Jump to content


Photo

Question For Young-Earthers (For All The Marbles).

young earth question flood marbles civilization old evolution

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

#21 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

One clarification on the above post I just made:

Reptoman said, "I believe that we clearly do not have enough information to make any claim the earth is exactly 6,000 years old."

But our position has never been that the earth is EXACTLY 6,000 yrs old. We have an approximation of about 6,000 yrs. I thought I had better clear that up.

I didn't catch on to this until after I posted my reply. Furthermore, concerning the issue of

an 'unbroken chain' of events in history...as if the modern historian has an exact accounting of the past...which does not include any interruption of human affairs by Noah's flood...observe:

(as posted on this thread above, but you obviously missed it:
Quote: "The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to three decades at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a three centuries by the start of the Old Kingdom.
The "Conventional Egyptian chronology" is the scholarly consensus, placing the beginning of the Middle Kingdom in the 21st century BC. During the 20th century AD, scholarly consensus regarding the beginning of the Old Kingdom has shifted to earlier dates and is now placed in the 27th century BC.

Counting regnal years

The first problem the student of Egyptian chronology faces is that the ancient Egyptians used no single system of dating, or consistent system of regnal years. They had no concept of an era similar to Anno Domini, Anno Hajirae, or even the concept of named years like limmu used in Mesopotamia. As a result, the chronologer is forced to compile a list of pharaohs, determine the length of their reigns, and adjust for any interregnums or coregencies. This leads to other problems:
  • All ancient Egyptian king lists are either comprehensive but have significant gaps in their text (for example, the Turin King List), or are textually complete but fail to provide a complete list of rulers, even for a short period of Egyptian history.

    End of quote.(Wikipedia). That last statement is worth it's weight in gold against your position.


#22 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:11 PM

Apparently your response is meant to be demeaning....I am not on this to start a creationist war because you insist on a 6,000 year old earth or there abouts and biblical hermeneutics that are questionable? Your welcome to your opinion, I asked your some pointed questions about Ark dispersal. insects, and again I know this is not what you wanted to hear from a Young Earth creationist but you don't don't know a darn thing about me, but you seem to be insistent on making judgmental comments about my views, I don't need the three pages with the links, just your answer to my questions?? Why don't you start at my questions, the same ones that make me go to a local and not wwflood. Instead of being insistant on disparaging what I said, maybe you should take the time to look at what I am saying.

Recent carbon 14 testing of actual human, dino, mammoth, and mosasaur have given interesting results, all are found to be contemporary with one another. http://mhe.daytondai...ss.html?p=26703 So what if the earth's creation is 50,000 years or so old? Does this affect your hermeneutics? None of the bones dated over 40,00o years if I remember....creationist sare not talking about this and other stuff because like you, they are unable to allow their package all tied up in bow to be challenged...... there should be an honest dialogue and not a dogma made out of questionable ideas and publishings. YOu know its not nice to insult born gain Christians. Brother's in Christ. You have no idea, but you have went all out to put me down the very thing that creationist cry about. I think you should take the time to study at some different angles...
and for your information Iam not an evolutionist I have written papers against it, so I suggest you know who your talking to first before you disparage their ideas....

#23 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:57 PM

Reptoman

Apparently your response is meant to be demeaning....I am not on this to start a creationist war because you insist on a 6,000 year old earth or there abouts and biblical hermeneutics that are questionable? Your welcome to your opinion, I asked your some pointed questions about Ark dispersal. insects, and again I know this is not what you wanted to hear from a Young Earth creationist but you don't don't know a darn thing about me, but you seem to be insistent on making judgmental comments about my views, I don't need the three pages with the links, just your answer to my questions?? Why don't you start at my questions, the same ones that make me go to a local and not wwflood. Instead of being insistant on disparaging what I said, maybe you should take the time to look at what I am saying.

My response was meant to be corrective. Why don't you try being honest for a change? I am not giving you 'opinion's' I am giving you the scriptural truth and you are flat out rejecting what God's Word says in its most plain spoken meaning. But apparently you think you can treat scripture like its a rubber band to be played with and also apparently you DO feel that Moses and the chronlicers wasted both their ink and all that space they gave to reveal the names and ages/time frames of the lives of the patriarchs and families of Israel..................for what? Did they do that so pseudo-scholars of your persuasion could come along centuries later and arbitrarily assign tens of thousands and/or millions of years of time that is not justified by either the text of scripture nor by actual historical and sceintific facts? The truth is that I refuted all of your points except the last few paragraphs. At that point I decided my post was getting ridiculously long and any clear thinking reader would be able to discern that you had no argument...but that you nonetheless like to argue.

Yet the diagrams, charts, and photos of evidence I provided for the universal flood of Noah went totally ignored. Proud of yourself?


Recent carbon 14 testing of actual human, dino, mammoth, and mosasaur have given interesting results, all are found to be contemporary with one another. http://mhe.daytondai...ss.html?p=26703 So what if the earth's creation is 50,000 years or so old? Does this affect your hermeneutics? None of the bones dated over 40,00o years if I remember....creationist sare not talking about this and other stuff because like you, they are unable to allow their package all tied up in bow to be challenged...... there should be an honest dialogue and not a dogma made out of questionable ideas and publishings.

Questionable to whom? Those who are critical of creationists who have faithfully defended God's Word about six day creation/literal flood since the days of The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris? Is that who you'r e aiming your tainted little bullets of criticism at.

YOu know its not nice to insult born gain Christians. Brother's in Christ. You have no idea, but you have went all out to put me down the very thing that creationist cry about. I think you should take the time to study at some different angles...

I will say it again...I was being corrective not insulting. The trouble is that you don't like being corrected...especially when your ideas are revealed to be in error. That is exactly what happened in my previous post.

and for your information Iam not an evolutionist I have written papers against it, so I suggest you know who your talking to first before you disparage their ideas....


Where did I say you were an evolutionist? Quote me. "Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them." Psalm 119:165.
  • Bonedigger likes this

#24 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:12 AM

Calypsis4

​Again I have pointedly asked you three times now several questions surrounding the wwFlood, not once have you given me an answer, you fluffed off the new carbon 14 test as immaterial to you. So I am putting myself out there you are continuing to be disparaging... I am not leaning as a local flood advocate for no reason; or because it fits me conveniently, the biblical hermeneutics seem clearly pointed at a local flood!

When God created the biospheere and his directive to the aniaml kingdom and man was to be fruitful and multiply, by what process would that would be? Male/ female of the same specie coming together to procreate? Correct? When God spoke to the animals and man off the ark and said be fruitful and multiply - Gods expectation and the hebrew infers the same exact expectation? Does it not? Or are you an advocate of Adaptive variation, a theory and unobserved or proved, yet many Christians ascribe to this in spite of the hermeneutics of the bible, the animals. The DNA process for this has never been found or even implied that this happens....

Questions again?????
So do you believe the rainbow was first shown in the sky after the flood for the first time?
Where the insects just from the amazon alone, on the ark or off, how did they surve if they were not nephesh breathers?
What is your explanation for speciation after the flood? What observable process would you infer was responsible for repopulation.
HOw do you deal with symbiotic relationships that even show in fossil records, which would imply the GOd originally created his biosphere with such relationships? So the demarcation of plants, insects, reptiles etc, after the flood would also require such relationships to stay in tact? Or many animals will die given such. I do not see any scripture which says that GOd recreated the animal kingdom after the ARk?
I assume that in a wwflood there would hav eben floating matts, but how do you explain for instance certain South Western Desert lizards species leaving theArk resting place area and "hopping" on a floating mat and the mat taking these lizards back to their original pre-flood location per their historical fossil record. Examples would be the Texas Horned lizard, THe Gila monster, The desert Collared lizard, the Tuatara in Australia, and may other "living" fossils that exist today, given your inference that all fossils were created at the flood, then these are pictures of GOds original creation that existed prior to the flood, that would also include dinos. We know that dinos lived on into mans written history and so all dinos were not destroyed either, whether on the Ark or off?

#25 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:00 AM

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000149 EndHTML:0000020118 StartFragment:0000000199 EndFragment:0000020084 StartSelection:0000000199 EndSelection:0000020084 -- As a follow-up to our conversations:

I don’t want you to misread what I implied by fossils. First of all there is an assumption that fossils only happened via the wwFlood.
There is a lot of evidence of pre-flood fossils. I will mention some of these and not go into the details of the fact for now.

Karoo Fossil Beds
Canadian Fossil Beds
Fossil under the volcanic ash of Toba, China’s recent volcano fossilized forest, the Midwest ash fall from huge volcano.
South American recent fossil bed discoveries.

I will only say this, that extensive writing and publishing by some creationists authors about some of these, have left out certain relative facts, and used their data to support their view but there is more data?

But I mention these fossils for a reason, not ignorantly or assuming your position as a wwFlood. So let me explain this more clearly.

First of all “if” the wwflood was responsible for these fossils, then the timing of their formation says one thing, these are a picture of these that existed as part of the diversity of the original creation of GOD. These were placed in situ in there specific eco-niches in the beginning. We can not discount these existed, that they were part of the diversity, and they existed pre-flood. Having said this, their actual habits have been captured in these fossil pictures. Some of them would be.


  • Mamas in a nest with eggs.
  • Mamas with babies
  • Mammals and dinos together (per Dr. Werner's fossil studies he suggest at a minimum 432 mammals have been dug up with dinos but never displayed with them in a museum. This bodes well with our creation narrative in Genesis.
  • Animals with plants in their mouths.
  • Animals with other animals in their mouths.
  • Existence of soft bodied animals.
  • “Living” fossils — Coelacanth, Texas horned lizard, Tuatara, gila monster, flying winged lizard, and many others like the cockroach, fly, dragon fly, plants of all species, horse shoe crab. Etc.

