Jump to content


Photo

Questions About The Flood


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

#21 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 19 December 2011 - 03:25 PM

It really has nothing to do with distrust or the phone game but with reading an account concentrating on how the flood is described and applying some logic and common sense. Can you truly say a flood of beer or fire is just a change in the telling or can you admit that not all flood stories are descriptions of the one in the bible?


If you will read what I wrote previously:

"Besides, we are not asserting that this was the only flood that ever happened in earth's history, so it could be that some of these legends were based on local floods, or pulled from the Biblical account and shrank to a smaller scale."

So no I did not assert that.

You trust the bible account and have used the phone game as an indicator of changes in the flood accounts. Well then lets apply that concept to the biblical account itself. The Bible account is not the oldest. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older and the epic of Atrahasis older still. Since the two Epics were written before the Bible then they would be considered the older accounts that the Bible is based on. If we look at them, the Epic of Atrahasis describes a river flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh, a very close copy of Atrahasis has had some wording changed and makes the river flood into a global flood. Then we have the Bible, farther removed from the original which continues the global flood theme.


If you are talking about the oldest written account you may be correct, but we were talking about oral history, so you have no basis for this assertion. Further examination of the Genesis account gives us an idea of how early this oral history was gathered:

..., Genesis 10:19 gives matter-of-fact directions, ‘as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim’. These were the cities of the plain God destroyed for their extreme wickedness 500 years before Moses. Yet Genesis gives directions at a time when they were well-known landmarks, not buried under the Dead Sea.
http://creation.com/...-gilgamesh-epic


Speaking of the epic of gilgamesh, it speaks of a polytheistic culture:

It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. The liberals also commonly assert that monotheism is a late evolutionary religious development. The Bible teaches that mankind was originally monotheistic. Archaeological evidence suggests the same, indicating that only later did mankind degenerate into idolatrous pantheism.
http://creation.com/...-gilgamesh-epic


So archaeology indicates that the epic of gilgamesh is a derivation of the Biblical account, not vice versa.

#22 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:30 PM

I believe in a global flood, but recently I was hit by a series of questions on another forum that I did not have answers to, so I am hoping to find some answers here. Here are some of the points that were made by one atheist:

1)It would take 50 members of a species in order to propagate the species.
2)Most sea life would not have been able to survive the flood due to mixing of salt and fresh water, changing temperatures, and light filtration.
3)Water altitude would have produced an atmosphere that was too cold and too thin for anything to survive on the ark.

I look forward to hearing everyone's responses!


1) This comes from the minimum amount of inbreeding allowed by domestic animal breeders. Much less than this number greatly affects the chances of deteriation of the genome.

2) Very few species can tolerate both salt and fresh water, however the salt levels of the water would be the least of their concerns.

3) No. However, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the sheer amount of kinetic energy released would boil the Earth. Nothing could survive.

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:50 PM

1) This comes from the minimum amount of inbreeding allowed by domestic animal breeders. Much less than this number greatly affects the chances of deteriation of the genome.


Genetic entropy had less effect on genomes 5,000 years ago than it does today.

Posted Image

Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.

Secondly, you haven't posted any empirical measure or experiment; Your simply claiming it isn't possible. Extinction experiments on lizards have produced a thriving population on only 5 adult pairs at present genomic decay.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2008)

— In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.


http://www.scienceda...80417112433.htm


  • These lizards were expected to go extinct, which shows that animals are better able to survive and adapt to conditions that evolutionists are always certain would kill animals during and after the flood.
  • It proves that adaptation is not the result of millions of years of mutations and natural selection.
  • It's a confirmation of sudden diet change after the flood, which have been observed instantly without any miraculous intervention by God.


Enjoy.

#24 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 31 December 2011 - 10:45 AM

Secondly, you haven't posted any empirical measure or experiment; Your simply claiming it isn't possible. Extinction experiments on lizards have produced a thriving population on only 5 adult pairs at present genomic decay.



I said nothing about the veracity of the claim, only where that figure comes from.

These lizards were expected to go extinct, which shows that animals are better able to survive and adapt to conditions that evolutionists are always certain would kill animals during and after the flood.



