressive creationist for the time being, but admit theistic evolution is biblically compatible.


You can be a Christian washed clean of sins by the blood of Jesus Christ and attempt to justify TE.

You have been attempting to take words (such as morning and evening, and yom) out of a clear context of literal sun and moon marked days to promulgate long ages in genesis 1 and exodus 20:11, and citing other contexts of the word that do not fit. "In that day", does not fit the context used in genesis.

Ignoring all of that, you attempted to flip the argument around on me by claiming that there is no biblical evidence for YEC. This is a double edged sword; if there is no biblical evidence for YEC, there is no evidence for OEC either. Instead you claim ONLY MY argument is unbiblical, and that OEC is the victor of the argument. This is dishonest, dismissive and illogical, not corrective.

God using His will to change whatever a single atom would normally do is supernatural, and defies the laws that govern nature. Are you suggesting that God does not lift a finger against one single molecule because He set a “clock in motion” a long time ago, or that He must work really slowly, because both of these arguments are without a leg to stand on. When He came as Jesus, He proved that He can heal the sick, make the blind see, raise people from the dead, make the lame walk, turn water into wine, walk on water, etc These all happened instantaneously. If He can manipulate one molecule, he can manipulate many. He can also create molecules (water into wine requires addition of molecules, and so does multiplying bread and fish to feed 5000 people. Your attacking my views as unbiblical is dismissive and unfounded.

You cling to illogical arguments (as shown above). I have taken the time to provide well thought out arguments, providing evidence from the Bible, and you dismiss them as unbiblical without demonstrating them as such. You have also shown signs of not reading my posts and not thinking your arguments through completely. Such are the tactics of insincere time wasters, aka trolls. I see that you have consistently done this throughout the thread, and therefore I am done wasting my time or let you continue wasting other peoples time:

Warning: Insincerely responding in an attempt to cause a spectacle, waste time, and/or “win” rather than posing logical arguments to edify people on the forums is known as trolling. Trolling is against the rules and will not be tolerated on this forum.

#50 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 May 2012 - 09:04 PM

God using His will to change whatever a single atom would normally do is supernatural, and defies the laws that govern nature. Are you suggesting that God does not lift a finger against one single molecule because He set a “clock in motion” a long time ago, or that He must work really slowly, because both of these arguments are without a leg to stand on. When He came as Jesus, He proved that He can heal the sick, make the blind see, raise people from the dead, make the lame walk, turn water into wine, walk on water, etc These all happened instantaneously. If He can manipulate one molecule, he can manipulate many. He can also create molecules (water into wine requires addition of molecules, and so does multiplying bread and fish to feed 5000 people. Your attacking my views as unbiblical is dismissive and unfounded.


All these miracles performed by Jesus are recorded in the Bible, and there were hundreds and thousands of people who observed them.
However, what are we to do when there are no human witnesses to record these creation events? God tells us to look at nature, as I have already demonstrated. We look at science, and multiple lines of evidence tells us the world is old, so we turn back to Genesis and see if it allows for that interpretation. It just so happens that it does, and it puts a lot of pieces of the puzzle into the entire picture. I have already demonstrated how the old earth fits nicely into Genesis. It's much more consistent.
As I stated before, God did not have to work really slowly. Nature just tells us he most likely worked within it, as nature speaks so obviously for an old universe. Genesis is written poetically so as to give humans an established workweek, and to give them a basic idea of how they got here. It couldn't be more perfectly done.

Again, it is only Creation Science that developed as a response to what was clearly seen (see my signature). These 'scientists' already started with their preconcieved notion that the young earth theorem/interpretation was the word of God! Who's reasoning do you think is more illogical, Jay?


I did not come to 'win'. I came here to see if I could find any truth to young earth science.

<Post edited to remove complaints against board moderation and clear cases of misrepresentation. LEGITIMATE issues may be reported via the report button or handled via PM, not handled publicly to cause a spectacle.>

#51 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 13 May 2012 - 02:15 PM

All these miracles performed by Jesus are recorded in the Bible, and there were hundreds and thousands of people who observed them.
However, what are we to do when there are no human witnesses to record these creation events?


God revealed it to us in the Bible, Genesis is an eyewitness account. To me that is better than a human witness. I don't know about you.

God tells us to look at nature, as I have already demonstrated.


We can look at nature to see the glory of God's creation, and know that it could not have happened without God (creation of life, an ordered universe with natural laws, etc). You take it a step further with your presuppositions that there have been no supernatural effects on natural processes that limit the knowledge scientists can glean from nature, such as the age of the universe and the earth. It is clear that science cannot detect supernatural occurrences, but this does not mean that we can rule them out as having occurred. To assert this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy.

If God created the world with radiometric daughter isotopes out of some necessity, then the earth age cannot be determined by examining them, and it has been demonstrated with a battery of tests on lava at Mount Saint Helens. Lava measuring hundreds of thousands to billions of years can literally be only a few thousands of years old.