So the point of fossil deposition was not any an argument I was trying to pursue with you, I full well know what you believe.
But I had a point to this---

That animals that exist today what ever our diversity came into being after the wwflood has not changed one iota since the original creation? I say that because horned lizards still eat ants, monkeys fruit and tender leaves, chameleons insects, gators and crocs, turtles and fish and others, snakes carnivory of other snakes and lizards, birds, rats and mice etc.

My point is this:
GOD created all the diversity, all of it. We agree on this?
God implanted DNA as the software package that each and every existent being has in order to function. We agree on this?
DNA does not just inculcate design features, but it also all manner of living requirements, food choices, chasing techniques, symbiotic relationships, breeding, flying south, or what ever it is you want to pin point, DNA one way or another is responsible for the full existence of all syngent life. We agree on this?

Interestingly the behavior of animal types have not changed either? That would also be due to the DNA inculcated into each and every animal in the bio-sphere during creation, specifically by God, no on else had anything to do with this. Every animal is different, but repeat design and behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom.

Animals were created before man?

Man is an omnivore and can subsist on animals and plants either way.

But not all animals are this way?

Many creationists have interpreted the word death to refer not only to human spiritual death but also to human physical death. In doing so, they fly directly into the face of the scripture that says "In the day that thou eatest thereof. . . ." Adam lived nine hundred years or so after the Fall, but God told him he would die the very day he ate of the tree. Obviously, God was referring to spiritual death. "I die daily," said Paul (1 Corinthians 15:31). "For you have died," he says in Colossians 3:3. These passages use the same word, apothnesko, as in 1 Corinthians 15:22. "We have passed from death into life" (1 John 3:14) uses the same word, thanatos, as in 1 Corinthians 15:21. Thus, the Bible uses death in more than one way.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust.

I heard these argument on the forum, and for some time I didn’t question it---just assuming that there must be some passages in the Bible that plainly state that there was a complete absence of death before the Fall. When I took the time and thoughts to look for myself, I realized that Ken Ham and Henry Morris may be in error with respect to their hermeneutics with respect to orthodox Christian understanding of these scriptures. Here are scriptures to look up the that are cited to show that there was no death before the Fall. The two most common are Rom. 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:20-22


“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) Romans is rich in context as to what Paul was talking to early church believers about with respect to Christ's vicarious Death and resurrection.

“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:20-22 )

Now, if you just read these two passages it seems to me that they are clearly speaking of human death, not death of animals.(isn’t this true in context?) In fact, if you read these verses in context with the surrounding verses, you can easily see that the text is speaking of human sin and human death. I cannot imagine how some our YEC brothers can interpret these verses to be talking about general animal death. (they are not at all mentioned in these passages or others).
You know and I know that animals cannot sin and animals are not redeemed by Christ, but that is exactly what is implied by some of our YEC authors that these passages are referring to.... This is indeed incorrect – Norman Giesler did a very fine breakdown on this subject, and Norman is one of our most respected Christian scholars and there is no indication whatsoever that any of these two main scripture or others also refer to anything but man and in some cases literally spiritual death. It has nothing to do with animals.


If animals died before the Fall, does this alter the biblical doctrine of Atonement? I say this because above animal death, the atonement and its application to the human race should be our number one issue when looking at these scriptures? Wouldn’t you agree?

Some cite Hebrews 9:22, which says, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." They interpret this verse to say, "The basis of the gospel message is that God brought in death and bloodshed because of sin. If death and bloodshed of animals (or man) existed before Adam sinned, then the whole basis of atonement – the basis of redemption – is destroyed." Or this is the implication by some on the forum as well.


But isn’t this faulty exegesis? While it is true there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, Christ’s blood; it does not necessarily follow that all shed blood is for the remission of sin??? To say there could have been no bloodshed before sin is in my humble opinion in error.

The spilling of blood before Adam sinned in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of Atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a creation scenario in which animals experienced a bloodletting wound before Adam and Eve sinned. Lets keep in view here Thomas that we are not talking about just the protective cocoon of Eden, but the whole bio-sphere with animals of every sort in existence.

The fall is considered to be the point in time where death is said to have started and all of the worlds ills appear. According to Tommy Mitchell of AIG:


"To have been very good, God’s creation must have been without blemish, defect, disease, suffering, or death. There was no “survival of the fittest.” Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food. The original creation was a beautiful place, full of life and joy in the presence of the Creator. (Thomas is this what the bible actually implies in the scripture?)


This is an AIG inference is predicated on on Genesis 1:31 in which it is stated:

"God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good...

God says in Genesis 1:22 that animals should "be fruitful and multiply". Logically, as well as using scripture, this would seem to be contradictory. Under the "no death" argument, had the fall never happened all animals on Earth would reproduce while never dying. This would start to cause stress on the flora, which would be the food source for all life and would cause suffering due to food shortages - the exact opposite of what the concept of "the Garden of Eden" is supposed to be about.


A tree of life would be redundant in a place where there is no death to begin with, so why would God fear man reaching out and eating from this tree?

Clearly, there was no immortality before the fall, because the Bible itself states that there was an additional requirement for man to become immortal. It forces a literal view to accept that there would be death before the fall, however that creates a contradiction. The result from this exegesis is that there are some who have picked and chosen their verses that supports what they want to support, but left out the verses that show there is error in this view.

Ken Ham says that “we know that originally T. rex was a vegetarian.” His sole evidence for this is Genesis 1:30. Yes, God gave the green plants for food, but He did not prohibit the eating of meat in this verse. The Hebrew word for meat can also be translated food, so nothing can be implied about the plants being considered “meat.” He goes on to mention the T-Rex’s teeth possibly being designed for melons, gourds, etc. One would not need six inch serrated teeth to open a melon.

To solve the T-Rex tooth problem, Ken takes this view…the Curse from the Fall ‘may have resulted” in changes to their structure, either by starting a degenerative process or by deliberate design. This runs totally counter to what we understand about DNA and also our own observations of the animal diversity now, and the fossil diversity that exists in museums? God did not “recreate” T-Rex from a plant eater to a carnivore, not as this also implies hundreds of thousands of other animals he originally created and would have by necessity re-created them as well? Where is the evidence for this Thomas? There is no mention in the bible if you are literal. And if not using logic you know this is in error knowing the full history of God working in the world and his redemptive nature...

There is no empirical evidence to support this claim. IF Ken is literal about the scriptures then his assumptive comments run totally counter to the scripture. This is why I say this is in error. This does not change my YEC view, it does not affect Christ's atonement, and the truth is what I am trying to ascertain, how could I say these things on a YEC site? What bothers me is that the YEC group does not have large enough inclusivity to accept different views. They want you to buy into these scriptures and inferences, and I in good conscious cannot. Henry Morris has been reviewed by other YECs and Ken Ham as well and not all YECS accept all of their stuff. I agree that some of Henry's stuff is brilliant, and I know Ken is about redemption and Christ, so don’t think I am bashing him here. I just challenge what he implies by these unsupported inferences. That’s all. I am still seeking truth, and clearly I question some of the use of these scriptures to support a certain view.....

So given Gods creative diversity pre-man, pre-flood, post flood, & modern diversity, there is no doubt that the animals created then and existent today (living fossils) had any other behavior or design than what they were originally intended for? There is no evidence what so ever that snakes and komodo dragons, pterodactyls, T-Rex and other therapods were anything but carnivores. Even amber encased lizards with an insect in its mouth. My point has nothing to do with the fossils per se, but it does have everything to do with DNA and what we know about DNA, and no animal has power to change its DNA any more than you do. No environment or ecological pressure can change DNA.

Only procreative genes can be changed through hybridization, but that begs the question given hundreds of thousands of carnivores that have not hybridized and are exactly the same animal today as they were when first created and designed by God. IF some of these animals had to change their DNA, then God would have literally had to recreate the whole carnivorous animal kingdom after the fall.

This is in error, there is no empirical proof from some of our authors from the YEC point of view can offer up to support these inferences. And that is all that it is. The proof is in the pudding and GOD design and truth, His footprints in the sand are not only clear they are pure evidence as to what God did, and is doing in the world today. Now none of this impacts YEC world view with respect to age, but indeed if the truth is important to know the truth, then I can not in good conscious accept some of these inferences that have no impact on the biblical narrative what so ever, nor is this truth in the sense there is no imperial evidence for these inferences? None.

So my point with fossils is that they backup the design, and actual behavior, and actual existence and extinction of the animal diversity. This “is” fact, and you cannot put Gods DNA in a box and make a hermeneutic application of young earth given mans knowledge of the facts. The bible narrative does not imply that carnivores were plant eaters at all. And animals are not redeemed by shed blood, the earth was covered in diversity much more rich than it is now....

So lastly since I am presenting a view which I could not clearly give on the forum, I sum this up:


  • The biblical narrative is not consistent with some of the YEC authors views.
  • The hermeneutics of Atonement by some creationist authors are put in a box and are unacceptable with the most of orthodox Christian thinking.
  • DNA has certain facts ascertained by mankind since Francis Crick.
  • Dinosaurs were not recreated, God did his work and rested.
  • Ken Ham or John Morris cannot give any imperial evidence of DNA having changed, or being controlled by the animal, or that environmental pressures could cause DNA to change.
  • Only procreative DNA can be change and passed on (Dr. Werner)
  • The bible does not imply that shed blood would have happened only after the fall. In fact the narrative has many death implications.
  • Fossils record animal behavior, extinction, and diversity, as well as design. These observed records are also footprints in the sand.
  • Some creationists' assumptions that all fossils were created during the flood needs to be explored more as the evidence there were many fossil beds that show cyclical evidence over a period of time, and not one flood. The fossils themselves, do not bode with the flood scenario nor even the claims of flood geology. One such is the grand canyon and where fossil dinos and other animals are actually found, above the flood deposits as identified by YEC creationist publishing's....
I just want to know the truth. While I still believe in the biblical narrative or 6 days 24 hours and He rested, I just want to know the truth, so I don’t have a foundation in which I accept per batum some of the published statements of creationists that can not be backed up with any evidence. That’s it.....