The Earth would be completely dead after an event as described in the Bible. No life at all except what came off the Ark.

It proves that adaptation is not the result of millions of years of mutations and natural selection.


No it doesn't. It demonstrates that adaptation can occur quickly.

It's a confirmation of sudden diet change after the flood, which have been observed instantly without any miraculous intervention by God.



But after the Biblical Flood, there would have been nothing to eat, at all, except what came off the Ark.

#25 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 31 December 2011 - 04:31 PM

1) This comes from the minimum amount of inbreeding allowed by domestic animal breeders. Much less than this number greatly affects the chances of deteriation of the genome.


but if animals were created perfect as the Bible states, and their genome deteriorated over time, then at the time of the flood, their genome would be far less specialized and deteriorated so this is not really a problem.

2) Very few species can tolerate both salt and fresh water, however the salt levels of the water would be the least of their concerns.


Consider this:

Many of today’s marine organisms, especially estuarine and tide pool
species, are able to survive large changes in salinity.
For example, starfish
will tolerate as low as 16–18% of the normal concentration of sea salt
indefinitely. Barnacles can with stand exposure to less than one-tenth the
usual salt con centration of sea-water.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh
water.
For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn
in freshwater and mature in saltwater. Eels reproduce in saltwater and
grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. So, many of today’s
species of fish are able to adjust to both freshwater and saltwater.
There is also evidence of post-Flood specialization within a kind of
fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater
species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind)
lives only in freshwater.
Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.
http://creation.com/...k/chapter14.pdf
underline added


So no problem with salt and fresh water!

3) No. However, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the sheer amount of kinetic energy released would boil the Earth. Nothing could survive.


But if there were enough clouds to make it rain to the point of "boiling the earth", they would block out the sun, therefore replacing its heat source, not adding to it, and therefore it would not boil the earth.

During the 40 day rain, if kinetic energy was not being generated. The whole earth would have dropped several degrees. Possibly below freezing. So making it rain a certain amount required for the flood was God's way of producing enough kinetic energy to keep the earth warm enough so that Noah, and his family, plus the animals could survive once they were on dry land. This would also make it possible for any seeds from plants to grow instead of becoming dormant from the cold.
http://creationwiki...._kinetic_energy


So problem created? No, problem solved!

The Earth would be completely dead after an event as described in the Bible. No life at all except what came off the Ark.


Consider this:

There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers
developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Freshwater can sit on
top of saltwater for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been
sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow
the survival of both freshwater and salt water species in those areas.
http://creation.com/...k/chapter14.pdf


and this:

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various
concentrations of saltwater. Indeed, saltwater impedes the germination
of some species so that the seed lasts better in saltwater than freshwater.
Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on
pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are capable
of asexual sprouting.
Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the Ark,
or accidental inclusions in such food stores. Many seeds have devices
for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the
Flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the
bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove (Gen. 8:11) shows
that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the
Ark.
http://creation.com/...k/chapter14.pdf


So you are incorrect about there being no food besides what was on the ark:

But after the Biblical Flood, there would have been nothing to eat, at all, except what came off the Ark.


Yet if we examine what was on the ark, there were seven of each "clean" animal, which would have allowed a more permanant food source to come about quickly. Also, they brought a food supply, so if they planned good enough, they still might have had some food left over.

Let me be clear, there certainly was death due to cataclismic events happening during the flood, but that does not mean that everything outside of the ark was wiped out.

Your concerns have been addressed and are unfounded. Do you have any more concerns?

#26 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 31 December 2011 - 07:36 PM

but if animals were created perfect as the Bible states, and their genome deteriorated over time, then at the time of the flood, their genome would be far less specialized and deteriorated so this is not really a problem.



Nowhere does the Bible state this.

So no problem with salt and fresh water!



Well, no. As I said Very few species can tolerate both and many of the ones that can, can only do so for a limited time. The Overwhelming majority or marine species cannot tolerate fresh water.

But if there were enough clouds to make it rain to the point of "boiling the earth", they would block out the sun, therefore replacing its heat source, not adding to it, and therefore it would not boil the earth.




