Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[dad]

I just had to put this in, to show the people that do not know, the varied deposition environments needed to produce a cyclothem. No good blaming Noah’s flood it would never work

No good blaming it, that is true. Guess we agree.

 

[dad]

I think the burden of proof lies on the ones who say plants were just created and stuck in the Garden of Eden (or that the Garden existed...) because, you see, all the fossil-bearing sediments and all the datable rocks of the world say otherwise. *shrug*

No, that is a delusion, they are not datable at all. That is my ace up the sleeve. Dating methods are merely assuming the past was the same.

But that's what all these wonderfully knowledgeable geologists are for. Listen to them.

They are all fired, far as I am concerned, as far as anything but the present goes. A bunch of Mickey Mouse fable meisters.

 

[dad]

Is there a reason why God only put flowering plants in the garden of Eden, and put conifers, ferns, cycads, tree ferns, horsetails, mosses, etc. everywhere else?

Prove it?? I think what you may mean, is how come certain plants were faster at spreading out than others.

Migrating plants? Are they coconuts? (silly Monty Python reference)

Pollen, bird droppings, etc. Like animals, living things are on the move.

Does this fairy tale have a talking snake?

It has us communicating with all creatures. Of course. I would lean more to a sort of ESP thing, than mouthing words, in most cases, though.

No, the "wild guesses" are your interpretations of scripture that put dead people on the moon, spirits inside the earth, and flood waters on Mars, etc.

Dead people are not on the moon, they are alive if they are in it at all. The dead ones are right here.

If that is so, then all those fossils associated with these coal seams, and the layers below and just above were not put there by The Flood. Where did they come from?

Same migration, only animals this time. Simple. I have no idea why this stuff seems such a challenge to so many!

Glad we replaced the "old passe" Flood Geology with the new "improved" Flood geology.

No, not at all. Flood geology as I understand it, attributes almost everything to the flood. I have no new flood geology.

That's fine, you continue to give us plenty of laughter, dad!

Exposing the absolute silliness of the myths taught as science fact is delving into the funny area. Consider it an educating laugh.

 

[dad]

And where are the two additional Biblically-mandated eyewitnesses to this account, if we're going down the legal-testimony route?

The legal stuff started long after man was created. Before that, be thankful for the one.

I don't see anything above which says that only the Garden of Eden was habitable... I do see someone 'rejoicing in the habitable part', but equating that with (only) the Garden is an interpretation of your own creation...

Well, no. We know where man was in the beginning. The bible places us right at the scene of the crime. No guessing needed. And there were only two people.

The author could just as easily have been talking about not rejoicing at the bottom of the ocean, or at the North Pole.

Keep interpreting.

Well, no, because we were not created, and placed there in the beginning, ask any child that has a simple bible understanding.

Did you make up these quotes from the Bible? No.
Do you interpret these quotes so as to support your own angle? Yes.

No, I only have any angle because I read God's word on it. I never invented it. I first try to believe it, then looked at science afterwards, to see where it went wrong.

 

[Patashu]

No, that is a delusion, they are not datable at all. That is my ace up the sleeve. Dating methods are merely assuming the past was the same.


They are all fired, far as I am concerned, as far as anything but the present goes. A bunch of Mickey Mouse fable meisters.

Among the very limited conditions that could possibly effect radiometric dating, a global flood could not have produced any of these.

Do you have any proof that radioactive decay was faster or slower in the past? Then you have no case.

 

[Patashu]

Well, no. We know where man was in the beginning. The bible places us right at the scene of the crime. No guessing needed. And there were only two people.

Explain this verse, then:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

1. Where did Cain get his wife from?
2. If there were really only four or five people so far, how is he building a city and why is he building a city? (Have you tried building a city with only three people helping you?)

 

[dad]

Among the very limited conditions that could possibly effect radiometric dating, a global flood could not have produced any of these.

I'd have to agree. What would a lot of water do to affect decay?

Do you have any proof that radioactive decay was faster or slower in the past? Then you have no case.

No, and I do not think it was either. It never existed.

 

[dad]

Explain this verse, then:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

1. Where did Cain get his wife from?
2. If there were really only four or five people so far, how is he building a city and why is he building a city? (Have you tried building a city with only three people helping you?)

Oh, that is a popular misconception. Adam and Eve, and their daughters and sons had lots of kids. The only ones mentioned are the firstborn males, more or less, because that is how the line was counted. But there could have been tons of folks around aside from that. ( and there was no incest at the time)

 

[Patashu]

Well, selective recall, I suppose is fine. But I prefer to look at the actual evidence, in this case, the text.

Gen 1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


I do not see where it says every patch of planet earth there. I take it to refer to Eden, primarily, because, on this third day, that is where He planted the plants, far as I can tell. (Excepting some, it seems likely on the earth at large as well, that needed to be there, like some creatures, helping to get it more hospitable)

I take it to mean the Earth, just like it says; the Earth. If it was only part of the Earth then why did he not write it? There's an important distinction between making plants in just one tiny area and the whole thing.

 

[Patashu]

I'd have to agree. What would a lot of water do to affect decay?

Um, nothing. To speed up radiometric decay you'd need enough water to squeeze on an atomic scale; as in, a heck of a lot more water then neccesary to cover the planet.

No, and I do not think it was either. It never existed.

You're trying to say that radiometric decay did not occur prior to the flood? I can't parse this.

 

[Patashu]

Oh, that is a popular misconception. Adam and Eve, and their daughters and sons had lots of kids. The only ones mentioned are the firstborn males, more or less, because that is how the line was counted. But there could have been tons of folks around aside from that. ( and there was no incest at the time)

This is a possible explanation. Prove it's the right one.