#26 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:24 AM

As a follow-up to our conversations:

I don’t want you to misread what I implied by fossils. First of all there is an assumption that fossils only happened via the wwFlood.
There is a lot of evidence of pre-flood fossils. I will mention some of these and not go into the details of the fact for now.

Karoo Fossil Beds
Canadian Fossil Beds
Fossil under the volcanic ash of Toba, China’s recent volcano fossilized forest, the Midwest ash fall from huge volcano.
South American recent fossil bed discoveries.

I will only say this, that extensive writing and publishing by some creationists authors about some of these, have left out certain relative facts, and used their data to support their view but there is more data?

But I mention these fossils for a reason, not ignorantly or assuming your position as a wwFlood. So let me explain this more clearly.

First of all “if” the wwflood was responsible for these fossils, then the timing of their formation says one thing, these are a picture of these that existed as part of the diversity of the original creation of GOD. These were placed in situ in there specific eco-niches in the beginning. We can not discount these existed, that they were part of the diversity, and they existed pre-flood. Having said this, their actual habits have been captured in these fossil pictures. Some of them would be.


  • Mamas in a nest with eggs.
  • Mamas with babies
  • Mammals and dinos together (per Dr. Werner's fossil studies he suggest at a minimum 432 mammals have been dug up with dinos but never displayed with them in a museum. This bodes well with our creation narrative in Genesis.
  • Animals with plants in their mouths.
  • Animals with other animals in their mouths.
  • Existence of soft bodied animals.
  • “Living” fossils — Coelacanth, Texas horned lizard, Tuatara, gila monster, flying winged lizard, and many others like the cockroach, fly, dragon fly, plants of all species, horse shoe crab. Etc.

So the point of fossil deposition was not any an argument I was trying to pursue with you, I full well know what you believe.
But I had a point to this---

That animals that exist today what ever our diversity came into being after the wwflood has not changed one iota since the original creation? I say that because horned lizards still eat ants, monkeys fruit and tender leaves, chameleons insects, gators and crocs, turtles and fish and others, snakes carnivory of other snakes and lizards, birds, rats and mice etc.

My point is this:
GOD created all the diversity, all of it. We agree on this?
God implanted DNA as the software package that each and every existent being has in order to function. We agree on this?
DNA does not just inculcate design features, but it also all manner of living requirements, food choices, chasing techniques, symbiotic relationships, breeding, flying south, or what ever it is you want to pin point, DNA one way or another is responsible for the full existence of all syngent life. We agree on this?

Interestingly the behavior of animal types have not changed either? That would also be due to the DNA inculcated into each and every animal in the bio-sphere during creation, specifically by God, no on else had anything to do with this. Every animal is different, but repeat design and behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom.

Animals were created before man?

Man is an omnivore and can subsist on animals and plants either way.

But not all animals are this way?

Many creationists have interpreted the word death to refer not only to human spiritual death but also to human physical death. In doing so, they fly directly into the face of the scripture that says "In the day that thou eatest thereof. . . ." Adam lived nine hundred years or so after the Fall, but God told him he would die the very day he ate of the tree. Obviously, God was referring to spiritual death. "I die daily," said Paul (1 Corinthians 15:31). "For you have died," he says in Colossians 3:3. These passages use the same word, apothnesko, as in 1 Corinthians 15:22. "We have passed from death into life" (1 John 3:14) uses the same word, thanatos, as in 1 Corinthians 15:21. Thus, the Bible uses death in more than one way.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust.

I heard these argument on the forum, and for some time I didn’t question it---just assuming that there must be some passages in the Bible that plainly state that there was a complete absence of death before the Fall. When I took the time and thoughts to look for myself, I realized that Ken Ham and Henry Morris may be in error with respect to their hermeneutics with respect to orthodox Christian understanding of these scriptures. Here are scriptures to look up the that are cited to show that there was no death before the Fall. The two most common are Rom. 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:20-22


“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) Romans is rich in context as to what Paul was talking to early church believers about with respect to Christ's vicarious Death and resurrection.

“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:20-22 )

Now, if you just read these two passages it seems to me that they are clearly speaking of human death, not death of animals.(isn’t this true in context?) In fact, if you read these verses in context with the surrounding verses, you can easily see that the text is speaking of human sin and human death. I cannot imagine how some our YEC brothers can interpret these verses to be talking about general animal death. (they are not at all mentioned in these passages or others).
You know and I know that animals cannot sin and animals are not redeemed by Christ, but that is exactly what is implied by some of our YEC authors that these passages are referring to.... This is indeed incorrect – Norman Giesler did a very fine breakdown on this subject, and Norman is one of our most respected Christian scholars and there is no indication whatsoever that any of these two main scripture or others also refer to anything but man and in some cases literally spiritual death. It has nothing to do with animals.


If animals died before the Fall, does this alter the biblical doctrine of Atonement? I say this because above animal death, the atonement and its application to the human race should be our number one issue when looking at these scriptures? Wouldn’t you agree?

Some cite Hebrews 9:22, which says, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." They interpret this verse to say, "The basis of the gospel message is that God brought in death and bloodshed because of sin. If death and bloodshed of animals (or man) existed before Adam sinned, then the whole basis of atonement – the basis of redemption – is destroyed." Or this is the implication by some on the forum as well.


But isn’t this faulty exegesis? While it is true there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, Christ’s blood; it does not necessarily follow that all shed blood is for the remission of sin??? To say there could have been no bloodshed before sin is in my humble opinion in error.

The spilling of blood before Adam sinned in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of Atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a creation scenario in which animals experienced a bloodletting wound before Adam and Eve sinned. Lets keep in view here Thomas that we are not talking about just the protective cocoon of Eden, but the whole bio-sphere with animals of every sort in existence.

The fall is considered to be the point in time where death is said to have started and all of the worlds ills appear. According to Tommy Mitchell of AIG:


"To have been very good, God’s creation must have been without blemish, defect, disease, suffering, or death. There was no “survival of the fittest.” Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food. The original creation was a beautiful place, full of life and joy in the presence of the Creator. (Thomas is this what the bible actually implies in the scripture?)


This is an AIG inference is predicated on on Genesis 1:31 in which it is stated:

"God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good...

God says in Genesis 1:22 that animals should "be fruitful and multiply". Logically, as well as using scripture, this would seem to be contradictory. Under the "no death" argument, had the fall never happened all animals on Earth would reproduce while never dying. This would start to cause stress on the flora, which would be the food source for all life and would cause suffering due to food shortages - the exact opposite of what the concept of "the Garden of Eden" is supposed to be about.


A tree of life would be redundant in a place where there is no death to begin with, so why would God fear man reaching out and eating from this tree?

Clearly, there was no immortality before the fall, because the Bible itself states that there was an additional requirement for man to become immortal. It forces a literal view to accept that there would be death before the fall, however that creates a contradiction. The result from this exegesis is that there are some who have picked and chosen their verses that supports what they want to support, but left out the verses that show there is error in this view.

Ken Ham says that “we know that originally T. rex was a vegetarian.” His sole evidence for this is Genesis 1:30. Yes, God gave the green plants for food, but He did not prohibit the eating of meat in this verse. The Hebrew word for meat can also be translated food, so nothing can be implied about the plants being considered “meat.” He goes on to mention the T-Rex’s teeth possibly being designed for melons, gourds, etc. One would not need six inch serrated teeth to open a melon.

To solve the T-Rex tooth problem, Ken takes this view…the Curse from the Fall ‘may have resulted” in changes to their structure, either by starting a degenerative process or by deliberate design. This runs totally counter to what we understand about DNA and also our own observations of the animal diversity now, and the fossil diversity that exists in museums? God did not “recreate” T-Rex from a plant eater to a carnivore, not as this also implies hundreds of thousands of other animals he originally created and would have by necessity re-created them as well? Where is the evidence for this Thomas? There is no mention in the bible if you are literal. And if not using logic you know this is in error knowing the full history of God working in the world and his redemptive nature...

There is no empirical evidence to support this claim. IF Ken is literal about the scriptures then his assumptive comments run totally counter to the scripture. This is why I say this is in error. This does not change my YEC view, it does not affect Christ's atonement, and the truth is what I am trying to ascertain, how could I say these things on a YEC site? What bothers me is that the YEC group does not have large enough inclusivity to accept different views. They want you to buy into these scriptures and inferences, and I in good conscious cannot. Henry Morris has been reviewed by other YECs and Ken Ham as well and not all YECS accept all of their stuff. I agree that some of Henry's stuff is brilliant, and I know Ken is about redemption and Christ, so don’t think I am bashing him here. I just challenge what he implies by these unsupported inferences. That’s all. I am still seeking truth, and clearly I question some of the use of these scriptures to support a certain view.....

So given Gods creative diversity pre-man, pre-flood, post flood, & modern diversity, there is no doubt that the animals created then and existent today (living fossils) had any other behavior or design than what they were originally intended for? There is no evidence what so ever that snakes and komodo dragons, pterodactyls, T-Rex and other therapods were anything but carnivores. Even amber encased lizards with an insect in its mouth. My point has nothing to do with the fossils per se, but it does have everything to do with DNA and what we know about DNA, and no animal has power to change its DNA any more than you do. No environment or ecological pressure can change DNA.

Only procreative genes can be changed through hybridization, but that begs the question given hundreds of thousands of carnivores that have not hybridized and are exactly the same animal today as they were when first created and designed by God. IF some of these animals had to change their DNA, then God would have literally had to recreate the whole carnivorous animal kingdom after the fall.

This is in error, there is no empirical proof from some of our authors from the YEC point of view can offer up to support these inferences. And that is all that it is. The proof is in the pudding and GOD design and truth, His footprints in the sand are not only clear they are pure evidence as to what God did, and is doing in the world today. Now none of this impacts YEC world view with respect to age, but indeed if the truth is important to know the truth, then I can not in good conscious accept some of these inferences that have no impact on the biblical narrative what so ever, nor is this truth in the sense there is no imperial evidence for these inferences? None.