The cloud cover would have zero affect on the localised release of kinetic energy. Essentially you are saying that cloud cover could prevent the heat release from a bomb.

Serious cloud cover of that magnitude would also reflect any heat generated from the surface of the planet back down to the surface. So any energy released by the falling rain would not be able to escape into the atmosphere.

So problem created? No, problem solved!



Well, no. Cloud cover will reflect solar radiation away from the Earth, but it will also retain heat from the Earth and radiate this back to us. That is why, at night, the temperature is higher with heavy cloud cover.

So you are incorrect about there being no food besides what was on the ark:



So how long does grass take to grow from seeds? Or trees? What about animals with specialised diets, such as Koalas, or Pandas? What about species that only eat fruit? What about insectivores, how many thousands of ants do you think Noah would have needed to keep two Giant Anteaters? (they eat upto 30,000 insects per day, so we'll say 20,000x2x365=14,600,000)
How about the carnivores? Bears, lions, tigers, crocodiles, cheetahs, wolves, foxes, stoats, snakes, etc. What did they eat? Were there extra prey animals on the Ark?

Yet if we examine what was on the ark, there were seven of each "clean" animal, which would have allowed a more permanant food source to come about quickly. Also, they brought a food supply, so if they planned good enough, they still might have had some food left over.



Ok. A horse will eat around 2% of its own body weight, assuming an average size horse at 1000lbs That is 20lbs of food per day per horse.

So we have 20x2x365=14,600lbs of food just for the horses. That is 6.5 metric tons or 7.3 if you are American. Just for the horses.


Let me be clear, there certainly was death due to cataclismic events happening during the flood, but that does not mean that everything outside of the ark was wiped out.



The surface area of the Earth is 510,000,000,000 metres. To cover this in one one metre of water you need 510,000,000,000 cubic metres of water. A cubic metre of water weighs around one ton.
Mt Everest is around 8800m high. So we need 510,000,000,000 x 8800 = 4,488,000,000,000,000 cubic metres of water.If this water falls in forty days, then we get 112,200,000,000,000 tons of water falling per day. Spread over the surface of the Earth, this requires a rainfall of 220 tons of water, per square metre, per day. Thats 9 tons per hour. 330lbs per minute.
The slowest speed rain falls is 3 metres per second. So where ever you stood on Earth you would be struck by over 5 pounds of water at three metres per second every second.
This means that every second the kinetic energy released by this rainfall equates to 10.35x510,000,000,000= 5,275,800,000,000 joules. One ton of TNT equals 4,184,000,000 joules. So 5,275,800,000,000/4,184,000,000=1261.
So the energy released by that rainfall would be roughly equal to the explosive force of 1260 tons of TNT per second. That means by the end of the first day, you have an energy release equal to 4,541,730 tons of TNT. That is 4.5 megatons, far larger that the largest ever tested nuclear device and an amount that dwarfs the atomic bombs of WWII.

Nothing would survive.

#27 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 December 2011 - 08:38 PM

but if animals were created perfect as the Bible states, and their genome deteriorated over time, then at the time of the flood, their genome would be far less specialized and deteriorated so this is not really a problem.

Nowhere does the Bible state this.

It actually does " And God saw that it was good"
You find that pretty often in Genesis first chapters. Genetic deterioration would be a result of death, hence the fall.
Incapability to handle certain conditions can also be the result of genetic loss after generations in animals today.
The "The-ark-story-doesn't-work-cause-of-genetic-load-through-inbreeding" argument is fallacious, if evolutionist use it anyway. Any new species even in their conception would have to start with a very limited number of individuals and they wouldn't have a head start of a perfect creation neither. Not to mention the many species that reproduce non-s*xually, but just copy existing genetic code.
Bigger populations also don't solve the problem of "genetic load" as it only gets covered up, and is even accumulated that way.

Mind reviewing your statements for all assumptions that you make. I spotted a few anachronisms so far. Would perhaps be a good idea to subdivide into subjects to be discussed piece by piece.

#28 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 01 January 2012 - 12:57 PM

Well, no. As I said Very few species can tolerate both and many of the ones that can, can only do so for a limited time. The Overwhelming majority or marine species cannot tolerate fresh water.