We look at science, and multiple lines of evidence tells us the world is old, so we turn back to Genesis and see if it allows for that interpretation. It just so happens that it does, and it puts a lot of pieces of the puzzle into the entire picture. I have already demonstrated how the old earth fits nicely into Genesis. It's much more consistent.
As I stated before, God did not have to work really slowly. Nature just tells us he most likely worked within it, as nature speaks so obviously for an old universe. Genesis is written poetically so as to give humans an established workweek, and to give them a basic idea of how they got here. It couldn't be more perfectly done.


When nature and the Bible conflict, I trust the Bible, because God is truth. He cannot lie or decieve. Naturalists understanding of the age of the earth are based on the presupposition that supernatural events have never changed natural processes. That is quite a large assumption. Multiple calculations based on naturalistic presuppositions indicate an old earth age but the Bible disputes naturalistic presuppositions/assumptions.

Again, it is only Creation Science that developed as a response to what was clearly seen (see my signature). These 'scientists' already started with their preconcieved notion that the young earth theorem/interpretation was the word of God! Who's reasoning do you think is more illogical, Jay?


Sure, I'll answer this question again...The Bible tells us that Jesus made the lame walk and fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. Jesus is God, therefore it logically follows that God can and did create and change nature instantaneously according to His will during the creation of the heavens and the earth, and when creating life. There is no evidence that He relied on natural processes such as abiogenesis, evolution/progressive creation (as you suggest), in nature or the Bible. You are coming with a preconceived notions and presuppositions and pretending that you have no presuppositions. Then you are using these presuppositions based on man's musings to interpret the Bible.


I did not come to 'win'. I came here to see if I could find any truth to young earth science.


We cannot know the full history of the world and formation of life through forensic science due to supernatural occurrences, misinterpretations of data, and false assumptions (of no God or supernatural occurrences). This can logically be deduced from reading the Bible. Dismissing this argument before you even begin a discussion and acting like your position is "presupposition free" and superior because of this is dishonest and untrue.

#52 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 07:48 PM

Has anyone thought about the possibility of man bringing the animals to Australia? I've seen specials on TV about early ship building. Imean Noah built an ark, and there is a possibility/probability that ships were not a new concept to Noah. Man is intelligent and we are just descendents. Think about the wisdom of Greece, the inventions of Egypt. This is just what we know about.

#53 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:11 PM

Besides, if it turns out evolution is true (I still have my doubts) I would say that Darwin obviously only got half the picture. Perhaps the devil is up to his old tricks again. If so many people in the church are in opposition to the old earth theorem interpretation, and science speaks so overwhelmingly for an old earth, that will definitely cause a blockade to prevent people from reaching christ.


I hope for the sake of your soul that capitalizing Darwin and not Christ was an honest mistake, and not a Freudian slip evidencing deceptive worldview claims.

This reminds me of the time a church was talking about “The most important things you should look for in a business partner or romantic partner” and the last thing on the list was “Jesus first”. I agreed with them and found a new Church.

Obviously you are being sarcastic here. In fact, science does not speak of an old earth, since science does not talk. People interpret data to assume that the age of the earth can be known based on radiometric data. Any deception about an old earth is self-deception.

Uinkaret flows at the Grand Canyon were measured by 6 K-Ar which suggested 10,000 to 17 million years of age, 5 Rb-Sr suggested 1.27-1.39 billion years of age, 1 Pb-Pb isochron dating suggested 2.6 billion years of age, 1 Rb-Sr isochron dating suggested 1.34 billion years old, except the Native American pottery found in the lava indicated that it was only 800-1000 years old. That is quite some error. You must assume that the rocks are old in order to measure them old, if you believe them to be young (when finding younger artifacts) you throw out the “flawed” old age dates. In other words, you date the fossils based on rocks and rocks based on fossils, and you based this on presuppositions. This is circular reasoning. Furthermore, if the age is that young, there should be no such data. My assertion that radiometric dating cannot tell us the age of the earth stands.