So my point with fossils is that they backup the design, and actual behavior, and actual existence and extinction of the animal diversity. This “is” fact, and you cannot put Gods DNA in a box and make a hermeneutic application of young earth given mans knowledge of the facts. The bible narrative does not imply that carnivores were plant eaters at all. And animals are not redeemed by shed blood, the earth was covered in diversity much more rich than it is now....

So lastly since I am presenting a view which I could not clearly give on the forum, I sum this up:


  • The biblical narrative is not consistent with some of the YEC authors views.
  • The hermeneutics of Atonement by some creationist authors are put in a box and are unacceptable with the most of orthodox Christian thinking.
  • DNA has certain facts ascertained by mankind since Francis Crick.
  • Dinosaurs were not recreated, God did his work and rested.
  • Ken Ham or John Morris cannot give any imperial evidence of DNA having changed, or being controlled by the animal, or that environmental pressures could cause DNA to change.
  • Only procreative DNA can be change and passed on (Dr. Werner)
  • The bible does not imply that shed blood would have happened only after the fall. In fact the narrative has many death implications.
  • Fossils record animal behavior, extinction, and diversity, as well as design. These observed records are also footprints in the sand.
  • Some creationists' assumptions that all fossils were created during the flood needs to be explored more as the evidence there were many fossil beds that show cyclical evidence over a period of time, and not one flood. The fossils themselves, do not bode with the flood scenario nor even the claims of flood geology. One such is the grand canyon and where fossil dinos and other animals are actually found, above the flood deposits as identified by YEC creationist publishing's....
I just want to know the truth. While I still believe in the biblical narrative or 6 days 24 hours and He rested, I just want to know the truth, so I don’t have a foundation in which I accept per batum some of the published statements of creationists that can not be backed up with any evidence. That’s it.....

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

Breathren did you see what he said?

The spilling of blood before Adam sinned in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of Atonement

There was no blood spilled before Adam sinned period.

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth and ALL that in them is." Exodus 20:11

The belief that there were thousands or millions of years before Adam and that death existed before the fall of man is a heresy and cannot be substantiated either by scripture nor science.

#28 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:02 AM

Calypsis 4 are you ignorant and can't read?
You said this?
The belief that there were thousands or millions of years before Adam and that death existed before the fall of man is a heresy and cannot be substantiated either by scripture nor science. (Calypsis this statement is false and in error)

I have never implied millions of years, not anything like that? Apparently you haven't read your bible close enough. So now for the 4 the time. I am asking you to give me an answer to the questions I have asked. Apparently all you can do is make dogmatic statements, because you have nothing, and you apparently are just fine in calling a fellow Christian "heresy" when you don't evn understand the implications of what I have said?

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth and ALL that in them is." Exodus 20:11 Since I believe this is true and biblical why would you even include this in this scenario??? If God is how he is, why do we need long millions of years, THe bible clearly says 6 days 24 hour periods, but nothing that i have said contradicts or even implies I don't believe this? There are Christian creationists that believe in 7,000--10,000m 6,000 years and are very adamant about those dates in history as to when GOd actually created the biosphere in 6 days and then rested. Since the bible itself give sno exact time fram per se, I asked a rhetorical question with references to the new Carbon 14 process of dating animals bones, which apparently seems to be consistant and accurate, had you read the article you would see the Creationist players in that group hw most all of us do respect?????? So my point is your adamant about 6,000 years, I asked what if it was under 50,000 years? What if God created the heavens and the earth 50,000 years ago in 6 days and filled the bio-sphere could you live with that?

Death in the garden:
Animal Skins
IF you eat of the fuit--sentence is death (how would Adam understand this?)
The names of the animals lions, hawks, owls and others imply carnivore that Adam named, how is that unless he understood that..
Animals were created before man, all animals contain specific DNA per above, the fossil record is a picture of pre-flood life whihc included Carnivory. I have made an argument that no where does the bible say animals eat vegetation only. I reject Ken Ham's postion on the Tyrannosaur - when GOD created the original biosphere and every animal in it, Death had already occured, you seem to focus on the ide aof the Garden, but man was placed in one spot, animals over the whole biosphere. There was a whole world outside of the garden?
So if we continue this, I don't need your needless disparaging remarks, I just need an answer to my questions as your position on the flood and and an explanation for these issues... Cheers!

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:49 AM

Calypsis 4 are you ignorant and can't read?
You said this?
The belief that there were thousands or millions of years before Adam and that death existed before the fall of man is a heresy and cannot be substantiated either by scripture nor science. (Calypsis this statement is false and in error)

I have never implied millions of years, not anything like that? Apparently you haven't read your bible close enough. So now for the 4 the time. I am asking you to give me an answer to the questions I have asked. Apparently all you can do is make dogmatic statements, because you have nothing, and you apparently are just fine in calling a fellow Christian "heresy" when you don't evn understand the implications of what I have said?

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth and ALL that in them is." Exodus 20:11 Since I believe this is true and biblical why would you even include this in this scenario??? If God is how he is, why do we need long millions of years, THe bible clearly says 6 days 24 hour periods, but nothing that i have said contradicts or even implies I don't believe this? There are Christian creationists that believe in 7,000--10,000m 6,000 years and are very adamant about those dates in history as to when GOd actually created the biosphere in 6 days and then rested. Since the bible itself give sno exact time fram per se, I asked a rhetorical question with references to the new Carbon 14 process of dating animals bones, which apparently seems to be consistant and accurate, had you read the article you would see the Creationist players in that group hw most all of us do respect?????? So my point is your adamant about 6,000 years, I asked what if it was under 50,000 years? What if God created the heavens and the earth 50,000 years ago in 6 days and filled the bio-sphere could you live with that?

Death in the garden:
Animal Skins
IF you eat of the fuit--sentence is death (how would Adam understand this?)
The names of the animals lions, hawks, owls and others imply carnivore that Adam named, how is that unless he understood that..
Animals were created before man, all animals contain specific DNA per above, the fossil record is a picture of pre-flood life whihc included Carnivory. I have made an argument that no where does the bible say animals eat vegetation only. I reject Ken Ham's postion on the Tyrannosaur - when GOD created the original biosphere and every animal in it, Death had already occured, you seem to focus on the ide aof the Garden, but man was placed in one spot, animals over the whole biosphere. There was a whole world outside of the garden?
So if we continue this, I don't need your needless disparaging remarks, I just need an answer to my questions as your position on the flood and and an explanation for these issues... Cheers!


Who are you trying to fool here? We have already read what you believe about this. You made the point yet again in your wasted post above:

So my point is your adamant about 6,000 years, I asked what if it was under 50,000 years?


Now would you please take your calculator and go figure how you can justify such a length of time by the chronologies given us by Moses, the chronicler, Matthew and Luke? Luke gives us seventy-seven names of the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ. If that family tree is not correct then Jesus would not be the legal heir to the throne of David. Do you understand that YOUR LORD could not be legal heir to David's throne (Isaiah 9:6-7) based on Jewish civil law (based on the Law of Moses) and therefore could not rule as king during the coming kingdom age(millenium) if what you are suggesting is true? So even if ALL of those people listed by Luke had lived for even 500 yrs that would still only come to 34,500 yrs. Yet, only nine of them lived that long. So how do you figure?

Those names and age lengths God gave us to give us a good idea about the age of the earth in contradistinction to neo-Darwinian evolution time frames. We know you told us you are not a neo-Darwinian but you keep affirming a time frame that is not justified by either scripture nor geology. I am truly bothered by the way you brushed aside the evidence I gave you for the R.A.T.E. findings that reveal an accelerated decay rate of isotopes to the tune of 6,000 yrs. They didn't just make that up, friend. I am troubled by the fact that you dissed the population growth rate as originated by Henry Morris and suppored by many others since then. Do you have a better, more accurate formula? If so, then post it so we can examine it. Likewise am I troubled that you dismissed the fact that written human history goes back only about 5,000 yrs but you didn't bother offering a refutation. And most disturbing of all as to how you manipulate scripture in denying that the flood of Noah was world-wide when in fact both scripture and the abundant evidence from the fossil record that it was a fact. You aren't going to convert any of the creationists on this website to your unbiblical ideas, fella. At least none of the regular posters who frequent this website.

Your 'reply' as it concerns the rainbow in God's promise to not flood the earth again is ludicrous and everyone here who has read you sees that.

#30 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:51 AM

Calypsis--I guess you cannot have one straight conversation that involves you responding to several straight up questions which you have sat and continue to disparage this conversation on the basis of your perceived doctrinal stand. This is not about truth for you, this is about your hermeneutics and your insistence the earth is or can be calculated in age by the biblical line of ascendency.