You assume that organisms today have the same limitations as organisms in the past? That doesn't sound very scientific. The overwhelming majority of fish have both saltwater and freshwater varieties. This also ignores the theory of saltwater and freshwater existing in stable strata during the flood. Then again, I am used to skeptics not reading what I post before they respond.

The surface area of the Earth is 510,000,000,000 metres. To cover this in one one metre of water you need 510,000,000,000 cubic metres of water. A cubic metre of water weighs around one ton.
Mt Everest is around 8800m high. So we need 510,000,000,000 x 8800 = 4,488,000,000,000,000 cubic metres of water.If this water falls in forty days, then we get 112,200,000,000,000 tons of water falling per day. Spread over the surface of the Earth, this requires a rainfall of 220 tons of water, per square metre, per day. Thats 9 tons per hour. 330lbs per minute.
The slowest speed rain falls is 3 metres per second. So where ever you stood on Earth you would be struck by over 5 pounds of water at three metres per second every second.
This means that every second the kinetic energy released by this rainfall equates to 10.35x510,000,000,000= 5,275,800,000,000 joules. One ton of TNT equals 4,184,000,000 joules. So 5,275,800,000,000/4,184,000,000=1261.
So the energy released by that rainfall would be roughly equal to the explosive force of 1260 tons of TNT per second. That means by the end of the first day, you have an energy release equal to 4,541,730 tons of TNT. That is 4.5 megatons, far larger that the largest ever tested nuclear device and an amount that dwarfs the atomic bombs of WWII.



Sadly, all this math is based on two false assumptions:
1) Mt. Everest is the same height today as it was back then.
2) All of the water came from rain. The Bible is clear that the fountains of the deep broke open causing more water to flood the earth in addition to the rain.

Therefore your conclusion about the nuclear device is moot.

So how long does grass take to grow from seeds? Or trees?



My grandpa often takes a cutting from a plant and sticks it in water. It grows roots, and can then be planted in the ground. Its called propagation. I am not saying that the world would be completely green, but some plants would have started sprouting again.

What about animals with specialised diets, such as Koalas, or Pandas?



So you believe that their diet was always specialized as it is now? Sceintists have learned that the koalas of today can survive on cows milk, bread, and honey. Eating only eucalyptis is more of a behavioral addiction than a necessity.

Bears, lions, tigers, crocodiles, cheetahs, wolves, foxes, stoats, snakes, etc. What did they eat? Were there extra prey animals on the Ark?



Most animals can eat plants or animals, regardless of how they are classified as carnivores or herbivores. As for anteaters, I believe they may have specialized to become anteaters after the flood. There has undoubtedly been specialization of animals since the flood due to adaptation to new climates after such a cataclismic event.


Ok. A horse will eat around 2% of its own body weight, assuming an average size horse at 1000lbs That is 20lbs of food per day per horse.

So we have 20x2x365=14,600lbs of food just for the horses. That is 6.5 metric tons or 7.3 if you are American. Just for the horses.


So you assume that all the animals on the ark were full grown adults?

#29 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 03:11 PM

It actually does " And God saw that it was good"
You find that pretty often in Genesis first chapters. Genetic deterioration would be a result of death, hence the fall.
Incapability to handle certain conditions can also be the result of genetic loss after generations in animals today.
The "The-ark-story-doesn't-work-cause-of-genetic-load-through-inbreeding" argument is fallacious, if evolutionist use it anyway. Any new species even in their conception would have to start with a very limited number of individuals and they wouldn't have a head start of a perfect creation neither. Not to mention the many species that reproduce non-s*xually, but just copy existing genetic code.
Bigger populations also don't solve the problem of "genetic load" as it only gets covered up, and is even accumulated that way.

Mind reviewing your statements for all assumptions that you make. I spotted a few anachronisms so far. Would perhaps be a good idea to subdivide into subjects to be discussed piece by piece.


Yes, the Bible says "Good" not "perfect"

#30 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 03:19 PM

http://concordances....hebrew/2896.htm

the word for good in verse

in genesis 1:25

if we take it your way then eternal life is also meant to have death and sorrow.

as those are good to god.

