Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The GC is a great example of rapid erosion of the then fairly soft sediments laid down right after the flood. The GC was most likely formed very rapidly by a huge rush of water from a huge lake north of it's location. The fact that there are essentially no signs of erosional cuts in the sediments tells us this is true. Slow formation would show massive signs of erosion in the lateral layering but very little or no erosion is apparent. Ignoring this evidence is a prime example of the mainstream paradigms perspective.
This is patently false. Of course there are signs of erosional cuts in the walls of the canyon.
Besides, great torrents of water don't cut meanders into soft sediment like this one:
Can you please elaborate on what you mean? What features would indicate to you that the canyon was formed over a long period of time?
You also ignored the issue of mammillary coatings, which argues strongly against the canyon being formed in less than millions of years.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I'm not ignoring them, I just don't know enough about them to intelligently discuss them right now. I'll read up on them and get back with you. I suggest those interested in the rapid erosion of the grand canyone do a google on "rapid erosion of the grand canyone" and read some of the articles that pop up.
Great torrents of water do indeed cut meanders. Consider the Amazon river or the Mississippi , both of which are meanders.
They're also not moving anywhere near as fast as neocreationists advocate the Flood waters did, nor are they carving canyons more than a mile deep in but a few days. Bad analogy.
Looking forward to your response about the mammillary coatings. I hope you won't continue to argue that the Grand Canyon was deposited and eroded in just a few days when you know there's outstanding evidence that must be accounted for.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Here's the way the original language reads from the hebrew. I'll let the reader's decide:
" Behold please behemoth which I made with you grass as an ox he is eating, behold please vigor of him in waists of him and virility of him in navel/muscle of him belly of him he is inclining TAIL OF HIM LIKE A CEDAR sinews of him awesome part of him."
To say the least there is some things lost in translation wouldn't you agree?
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Sorry still can't find the bit where it says his tail is as big as a tree.
Sound to me like it is saying his tail is inclined like a cedar not that it is as big as a cedar. That is an interesting translation you use. It sounds like the Concordant Interlinear, except that says
Behold please behemoth which I made with you grass as the ox he is eating,
behold please vigor of him in waists of him and virility of him in navel/muscle of him belly of him he is inclining TAIL OF HIM LIKE CEDAR sinews of awesome part of him.
It says 'the ox' rather than 'an ox' and 'sinews of awesome' rather than 'sinews of him awesome' But those are not important. What is interesting is it translates bit about his tail as 'like cedar' not 'like a cedar'. That is a frequent use of the word throughout the OT, cedar meaning the type of wood rather than a whole tree. So perhaps the verse means his tails bends like cedar wood. It certainly goes with the more raunchy interpretations I have come across.
Personally I lean toward the idea that his tail looks a bit like a tree, which hippo tails do, a tree drawn by a toddler anyway.
It certainly looks more like a tree than a diplodocus tail
And of course it has the advantage that Job could easily have come across hippos which lived not that far from where
he did, and during the same period, as opposed to an animal that was extinct 150 million years.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 16th May 2008 at 07:10 PM.
Looking forward to your response about the mammillary coatings. I hope you won't continue to argue that the Grand Canyon was deposited and eroded in just a few days when you know there's outstanding evidence that must be accounted for.
Give me an intentional walk does not mean you will win the game. Good luck.
Give me an intentional walk does not mean you will win the game. Good luck.
I don't know what that baseball analogy is supposed to mean in this context.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Sorry still can't find the bit where it says his tail is as big as a tree.
The rather obvious parallel in this verse is a comparison of awesome power. Jewish verse is usually parallel or "rhyming" in meaning.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Besides, great torrents of water don't cut meanders into soft sediment like this one:
That is my biggest problem with the idea -- the meanders.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).
I know of a lot of Christians who actually believe the world is 12,000 years old. I know most Christians do not believe this. Evidence of this of course? Dinosaurs. Never mentioned in the Bible for some reason. But some Christians believe that the dinosaur bones were put on earth to "test us". I find this ludicrous. I dont think God is a practical joker.
On the other hand, I know Christians who DO believe in the theory of evolution. And that the planet is roughly 4,000,000,000 years old. They have used their common sense and used science in CONJUNCION with the bible. This is feel is not wrong. Please remember that the Bible was written by people who still thought the world was flat and that an eclipse was an act of God.
Where do most Christians stand on this? Is the planet a lot younger than we beleive and everything was put here and we were created as humans that did not evolve from chimps? Or are we maybe starting to understand that a lot of Genesis was metaphorical?
Of course the earth is a few billion years old. I don't think Genesis is metaphorical only. I believe the writer of Genesis probably believed the creation story in Genesis 1 because it's the folklore of his culture. But God does not bother about that bit of error because His purpose is only to point us to Jesus. Whether Christians believe in evolution or a young earth is immaterial to him as much as it's immaterial to him whether we understand scientific concepts.
Linear Mode