#54 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:02 PM

It is my understanding that when man left the ark they took about one hundred years till the time of Babel. Man probably remained in the hills above the valley of Mesopotamia awaiting drying of the plains. Which soft plains probably facilitated the coporate work of man in forming bricks to erect great building projects. In the meantime I would expect that many kinds of creatures migrated to where they formerly were known to dwell by homing instincts and much driven by instinct to do so. There exists no argument forbidding beasts from arriving in Australia after the flood due to much shallower oceans due to massive deposits of land ice on the continents and frozen in the extreme pole areas. And a demarcated path is evident along the indonesian chain of islands. There being evidence of former beaches far below present day ocean levels. There being many trenches dug in the continental shelves where water poured voluminously off of the land. There being evidences such as the prolific number of oxbow lakes all along the Mississippi river valley, all being much larger than the Misssissippi is today. The massive lakes that sat ice bound on land untl thawing allowed dams of ice to shatter. The tendency of continents to rise as the ice load decreased. There is nothing magical about Australia that produces marsupials as far as I know. So, that lends to idea that the similar creatures went to a former area of the earth that accomodated them climatically, seasonally, and for length of day and night, and predator relationships. If the migration was instinctive it may well exist and so there may be some experiment that would denote its imprint. The aborigines would not arrive till some time after Babel. And since there never were primative man as depicted in the mythology of naturalism they probably took boats. Also complicating the narrative by bringing who knows what with them The global fossil record is not of much use since where creatures are found geographically is not certain due to the complexity of the flood in all locales. The vast amount of grinding, crushing, inverting, bunching, trapping, lensing, matting, precipitative forces, temperature layering etc etc. So, finding marsupials on mountaintops wouldn't mean they once loved the great heights of the earth. And, there are creatures trapped in other areas the are difficult to explain, such as seals high up on Lake Bakal. I don't see where the Australia marsupial questions leads to any difficulty for the biblical narrative in Genesis. And, the lack of macroevolution in Australia since the flood of Noah is just one more proof that the macroevolution story;ine needs all kind of time allowances just to allow it to have excuses for no expectation of it ever being evidenced in world history.

#55 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 01 August 2012 - 06:56 AM

I haven't read every post that was posted under this, but to answer this young mans request....
There are two main things that YEC's teach and have published information on.

1. Floating mats of vegetation as a mechanism for dispersion due to the flood.
2. Adaptive Variation in kinds, as an explanation for speciation, via biblical Kinds.

As I understand it, Kind should be at the family level in the phylogenetic tree used by evolutionary perspectives.

While I lean towards a young earth, I also am a "Hybrid" and I do not believe either of these ideas to be sustainable, at this moment in time these are theoretical ideas being explored by YEC creationists and is being taught by some as factual, I reject these both, and will explain in detail in the near future as to why. But both of these can be read up on the AIG site if your so inclined...

Out side of a local flood, I know of no viable explanation of ARK dispersion that is reliable, factual, biblical, and believable...I codify that stament with one divergence, if God actually put the animals back into their eco-systems then of coarse that is possible, but given the Ark and the information we have to work with biblically, the same expectations of the animals off the Ark are the same that God had in the beginning of HIs creation with respect to being fruitful and multiplying.

Both of the theories above are not mentioned in the bible, while assumptions are made about mats, it is also full of holes. THE Adaptive variation has no linkage, no proof, runs against what we do know about DNA, and is not biblical as GOD refers to animal procreation in a whole different light....Here are some quotes form a YEC scientists that has been working on fossils and DNA and I support many but not all of his views, he is very correct about the statements below, and any view with respect to adaptation, should be tempered with this analysis.....

Exact quotes from Carl Werner’s works:
No interaction between the body cells and reproductive cells in multi-cellular animals


Misuse tail cut off 20 generation of mice still produce tails...

Traits acquired through out life big muscles, sun tan, etc are not passed down to next generation.

Law of acquired Characteristics invalidated (Weisman).

Limits of variability—known limits present in the gene—natural selection could not cause a new specie.

Radom mutations almost always result in loss of information or disease. Mutations cannot form new species.

Modern scientists don’t believe the individual multi-cellular animals can directly adapt to the environment and pass on these changes to the next generation. This kind of adaptation is genetically impossible.

An individual animal cannot directly change the DNA in its reproductive cells because of a change in environment.
  • Minnemooseus likes this

#56 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:43 AM

... behemoth is quite a different word than behema. They carry different meanings as well. I believe it's perfectly plausible God was talking to Job about the greatest creatures he had ever made, and put them in a modern setting to help him understand him. However, I have difficulty interpreting Behemoth to mean a brachiosaur because brachiosaurs couldn't have hid among the reeds along the river, did not have armour, the verse makes no mention of the long neck, sauropods were not water-dwelling animals, and I don't understand how a brachiosaurus could let the water rush over its small head and the river rush into its rather small mouth. It sounds more like a crocodile or a hippo. The crocodile's tail is strong and long - rather like a cedar tree, don't you think? If a hippo, it's merely referencing the movements of the tail, and not the actual shape of the tail. In fact, a hippo's tail, incidentally, looks a bit like a cedar, if you were to put it upside down :P/> Hippos and crocodiles strike terror into the hearts of people in those regions....


Brachiosaurus may occasionally have lived in water. Good point that it's the movement of a cedar tree. Imagine a dinosaur tale moving.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:53 PM

Brachiosaurus may occasionally have lived in water. Good point that it's the movement of a cedar tree. Imagine a dinosaur tale moving.

Especially with such a long neck.

#58 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:29 PM

Dinosaurs living with man is a historical fact, as cave drawings and other artifacts have been found. Check out this site that I posted a few years ago on here. http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

As far as the behemoth being something that God told Job about as being something that he created and was long gone at the time, goes against the evidence we find today about man coexisting with dinosaurs.

#59 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

Here is your long neck :)

Posted Image

#60 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:34 PM

Posted Image

Cant forget about the fables stegosaurus either





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