The bible does not say what age the earth was, Man does.....But again your disrespectful interrogatives and faceless comments about me being a Darwinian ‘anything’ is absolutely absurd brother. I am just as born again as you are brother. I tell you I have studied Dr. Morris and no I don't concur with you on “all” his opinions. He has published stuff in the past and left out certain information to makes his position more stable. I think he is a brilliant Christian man but not every thing he writes is trustworthy any more than Ken Ham? Since I lean heavily towards a Local Flood disposition, some of the information your throwing at me I don't ascribe to because here we go---you can't, I can't, and other well known Christian authors can’t answer some of the "real" questions about the flood. If you go to Answers in Genesis and there are many others believe the rainbow existed before, the bible does not imply this rainbow was the first occurrence....but it is put in that framework by many creationists, but that set aside, you again seem to not understand that what I proposed about the dated of C-14 testing by Christians is not some Darwinian injunction, but I asked you if those dates were correct could you live with them? That's all. I asked a rhetorical question, I didn't mull this into a doctrinal inference. So I can only conclude is that your bluntly and totally boxed into an interpretation yet you cannot answer some of the basic issues that creationists start with when it comes to the flood, the Ark, and the dispersion of animals. Well apparently your the only creationist responding on this site? Or that seems to be. It would be nice of someone else would respond with a respectable back and forth instead of insisting on what I am or who I am when you can't even do anything but regurgitate other peoples published information that is questionable in many areas. Your instance on certain hermeneutics bothers me because you buy into a certain view but when push comes to shove, I have well demonstrated that many creationists are using scripture to insist on a certain creationist format, but miss the truth of scripture. So no I am not Neo-Darwinian anything. I am blood bought born again Christian, your brother in Christ, and God gave me a brain and I am able to use it. If you cannot answer the questions I previously gave you many times with any level of response, then I assume this is all gobble gook? You disparage a Christian brother, because his view is different, I believe in the full counsel of Gods' Word and have literally given you a biblical basis as to why some of what you imply is in error above. You glossed over this with impunity. Your welcome to your opinions brother, but the Word of God is not just doctrine, its about practice, and it says that we are to love one another brother, I am not your enemy? I am a Christian with a brain and a different view. I believe I have well exposed some of the stuff that is perpetrated as fact in creation literature. While I certainly buy into much of Henry's stuff and Ken Hams, some of it is blatantly put in a form that is almost a Christian treatise. Frankly you should familiarize your self with the many Christian scholars that don't see it your way. THE point is if you have an argument put it out there. Mines out here for all to see. You are hiding behind the skirts of creationist publications, I challenged you with scripture and truth, you now continue disparage me and make me out by using some narrative to express who I am when you don't even know me??? I can only conclude that your judging me as a Christian, putting me in a non-Christian framework which is false. So unless you have something else to say I would appreciate a less disparaging discussion, and a little more fact. Your assumptions above are incorrect as to where my views lead. I am sorry you just don't get it, I would take the time to explain myself better, but since you can't even answer 3 or 4 or the most intriguing questions that any creationist must go to when discussing the topic......

Instead of quoting creationist literature:
Where does the bible give an exact time line as to the age of the earth (6,000 years?) Please quote chapter and verse? While I absolutely believe in a young earth, just as you do, I cannot assume that it is 6,000 years. Could you as a Christian live with any other figure—say 10,000 as some believe or maybe even under 50,000 years, could you live with that? In other words, all these figures fit fine with in the context of scripture. There is no halo around 6.000 years.

Given mention of death before the fall.....could you see that this does not affect spiritual death? Per the references I clearly gave you above?

Given the word as I stated above, could you live with or accept that it is possible that animals ate other animals in the biosphere because God created them as such, and that while man may have ate vegetable matter, the scripture does not apply to the animal kingdom? Do you see this possibility?

While I asked several question that you have not answered, again once more, were the insects on the Ark or off the Ark, if so they were off the Ark because they were not air breathers, then how did they survive the flood?

I was very clear about what I believe the bible says about procreation and “being fruitful and multiplying”, in every sense of the Hebrew and Gods Word, GODs own expectation was male and female and that the offspring would be the same as the pair? Yet some believe in adaptive variation. Are you an advocate of this, if so where is your proof? Adaptive variation runs counter to the expectation of God in scripture? Are you o.k. Employing that for speciation and condemn me for my views as being unbiblical????

Lastly brother, I don’t have an issue that you have a different point of view, I am fine with that, I have not tried to disparage you personally, but I have challenged you to a different view with respect to scripture and science? I want to be clear as well that I could be open to a wwFlood if someone had a better answer to the Ark, by which I totally believe in the bible is a historical as well as spiritual book. I just don’t accept at face value some of the creationist inferences by my YEC brothers al the time.....


#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

Reptoman

Calypsis--I guess you cannot have one straight conversation that involves you responding to several straight up questions which you have sat and continue to disparage this conversation on the basis of your perceived doctrinal stand.


I don't intend to keep going tit-for-tat with you. Your position is not biblical nor can you verify your claims from either science nor scripture.

This is not about truth for you, this is about your hermeneutics and your insistence the earth is or can be calculated in age by the biblical line of ascendency. The bible does not say what age the earth was, Man does.....


Don't lie to me, friend. Why in the world do you think that God gave us those ages/time frames to begin with? So people like those of your persuasion can nit-pick at them and stretch things because of popular skeptical pressure within the Christian world? What other reason would He have for giving us those ages?

But again your disrespectful interrogatives and faceless comments about me being a Darwinian ‘anything’ is absolutely absurd brother. I am just as born again as you are brother.


Pointed, not disrespectful. You just can't handle the truth of this matter so you shoot your bullets back at me as if you have really made a point or two. You haven't. You can't, because your position is wrong.

I tell you I have studied Dr. Morris and no I don't concur with you on “all” his opinions.


The man was human and he made mistakes just like everyone else has and does. But he was far closer to the truth about the age of the earth than you are.

He has published stuff in the past and left out certain information to makes his position more stable. I think he is a brilliant Christian man but not every thing he writes is trustworthy any more than Ken Ham?


I am not comparing him to Ken Ham. They were/are both good men. Stop making such comparisons between men who agreed on the approx. age of the earth.

Since I lean heavily towards a Local Flood disposition, some of the information you're throwing at me I don't ascribe to because here we go---you can't, I can't, and other well known Christian authors can’t answer some of the "real" questions about the flood. If you go to Answers in Genesis and there are many others believe the rainbow existed before, the bible does not imply this rainbow was the first occurrence....but it is put in that framework by many creationists, but that set aside, you again seem to not understand that what I proposed about the dated of C-14 testing by Christians is not some Darwinian injunction, but I asked you if those dates were correct could you live with them?


You are truly blind on this issue. It is not the existence or non-existence of the rainbow BEFORE the flood to begin with. It is God's sending the rainbow as a promise to man that He would never destroy the world (the whole world) again. Had it been merely a local flood then He has broken His promise time and time again since Noah's age. Therefore it was a world-wide flood. Why can't you get this, friend? It's as simple as understanding 2 + 2 =4 but you clearly have a mental block on the matter.

Is this supposed to be refutation of the fact that C14 is found in coal all over the earth even though it is not supposed to be found in any of the samples...per my documentation of that fact?

That's all. I asked a rhetorical question, I didn't mull this into a doctrinal inference. So I can only conclude is that your bluntly and totally boxed into an interpretation yet you cannot answer some of the basic issues that creationists start with when it comes to the flood, the Ark, and the dispersion of animals. Well apparently your the only creationist responding on this site?


I am not boxed into anything, friend. Furthermore, most of the details you listed (i.e. like the number/aount of insects alive during the flood) is pure conjecture on your part. How can such things even be discussed without the data? I am following the evidence, both scriptural and scientific. AND....they both agree after all things considered, just like the fact that radiometric dating gives us millions of years in radioactive isotopes but yet only about 6,000 yrs of accelerated decay rates of helium.

And in response to "Well apparently your the only creationist responding on this site?"

Quote me. Where did I even suggest such a thing? The truth is however, that you are in a minority here for most of us on EFF are six-day creationists who believe God's Word about Noah and the world-wide flood as taught in Genesis 6 & 7.

Or that seems to be. It would be nice of someone else would respond with a respectable back and forth instead of insisting on what I am or who I am when you can't even do anything but regurgitate other peoples published information that is questionable in many areas.


Questionable only to you and those of your persuasion. You still haven't refuted the documented information I posted above.

Your instance on certain hermeneutics bothers me because you buy into a certain view...

Don't you mean my 'insistence'?

Do not trivialize this position as if I am the first or the 'novel' believer in a young earth & a world wide flood. Before me there was Morris. Before him was Irwin Linton, Matthew Henry, Thomas Goodwin, Calvin, Luther, etc. etc. all the way back to the 1st century Christians.

but when push comes to shove, I have well demonstrated that many creationists are using scripture to insist on a certain creationist format, but miss the truth of scripture. So no I am not Neo-Darwinian anything. I am blood bought born again Christian, your brother in Christ, and God gave me a brain and I am able to use it. If you cannot answer the questions I previously gave you many times with any level of response, then I assume this is all gobble gook? You disparage a Christian brother, because his view is different, I believe in the full counsel of Gods' Word and have literally given you a biblical basis as to why some of what you imply is in error above. You glossed over this with impunity. Your welcome to your opinions brother, but the Word of God is not just doctrine, its about practice, and it says that we are to love one another brother, I am not your enemy? I am a Christian with a brain and a different view. I believe I have well exposed some of the stuff that is perpetrated as fact in creation literature. While I certainly buy into much of Henry's stuff and Ken Hams, some of it is blatantly put in a form that is almost a Christian treatise. Frankly you should familiarize your self with the many Christian scholars that don't see it your way. THE point is if you have an argument put it out there. Mines out here for all to see. You are hiding behind the skirts of creationist publications, I challenged you with scripture and truth, you now continue disparage me and make me out by using some narrative to express who I am when you don't even know me??? I can only conclude that your judging me as a Christian, putting me in a non-Christian framework which is false. So unless you have something else to say I would appreciate a less disparaging discussion, and a little more fact. Your assumptions above are incorrect as to where my views lead. I am sorry you just don't get it, I would take the time to explain myself better, but since you can't even answer 3 or 4 or the most intriguing questions that any creationist must go to when discussing the topic...... Instead of quoting creationist literature: Where does the bible give an exact time line as to the age of the earth (6,000 years?) Please quote chapter and verse? While I absolutely believe in a young earth, just as you do, I cannot assume that it is 6,000 years.


Never mind the evidence, right? So neither the scriptures nor the scientific evidence means anything to you? Are you a convert of Hugh Ross? If so that explains everything. But tell us plainly, sir, so we will know exactly where you're coming from.

Could you as a Christian live with any other figure—say 10,000 as some believe or maybe even under 50,000 years, could you live with that?


If there were solid evidence for it but the truth is, there is none. What about the Chronologies?

In other words, all these figures fit fine with in the context of scripture. There is no halo around 6.000 years.