#31 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 01 January 2012 - 03:30 PM

Why would God create animals all riddled with harmful mutations and call them good? No artist wants to make a masterpiece with flaws, they make it to the best of their ability, and if they make mistakes they certainly don't call it good.

Mutations are a deviation from the original functional copy of DNA. If God made the animal, He made it an original, and therefore mutations would have to come about later on. In order for God to include mutations, He would have to make an animal, and then introduce imperfections which would be ridiculous.

You can focus on the Bible word for word, and miss some very logical conclusions.

#32 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:07 PM

You assume that organisms today have the same limitations as organisms in the past? That doesn't sound very scientific. The overwhelming majority of fish have both saltwater and freshwater varieties. This also ignores the theory of saltwater and freshwater existing in stable strata during the flood. Then again, I am used to skeptics not reading what I post before they respond.


And what reason do we have to suppose that marines animals of today cannot tolerate fresh water, where as their ancestors 3000 years ago could? Do you have any reason at all to support this notion?
On what basis could salt and fresh water remain in stable strata throughout the Flood as described?

1) Mt. Everest is the same height today as it was back then.



What reason do we have to suppose that Everest was significantly smaller in the past? Give me a figure and I will happily recalculate for you.

2) All of the water came from rain. The Bible is clear that the fountains of the deep broke open causing more water to flood the earth in addition to the rain.



Ok, lets suppose that 3/4 of the water came from the Fountains of the Deep, you can reduce the daily energy released figure from 4.5 megatons to 1.125 megatons. Still hugely more than the largest ever man made explosion and this relies on the waters from the deep adding no energy to the whole when released.

Therefore your conclusion about the nuclear device is moot.



In fact I made an error in my calculation above, the final energy release should have been 108,950,400 per day. or 108 megatons

No it isn't. I'll half the size of Everest and reduce rainfall by 3/4.

This reduces the rain fall to 2lbs per square metre per second. So the total energy released works out at 548 tons of TNT per second. Or 47,347,200 tons of TNT per day 47 megatons.

My grandpa often takes a cutting from a plant and sticks it in water. It grows roots, and can then be planted in the ground. Its called propagation. I am not saying that the world would be completely green, but some plants would have started sprouting again.



Ok, assuming you have enough seeds, how long would it take to grow enough grass to feed a horse?

So you believe that their diet was always specialized as it is now? Sceintists have learned that the koalas of today can survive on cows milk, bread, and honey. Eating only eucalyptis is more of a behavioral addiction than a necessity.



Are you suggesting that Koalas ate bread and honey after the Flood? What about fruit eaters?

Most animals can eat plants or animals, regardless of how they are classified as carnivores or herbivores.



This is simply not true. Even omnivores, such as ourselves suffer greatly from an all meat diet and there is evidence to suggest that eventually it would kill us and we have the ability to metabolise meat.

A lion cannot survive on grass, when carnivores do eat plants, it remains undigested as is passed through the system, essentially they do it for healthy bowels.

The only exception I know of is the Panda, which has a digestive tract of a carnivore, yet also has features similar to ruminant species, thus it uses bacteria to break down its food, otherwise its diet would kill it.

. As for anteaters, I believe they may have specialized to become anteaters after the flood.



On what basis? The Giant Anteater is suberbly adapted/desinged to eat insects. Are you proposing that level of physical change occurred in the last 3000 or so years? If so by what mechanism?

There has undoubtedly been specialization of animals since the flood due to adaptation to new climates after such a cataclismic event.



We are talking about diet, not climate.

So you assume that all the animals on the ark were full grown adults?



Is there any reason to suppose otherwise? But lets run with that and I'll reduce the food requirements by 9/10ths.

You still need over half a ton of food for the horses alone.

Another problem.

Lets suppose that it takes a mere minute to clean, water and feed every animal on the Ark. This gives us an upper limit of 8400 animals based on 7 people working 20 hours per day. Do you think that figure is high enough?

#33 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:09 PM

http://concordances....hebrew/2896.htm

the word for good in verse

in genesis 1:25

if we take it your way then eternal life is also meant to have death and sorrow.

as those are good to god.