You won't get anything else from the scriptures...not be any honest calculation of what is given in the chronologies. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

Given mention of death before the fall.....could you see that this does not affect spiritual death?


If another 'death' originated before the fall of Adam then tell us what it was that brought it into existence, how it happened and what were the circumstances.
If you cannot do that then you would do well to not answer this post at all.

Per the references I clearly gave you above? Given the word as I stated above, could you live with or accept that it is possible that animals ate other animals in the biosphere because God created them as such, and that while man may have ate vegetable matter, the scripture does not apply to the animal kingdom?


An answer to the previous question would obviate the answer to this.

Do you see this possibility? While I asked several question that you have not answered, again once more, were the insects on the Ark or off the Ark, if so they were off the Ark because they were not air breathers, then how did they survive the flood?


I already told you! Many if not most of your 'questions' cannot be answered because we do not have (a) the scripture to substantiate those details, or (2) science does not provide such data. In many of them it's like you're asking, "Who was the first human to get a head cold?" ????????? How is that to be answered?

But to stress the difficulty in answering such hypothetical matters...since you believe in rainbows before the flood: then, Reptoman, what was the date of the very first rainbow (pre-flood) and where in our world did it occur?

I was very clear about what I believe the bible says about procreation and “being fruitful and multiplying”, in every sense of the Hebrew and Gods Word, GODs own expectation was male and female and that the offspring would be the same as the pair? Yet some believe in adaptive variation. Are you an advocate of this, if so where is your proof?


It's called 'variation within the kind'. Here is an example:
Posted Image
Posted Image
So this is just a couple of examples of what we find throughout the biological world and you won't find anything else.

Adaptive variation runs counter to the expectation of God in scripture?(?) Are you o.k. Employing that for speciation and condemn me for my views as being unbiblical????


If you are suggesting that God's Word is referring to clones and that man's offspring must therefore all be clones of himself then you are wrong. 'Kind' refers most closely to 'family/order' if it is to be compared to the Linneaus classification system.

Lastly brother, I don’t have an issue that you have a different point of view, I am fine with that, I have not tried to disparage you personally, but I have challenged you to a different view with respect to scripture and science? I want to be clear as well that I could be open to a wwFlood if someone had a better answer to the Ark, by which I totally believe in the bible is a historical as well as spiritual book. I just don’t accept at face value some of the creationist inferences by my YEC brothers al the time.....[/font]


Your problem is with God's Word, not with me. I challenged you to use your calculator and do what several good men have done in yrs gone by: Henry Morris, Clarence Larken, etc. and see how you can possbily take those chronologies listed in scripture seriously SINCE.....if you arbitrarily assigned 500 yrs ages to unnamed people whom you apparently think were not included in that list of names. You did not do that. You did not even make a single suggestion as to how such a chronology could fit with what we DO HAVE in the list of names and ages. But you are clearly avoiding the bottom-line in details in this matter just as you did with the rainbow issue; I said that the family line of Jesus is given to us in Luke 3 and there are 77 names listed there from Christ all the way back to Adam (& of course God the Father). That family lineage MUST be legitimate according to Jewish civil law and jurisprudence in order for Jesus to be the legal heir to the throne of David. THIS is why the pharisees attacked the legitmacy of His birth in the first place, (i.e. John 8:41) because they wished to deny that He had a legal birth and it that were so they could rightfully deny the throne of David to Him. But you ignored this and the import of it altogether. Does His family posterity and claim to that throne matter to you?

In other words, you need to realize that it's not the 'number of insects that existed in the time of Noah's flood' that is bottom-line in importance...but the heirship of Christ to the throne of David is vital.

Brother, you need to stop being offended at Calypsis4 and do some serious reconsideration on this matter.
  • Bonedigger likes this

#32 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

<p>Who responded to me above? &nbsp;Again I can take each of your points you made including a&nbsp;Heterozygous&nbsp;Adam and Eve Certainly would have produced variations humankind, all Homo Sapiens????&nbsp;Different&nbsp;colors and eyes and hair, etc.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>When you speak to me about 6,000 years, you are also basing your information on the&nbsp;families&nbsp;in the bible worked back in time (Ussher) etc. &nbsp;Interestingly&nbsp;there&nbsp;are discoveries of pre-flood, pre-Egyptian, pre-Mesopotamian&nbsp;culture that are 13,000 year old. &nbsp;I don&#39;t see how you can&nbsp;categorically&nbsp;state 6,000 years?? &nbsp;Thats all? &nbsp;Now if you beleive that, I am fine with that, but I don&#39;t buy this myself. &nbsp;Iahve clearly stated this??? So what&#39;s the rub? &nbsp;I don&#39;t&nbsp;believe&nbsp;that <u>us Creationist</u>&nbsp;have enough info to be dogmatic, but above I gave you a link to a new Carbon 14 testing method used by Chrisitans&nbsp;who&nbsp;have dinos, man, and&nbsp;mammoths&nbsp;at 36,000 years and&nbsp;contemporaries&nbsp;of each other? &nbsp;Testing the actual bone... &nbsp;Done by big time&nbsp;Christians!!!! &nbsp; I wasn&#39;t being coy when I asked you if you could live with an older date. &nbsp;It seems there is newer&nbsp;evidence&nbsp;that does imply advanced human occupation&nbsp;prior&nbsp;to 6,000 year ago? &nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Again a question: &nbsp; were the insects on the Ark or off? Or will you keep making&nbsp;excuses&nbsp;for dodging my question???? &nbsp;Humanity is not animal, it is a special creation from God man has a living Soul and is&nbsp;different&nbsp;from animals--- fossil&nbsp;record&nbsp;does suport fixity. &nbsp;Your information above about the&nbsp;ancestor-ship&nbsp;which is using cladism as an avenue to trace back in an&nbsp;evolutionary&nbsp;context, which I reject. &nbsp;<u><strong>Your insinuation that I am&nbsp;old&nbsp;earther is absurd</strong></u>, the fact that&nbsp;evidence&nbsp;shows&nbsp;mankind&nbsp;older than 6,000 years&nbsp;possibly&nbsp;50,000 years is still young earth my friend. &nbsp;If Calypsis or you beleive in 6,000 young earth then fine, I just challenge you to stay on this in the next 5 years. Evidences&nbsp;of new cultures that are being brought to light will&nbsp;certainly&nbsp;challenge your views with hard evidence.<font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.dailymail...ont></font></p>
<p><span id="cke_bm_103S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_104S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_105S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_106S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_107S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span id="cke_bm_108S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_109S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_110S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 12px;">You can choose to utterly rejct this or you can read aout this and others. &nbsp;I am not being antithetical to the bible, but I am&nbsp;somewhat&nbsp;annoyed&nbsp;at dogmatic positions on 6,000 years&nbsp;when&nbsp;there is no chapter and verse, and the narrative of Genesis has many&nbsp;different&nbsp;views of which in the final outcome as we discover more and more the bibles narrative will fit well with the facts. &nbsp;Period. I am not dogmatic, but I do challenge what you assume, only because there is other information. &nbsp;Have you read about the civilizations found under 14 feet of Volcanic&nbsp;ash&nbsp; 11,000 years old? &nbsp;Advanced society with art and&nbsp;written&nbsp;language&nbsp; &nbsp;Here is the Turkish one I share with you with the same? &nbsp;As&nbsp;Christians&nbsp;we know advanced intelligence can and does make art, build buildings,&nbsp;sculpt&nbsp;rocks etc. &nbsp; We know these people were not cave people, but science wants to paint that picture. &nbsp;These were&nbsp;normal&nbsp;humans with intelligence&nbsp;just&nbsp;as good as ours.....we both&nbsp;know this. &nbsp;But to&nbsp;insist&nbsp;that &nbsp;Adam and Eve were created at 6,000 years ago, how do you account for these ancient civilizations. &nbsp;Since Carbon 14 half life is 5,700 do utterly&nbsp;reject&nbsp;any testing at all and&nbsp;totally&nbsp;assume some made up date? &nbsp;If it was millions of years then yes I would question that all over the place, but that young having tested biologics as well with all&nbsp;comparative&nbsp;results in age, I think we have more to learn. &nbsp;I am not putting you or anyone down, but if your implying&nbsp;certain&nbsp;things, then&nbsp;in spite&nbsp;of these&nbsp;Chronologies&nbsp;how do you fit this in with the these information discoveries? &nbsp;You know there are people&nbsp;who&nbsp;insist&nbsp;that the Sphinx is 25,000 years old? &nbsp;Nothing I have said has in one iota affected the linage of Christ or Adam and Eve not one thing. &nbsp;You see this as a threat because of your&nbsp;dogmatic&nbsp;position in&nbsp;Chronologies. &nbsp; Your welcome to your opinion, If you read what I stated in the first page you&nbsp;should&nbsp;surely get that what I am saying is not anathema to Gods plan of salvation, no not at all...But there are Creationists&nbsp;who&nbsp;teach &#39;a dogma&#39; which insists in some kind of credence to a doctrine and any thing outside of that is unacceptable, don&#39;t even let that be voiced. &nbsp;what happened to open dicussion my friend, you condem me for simply putting out evidences of which I already clearly told you who I am as a Christian, a young&nbsp;earth&nbsp;advocate with a differnt view, who bleives that we don&#39;t have all the info to be&nbsp;insistent&nbsp;on a&nbsp;certain&nbsp;date. &nbsp;Geat&nbsp;scholars&nbsp;and&nbsp;Christian&nbsp;men&nbsp;disagree....&nbsp;within&nbsp;the family of God&nbsp;their&nbsp;needs to be a more open discussion about these&nbsp;things&nbsp;instead of&nbsp;insisting&nbsp;one view. &nbsp;You do not have&nbsp;enough&nbsp;evidence &nbsp;at all to be dogmatic any more than I do...... </span></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Lastly if and only if these dated of several civilizations &quot;are&quot; correct that should not challenge your view of genesis? &nbsp;I only ask, if ther earth is only 6,000 years old ans we have several&nbsp;volcanoes&nbsp;older than that, &nbsp;under those are civilizations? &nbsp;THis makes for a pre-flood earth differnt than the&nbsp;creationist&nbsp;picture&nbsp;being&nbsp;painted today? I challenge you brother there is more out there and not every jot and tittle of&nbsp;creationist&nbsp;teaching is correct. Time will tell. &nbsp;I would like&nbsp;to&nbsp;challenge&nbsp;who&nbsp;ever made the cladistic phylogenetic graph. &nbsp;While I surely understand that&nbsp;plain&nbsp;and simple---I want you to go back and prove the&nbsp;inferred&nbsp;ancestors that are applied in this graph. &nbsp;You have no proof this inference and relationhsips are actually true. &nbsp;BUt of the fossil record you ahve those that have a record showing up suddenly and continues exactly as&nbsp;&nbsp;i is until it goes extinct or is still living. &nbsp;The body plan has bot changed and the&nbsp;specie&nbsp;is the same, how ever taxonomists ahve taken fossil record living species and given them new names and applied an inference that they are&nbsp;separate&nbsp;species. &nbsp;&nbsp;Larger fossil record sare exact duplicates. &nbsp;The air in older times was around 30% oxygen. &nbsp;Recent experiment sondragon flies and other insects show gigantism in offspring when living in 20% oxygen. &nbsp;So if it has been done in a lab and grew 18-24&quot; dragon flies, this surely must question some of these inferences?????<em>&nbsp;</em></span><span id="cke_bm_110E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_109E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_108E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_107E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_106E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_105E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_104E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span id="cke_bm_103E" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span></font></p>
<!--EndFragment-->

#33 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:26 PM

Who responded to me above??? Last posting?

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:47 AM

Who responded to me above??? Last posting?


Is that supposed to be a coded message?

What a mess. I'd rather not.

#35 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:35 AM



Calypsis4 Lets discuss this from above.



Exodus 20:11

New International Version (NIV)



11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy


O.k. I see this scriputre as you stated above in a response to me. We agree on this scripture 100% there is no schism between us on the scripture I believe in 6/24 hour days and on the 7th he rested, isn't this what I said above? So I don't understand your inference to millions of years (you insinuate I said) with respect to Gods creative act on the earth?


Now with respect to the earth being void and without form (or purpose), it seems plausible to me, that the earths creation and the UNiverses creation could ahve been at different times. NOw I am not dogmatic about this or set in stone, very good people believe the Whole UNiverse was created at one time. I ahve no intention of Limiting GOds power, however it may ahve been as we understand the earths relationship tot he planets and the solar system that the UNiverse was created before the earth. It seems there is room for this view in scripture? As a Christian is this foreign to your thinking? So the scripture above in now involves when or how long back or any sense of 6,000 years. None of us are exactly all knowing when it comes to the actual event of creation. NOw purpose in giving you "other" creationist input, was to ask you, what if your YOung Earth view of which I also believe in YOUng earth, was not exactly 6,000 years, what if it was 7 or 10 or under 50,000 years? I asked a rhetorical question, you came off at me as if I was a heretic? I am not.


So I gave you a link to SOme of our well known creationists that ahve carbon dated bones and the dated are under 50,000 years. Some 36,000 some 16,000 some 27,000 years but it also shows that man, dinos, and mammoths and other mammals were all contemporaries of one another and lived at the same time? In a time line by evoutionists that insist on billions or million sof years, 50,000 or less is young earth, it certainly younger than old earth advocates. Do you get this? I am not trying to play gimes here. My thinking is just as serious as yours. Now with respect to "some" of our creationist there is a dogma that is being taught and a lack of academic open discussion on these issues. There those that want to "cut off" any dicussion outside of a certain creationist paradigm. I fell you are a mouth piece to some of this because you cannot discuss these things on an academic or biblical level. At every point in our discussions you have disparaged me as a Christian I respect your views but don't currently concur with all of it. What I ahve said is totally compatible with the bible and some of this is not mine, there are other creationist out there that don't for instance believe in "adaptive variation , Dr. Werner very famous Christian Creationists who has studied the fossil record is as I a believer in "Fixity of Species" and the fossil record shows that? I concur with this view. Instead of arguing with me, which I am fine discussing this view, you again came unglued over this inference on my part. You must realize that every creationist is not in the same box. I believe as I have said before that you don't have all the answers. When push comes to shove I asked you straight up questions that any creationists should be asking to have answered? You got biligerant because I asked these questions? You as of today, have not answered one of my questions. And I understand why because you don't have an answer.


Who ever posted the human faces and different races of people, this does not in any way make an example of adaptive variation A heterozygous Adam and Eve would have produced off spring of all colors and types, this has been well commented in Christian and scientific literature, and so there is no schism here between what God did and the results of mans offspring? None!


Now the animal kingdom is different than mankind, They were created differently and before man isn't that what the Word says?

So I ask you to look at the word in context as to what Gods expectation of the animal kingdom was when he said be fruitful and multiply. He was not talking to kinds, he was talking to the bio-sphere, and clearly it was the male and female and offspring of the same. Two one hump camels or a Mammoth begets just exactly that. So this is the way to has always been. NOw if you look at the fossil record which we creationists often say was created by the flood, then again the fossil record supports the bible in every way with fixity of species and offspring that is produced from procreation is always the same specie, exactly? NOw I also stated that there are exceptions, that would be mans tampering and crossing animals that they domesticated, and also when to species of the same kind cros sover onto teach others territory and they can mate then we ahve hybridization taking place and of course a new body plan is produced which is a combo of the two?

Is there anything here that I have said to this point that doesn't jive with creationism or Gods' Holy Word?


Now here is where you and I would diverge....you said that I was not following the bible with respect to questioning the adaptive variation? I plainly asked you to provide me an example of adaptive variation in nature. What this "theroy" implies is that animal kinds (lets say the iguana kind) may have been one pair of iguana like animals? Correct? And that their offspring, created the speciation of all iguanas (14 species) off the Ark, because GOd had their DNA set-up to do this. As well as all other animals on the Ark? I say species not kinds, because somehow the inference by creationists is that the current "species" we see today are a result of the animal population form the ARK. We should agree that is what is being said out there. Correct me if I am wrong So my point is, that there are no examples of adaptive variation with respect to "species" that exist from these very recent 4, 500 years ago Ark offspring? ALso it is a fact for instance that Iguanas as well as many others have a fossil record and are actually "living fossils"? That means that before the ARk landed thes animals existed. This goes back to Fixity of Specieis, so my inclination is that the animals on the ark were all of the bio-sphere animals that GOD created originally and those were on the ARK, but not a cut down "kinds", this is an interpretation by creationists that is insistant. BUt no one creationists yet has been able to give provable examples of adaptive variation within a kind. Not one? So i am asking you not to come unglued but challenging you as I have others form AIG to provide examples of this through out the animal kingdom. DNa body plans do not change. In order for a MInd to change into several other species, one ahs to change the DNA? Now as far as I know only GOd can do this? So for me, and that is just me, I consider this "theroy" to not be consistent with the scriptures, it is certainly not consistant with what we understand of DNA, and creationists are using KInds, when there are for instance 11,000,000 insect specie son the Amazon alone? Is this the product of adaptive variation in less than 4,500 years?

So please don't insinuate that I am nto achrisitan, don't put me in the gradualism category, don't disparage my Christian standing before Christ and make a judgement on me. THe fact that I lean towards a local flood adn not a wwFlood is dependent on this and many other issues that don't tie into scripture. I give you a very clear scenerio about how scripture is taken out of context or interpreted with a rigid perspective that only allows for one view? Until we all knwo more I thinkwe hsoudl be embracing discussion and coming to the knowledge of the truth and not dogmatically instant on some of these views that are improvable. NOw I hoep you are not insulted. I am trying to deal with this one subject, I shall post more on the other stuff that you seemed to not understand or are unwilling to discuss?


Lastly I want to also answer a post you made about me not being biblical about the New Testament you took what I said and twisted it for your own purposes to disparage what I said, So I will post this because you don't seem to understand what I was saying in the first place and the implication of our own posts!!!!!



#36 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

Calypsis4 Lets discuss this from above. Exodus 20:11 New International Version (NIV)

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

O.k. I see this scriputre as you stated above in a response to me. We agree on this scripture 100% there is no schism between us on the scripture I believe in 6/24 hour days and on the 7th he rested, isn't this what I said above? So I don't understand your inference to millions of years (you insinuate I said) with respect to Gods creative act on the earth?

Now with respect to the earth being void and without form (or purpose), it seems plausible to me, that the earths creation and the UNiverses creation could ahve been at different times. NOw I am not dogmatic about this or set in stone, very good people believe the Whole UNiverse was created at one time. I ahve no intention of Limiting GOds power, however it may ahve been as we understand the earths relationship tot he planets and the solar system that the UNiverse was created before the earth. It seems there is room for this view in scripture? As a Christian is this foreign to your thinking? So the scripture above in now involves when or how long back or any sense of 6,000 years. None of us are exactly all knowing when it comes to the actual event of creation. NOw purpose in giving you "other" creationist input, was to ask you, what if your YOung Earth view of which I also believe in YOUng earth, was not exactly 6,000 years, what if it was 7 or 10 or under 50,000 years? I asked a rhetorical question, you came off at me as if I was a heretic? I am not.