Those animals never had eternal life. In fact Genesis explictly states that Adam and Eve were not immortal.

#34 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:12 PM

Why would God create animals all riddled with harmful mutations and call them good? No artist wants to make a masterpiece with flaws, they make it to the best of their ability, and if they make mistakes they certainly don't call it good.

Mutations are a deviation from the original functional copy of DNA. If God made the animal, He made it an original, and therefore mutations would have to come about later on. In order for God to include mutations, He would have to make an animal, and then introduce imperfections which would be ridiculous.

You can focus on the Bible word for word, and miss some very logical conclusions.


Maybe because God knew that the Fall would occur and that genetic variance would be required for survival outside of Eden? It is odd that God would create everything "perfect" yet allow the Serpent to ruin everything.

#35 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:13 PM

if they didnt sin they wouldnt have died.

for in the day that you eat of the tree you will die

they had the choice not to eat and by that they could live forever

if you say that its a spiritual death then tell me why paul says death is the final enemy?
and that i will be done away in revalation? again what the point of serving god if death is what we get anyway and immoratalituy for the belever isnt even guarenteed

#36 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:15 PM

because he wanted men to know that he was also good. he wants us to love him and had to allow us sin so that we can reject and or choose god

#37 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:49 PM

if they didnt sin they wouldnt have died.

for in the day that you eat of the tree you will die

they had the choice not to eat and by that they could live forever

if you say that its a spiritual death then tell me why paul says death is the final enemy?
and that i will be done away in revalation? again what the point of serving god if death is what we get anyway and immoratalituy for the belever isnt even guarenteed


Genesis 3:24

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
If Adam could not die, why did God need to stop him eating from the Tree of Life? Why did God post an Angel with a flaming sword to guard the way back to the Tree of Life?

Genesis 1:29

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Genesis 1:30

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.

How is it possible to eat plants without plants dying in the process? Death was certainly a factor before the Fall.

because he wanted men to know that he was also good. he wants us to love him and had to allow us sin so that we can reject and or choose god



Sorry, I do not know what this is it response to?

#38 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:59 PM

only plants but not animals. the animals like humans were herbivores.

yes it was. was death of man and animal and suffering declared good if god meant that way?

you have to answer why i should then take the bible promise of a bodily ressurection wheres theres no death of man if death was in place

eternal life must mean eternal and we dont stay in heaven for ever.

1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)


1 Corinthians 15

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
33Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
34Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.






there no more suffering when the lord comes back if the lord wanted death for adam and eve prior to fall then he wouldnt have said no more tears and nor more sorrow.

they sinned and when they did they lost the right to live forever, that is my point.

#39 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 01 January 2012 - 07:17 PM

only plants but not animals. the animals like humans were herbivores.



Where is "only plants" biblically supported?

yes it was. was death of man and animal and suffering declared good if god meant that way?



They could die, but they didn't have to. God saw His creation was good, not the specifics. By that token, he also decided that defecation was "good" I do not think the Almighty would be overly concerned with toilet habits.

you have to answer why i should then take the bible promise of a bodily ressurection wheres theres no death of man if death was in place



What does that have to do with whether Adam was mortal or not? You have failed to address my questions about the purpose of the Tree of Life.

eternal life must mean eternal and we dont stay in heaven for ever.


Sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say there?

there no more suffering when the lord comes back if the lord wanted death for adam and eve prior to fall then he wouldnt have said no more tears and nor more sorrow.


Then what was the purpose of the Tree of Life and why was God so adamant about Adam not eating from it?



#40 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 01 January 2012 - 07:27 PM

the tree of life was for only man.

so? some death was needed of plants but no animals.

when we die we are raised in the ressurection and given new bodies if death and decay is what is god wanted then theres no hope for redemption as we die and life isnt eternal

adam and eve had to be tested they had to to tempted., if they didnt sin they wouldnt have died.

and on plants that is because god wanted it that way. but for man and animal no. what would kill the animal?

yes this is hard subject and speculative to a degree but we dont know if god would have let the animals die if they reach a point or limit reproduction.

theres not much said on that just that it was lost and a glimpse of what was lost.

i do know the bible supports a restoration to what was. that is clearly stated in the end book.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users