So I gave you a link to SOme of our well known creationists that ahve carbon dated bones and the dated are under 50,000 years. Some 36,000 some 16,000 some 27,000 years but it also shows that man, dinos, and mammoths and other mammals were all contemporaries of one another and lived at the same time? In a time line by evoutionists that insist on billions or million sof years, 50,000 or less is young earth, it certainly younger than old earth advocates. Do you get this? I am not trying to play gimes here. My thinking is just as serious as yours. Now with respect to "some" of our creationist there is a dogma that is being taught and a lack of academic open discussion on these issues. There those that want to "cut off" any dicussion outside of a certain creationist paradigm. I fell you are a mouth piece to some of this because you cannot discuss these things on an academic or biblical level. At every point in our discussions you have disparaged me as a Christian I respect your views but don't currently concur with all of it. What I ahve said is totally compatible with the bible and some of this is not mine, there are other creationist out there that don't for instance believe in "adaptive variation , Dr. Werner very famous Christian Creationists who has studied the fossil record is as I a believer in "Fixity of Species" and the fossil record shows that? I concur with this view. Instead of arguing with me, which I am fine discussing this view, you again came unglued over this inference on my part. You must realize that every creationist is not in the same box. I believe as I have said before that you don't have all the answers. When push comes to shove I asked you straight up questions that any creationists should be asking to have answered? You got biligerant because I asked these questions? You as of today, have not answered one of my questions. And I understand why because you don't have an answer.

Who ever posted the human faces and different races of people, this does not in any way make an example of adaptive variation A heterozygous Adam and Eve would have produced off spring of all colors and types, this has been well commented in Christian and scientific literature, and so there is no schism here between what God did and the results of mans offspring? None!

Now the animal kingdom is different than mankind, They were created differently and before man isn't that what the Word says?

So I ask you to look at the word in context as to what Gods expectation of the animal kingdom was when he said be fruitful and multiply. He was not talking to kinds, he was talking to the bio-sphere, and clearly it was the male and female and offspring of the same. Two one hump camels or a Mammoth begets just exactly that. So this is the way to has always been. NOw if you look at the fossil record which we creationists often say was created by the flood, then again the fossil record supports the bible in every way with fixity of species and offspring that is produced from procreation is always the same specie, exactly? NOw I also stated that there are exceptions, that would be mans tampering and crossing animals that they domesticated, and also when to species of the same kind cros sover onto teach others territory and they can mate then we ahve hybridization taking place and of course a new body plan is produced which is a combo of the two?

Is there anything here that I have said to this point that doesn't jive with creationism or Gods' Holy Word?

Now here is where you and I would diverge....you said that I was not following the bible with respect to questioning the adaptive variation? I plainly asked you to provide me an example of adaptive variation in nature. What this "theroy" implies is that animal kinds (lets say the iguana kind) may have been one pair of iguana like animals? Correct? And that their offspring, created the speciation of all iguanas (14 species) off the Ark, because GOd had their DNA set-up to do this. As well as all other animals on the Ark? I say species not kinds, because somehow the inference by creationists is that the current "species" we see today are a result of the animal population form the ARK. We should agree that is what is being said out there. Correct me if I am wrong So my point is, that there are no examples of adaptive variation with respect to "species" that exist from these very recent 4, 500 years ago Ark offspring? ALso it is a fact for instance that Iguanas as well as many others have a fossil record and are actually "living fossils"? That means that before the ARk landed thes animals existed. This goes back to Fixity of Specieis, so my inclination is that the animals on the ark were all of the bio-sphere animals that GOD created originally and those were on the ARK, but not a cut down "kinds", this is an interpretation by creationists that is insistant. BUt no one creationists yet has been able to give provable examples of adaptive variation within a kind. Not one? So i am asking you not to come unglued but challenging you as I have others form AIG to provide examples of this through out the animal kingdom. DNa body plans do not change. In order for a MInd to change into several other species, one ahs to change the DNA? Now as far as I know only GOd can do this? So for me, and that is just me, I consider this "theroy" to not be consistent with the scriptures, it is certainly not consistant with what we understand of DNA, and creationists are using KInds, when there are for instance 11,000,000 insect specie son the Amazon alone? Is this the product of adaptive variation in less than 4,500 years?

So please don't insinuate that I am nto achrisitan, don't put me in the gradualism category, don't disparage my Christian standing before Christ and make a judgement on me. THe fact that I lean towards a local flood adn not a wwFlood is dependent on this and many other issues that don't tie into scripture. I give you a very clear scenerio about how scripture is taken out of context or interpreted with a rigid perspective that only allows for one view? Until we all knwo more I thinkwe hsoudl be embracing discussion and coming to the knowledge of the truth and not dogmatically instant on some of these views that are improvable. NOw I hoep you are not insulted. I am trying to deal with this one subject, I shall post more on the other stuff that you seemed to not understand or are unwilling to discuss?

Lastly I want to also answer a post you made about me not being biblical about the New Testament you took what I said and twisted it for your own purposes to disparage what I said, So I will post this because you don't seem to understand what I was saying in the first place and the implication of our own posts!!!!!


No. Because you absolutely refuse to be corrected on any issue we have previosuly discussed...i.e. "THe fact that I lean towards a local flood adn not a wwFlood is dependent on this and many other issues that don't tie into scripture...." When in fact not only the scriptures tell us palinly that it was world-wide and the scrientific facts reveal that truth clearly.

Plus...I never said the earth is exactly 6,000 yrs old. But it's pretty close because the chronologies don't allow for anything much more than that.

Plus...."I want to also answer a post you made about me not being biblical about the New Testament you took what I said and twisted it for your own purposes to disparage what I said." You lied. I did that to expose the heresy that you are promoting here and in no uncertain terms.

Plus...You did NOT deal with the family lineage of Christ that I pointedly laid before you nor the fact that unless that family lineage is correct & complete then Christ is not legally heir to the throne of David. And if it is correct then that makes the time frame of human history before Christ at about 4,000 yrs. You did NOT deal honestly with God's promise of the rainbow to not flood the world again yet there have been countless numbers of local floods since Noah's time. Those two points alone destroy your entire position whether you like it or not.


Plus..."you don't seem to understand what I was saying in the first place and the implication of our own posts!!!!"

You, sir, are in a rage, so I will ask you to not post me again.

#37 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:59 AM

Calypsis4 said: Plus...I never said the earth is exactly 6,000 yrs old. But it's pretty close because the chronologies don't allow for anything much more than that.

​Calypsis are you missing the point? I never disparaged the chronology? I asked you a rhetorical question based on other information? But a cursory reading fo the dates must lead you to understand that differnt Chrisitans who have looked at this subject come up with different timelines, some even say there may be huge gaps in some of this. But again, you miss my point, I am a YOUNG earth advocate? I don't believe in millions of years. I did give you facts as to why I question 6,000 years? This isn't based on heresy? That is a nice canned response.

Lets just look at the 6,000 years. Can you give me any biblical scripture that actually dates the earth to 6,000 years? I believe you cannot. This 6,000 year is based on man's study of Gods word. We both agree to that. I don't doubt the Chronology of Jesus' heritage? This is what is recorded biblically. So man (good Christian men including yourself) buy into a 6,000 year strict date based on this Chronolgy, Would you call the other Christians that believe on 7,000 and even 10,000 years heresy and that they don't believe in the line fo Christ either? The "fact" of the matter the bible does not give us an exact date? Thats all I am saying. Given Creationists facts that may be outside your own paradigm, there are different views as to dates. I am not dogmatic about dates, I just believe its young. Apaprently you don't read my resposnes correctly, I am very calm, and not at all in a rage, and not once have i called your a heretic or disparaged your Christianity? So who's in a rage here?

#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:26 AM

Calypsis4 said: Plus...I never said the earth is exactly 6,000 yrs old. But it's pretty close because the chronologies don't allow for anything much more than that. ​Calypsis are you missing the point? I never disparaged the chronology? I asked you a rhetorical question based on other information? But a cursory reading fo the dates must lead you to understand that differnt Chrisitans who have looked at this subject come up with different timelines, some even say there may be huge gaps in some of this. But again, you miss my point, I am a YOUNG earth advocate? I don't believe in millions of years. I did give you facts as to why I question 6,000 years? This isn't based on heresy? That is a nice canned response. Lets just look at the 6,000 years. Can you give me any biblical scripture that actually dates the earth to 6,000 years? I believe you cannot. This 6,000 year is based on man's study of Gods word. We both agree to that. I don't doubt the Chronology of Jesus' heritage? This is what is recorded biblically. So man (good Christian men including yourself) buy into a 6,000 year strict date based on this Chronolgy, Would you call the other Christians that believe on 7,000 and even 10,000 years heresy and that they don't believe in the line fo Christ either? The "fact" of the matter the bible does not give us an exact date? Thats all I am saying. Given Creationists facts that may be outside your own paradigm, there are different views as to dates. I am not dogmatic about dates, I just believe its young. Apaprently you don't read my resposnes correctly, I am very calm, and not at all in a rage, and not once have i called your a heretic or disparaged your Christianity? So who's in a rage here?


No, you aren't. You lost this argument about three posts ago but you stubbornly and angrily shoot your nonsense back at me as if you really do have a biblical argument. You don't. You don't even have a scientific argument.

But to my fellow readers, just compare the statements I posted in bold black and see how far from reality reptoman is. It is clear that the chronologies of scripture mean nothing to him. For God's Word is clearly not his bottom line in the matter of age. Perhaps Moses wasted his time giving us Genesis 5 & 11. Maybe it isn't important that the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ be accurate and therefore legal....to him. He certainly skirted the issue, didn't he? And that promise God gave to not flood the world by the sign of the rainbow is also meaningless for he continues to ignore it's world-wide significance.

#39 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 22 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

I believe that this article will enlighten all those who read it. Was the biblical account of Noah and the world wide flood just another story from the past? Was it accurate? Is there any evidence for this flood and the dispersal of one family to populate the earth? Read it and make informed choices for yourselves.

http://creation.com/...andsons-of-noah

#40 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:02 PM

While you are chewing on the vast evidence of the true history of the various people groups that can be verified to descend from the lineage of Noah and his family here are some questions for those who doubt a world wide flood as opposed to a local flood during the time of Noah;


If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.


If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.


If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.


If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.


These questions come from this link: http://creation.com/...the-whole-earth


  • Calypsis4 likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: young, earth, question, flood, marbles, civilization, old, evolution

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users