 

[Split Rock]

Prove it?? I think what you may mean, is how come certain plants were faster at spreading out than others.

Funny how flowering plants today constitute the vast majority of weedy species that propagate quickly. I wonder how in the past, other types of plants were able to get out to these places faster...

Pollen, bird droppings, etc. Like animals, living things are on the move.

This is the first thing you wrote in this thread that makes sense! Congrats!

It has us communicating with all creatures. Of course. I would lean more to a sort of ESP thing, than mouthing words, in most cases, though.

Too back scripture says the snake spoke to Eve.

Dead people are not on the moon, they are alive if they are in it at all. The dead ones are right here.

Whatever.

Same migration, only animals this time. Simple. I have no idea why this stuff seems such a challenge to so many!

Ad hoc explanations are always simple, dad. That's why little children use them all the time.

No, not at all. Flood geology as I understand it, attributes almost everything to the flood. I have no new flood geology.

Good for you!

Exposing the absolute silliness of the myths taught as science fact is delving into the funny area. Consider it an educating laugh.

You should try educating "creation scientists" then.

 

[atomweaver]

The legal stuff started long after man was created. Before that, be thankful for the one.

Then you do understand why this is not eyewitness testimony, then. Good on ya, dad, you learned!!

Well, no. We know where man was in the beginning.

We know where 'a' man was... Where are the sons of Man? Did Adam and Eve have sons in the Garden? No.

The bible places us right at the scene of the crime. No guessing needed. And there were only two people.

Then the plural 'sons of man' should cue you in to the fact that your placing the scene in the wrong location, or else your counting Eve as a son.

Well, no, because we were not created, and placed there in the beginning, ask any child that has a simple bible understanding.

I'll ask my 6 yo daughter if the Bible says that Eve is a son of man, then. What do you think her answer will be?

No, I only have any angle because I read God's word on it. I never invented it.

Nope, you don't invent, you create, ala

"Sons (plural) of man = Adam (singular), or Adam and Eve (a son of man?)"

"Habitable place = Garden of Eden"

I first try to believe it, then looked at science afterwards, to see where it went wrong.

You're not consulting the other Great Work. Your Man left a few clues in there, too...

Work #1;

Work #2;

Rejecting the content of one with the content of another = fail. One has content relevant to your immortal soul, and one has content relevant to your material body. Take a guess as to which is which...

 

[DaveISBG]

Explain this verse, then:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

1. Where did Cain get his wife from?
2. If there were really only four or five people so far, how is he building a city and why is he building a city? (Have you tried building a city with only three people helping you?)

We know that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a “replacement” for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children and grandchildren. By the time Abel was killed, there could well have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve, involving several generations. Cain married one of these descendants.

The Bible doesn’t say there were only four our five people at the time Cain built a “city” in the land of Nod, obviously there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as “city” meant a “walled town” or a protected encampment. Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a “city.” there could have been many descendants of Adam on the earth, as stated before, by the time Cain built this city.

 

[atomweaver]

We know that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a “replacement” for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children and grandchildren. By the time Abel was killed, there could well have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve, involving several generations. Cain married one of these descendants.

The Bible doesn’t say there were only four our five people at the time Cain built a “city” in the land of Nod, obviously there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as “city” meant a “walled town” or a protected encampment. Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a “city.” there could have been many descendants of Adam on the earth, as stated before, by the time Cain built this city.

Thanks, DaveISBG. This re-confirms my assertion to dad that the 'sons of men' are not found in the Garden of Eden...

 

[Patashu]

A simple 'And then Adam and Eve and their sons had many sons and daughters of their own.' at some point would have helped a lot, Bible.

 

[Naraoia]

Well, selective recall, I suppose is fine. But I prefer to look at the actual evidence, in this case, the text.

Gen 1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Remember the bold part and watch:

I do not see where it says every patch of planet earth there. I take it to refer to Eden, primarily, because, on this third day, that is where He planted the plants, far as I can tell. (Excepting some, it seems likely on the earth at large as well, that needed to be there, like some creatures, helping to get it more hospitable)

So you take it to refer to Eden because that's what you like. There's no evidence that it was Eden either. But read on.

We can now look to the next chapter, where it was already finished, and go back for a close up of the plants issue, and how it was actually done.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The man whom he had formed... one the sixth day. You've conveniently skipped over the rest of Genesis 1. Granted, English isn't my native language, but for all I know about these superfluous past tenses you have, "had formed" implies something that happened before the simple past of "God planted", i.e. man had been created before the planting of the Garden. Therefore the creation of (flowering!) plants on the third day couldn't have been the planting of the Garden after the creation of man (sixth day).

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
You cannot prove from this, that ALL plants were planted all over the earth. That is the way God tells it.

But you can quite convincingly argue that what it tells isn't your scenario.

 

[dad]

I take it to mean the Earth, just like it says; the Earth. If it was only part of the Earth then why did he not write it? There's an important distinction between making plants in just one tiny area and the whole thing.

I see, so when He formed Adam from the dust of the earth, He ran around scooping dirt from every acre of the planet, then, in your view? The fine tuning of the meaning comes in the context, as well as common sense. He, for example ,made man, but not all over the planet at once. We are spread out now, and so are plants.

 

[dad]

Um, nothing. To speed up radiometric decay you'd need enough water to squeeze on an atomic scale; as in, a heck of a lot more water then neccesary to cover the planet.

Bingo. Anyone out there actually think the flood affected radiocative decay???? I never met anyone yet that thought that, but, hey, maybe some are real real dumb.

You're trying to say that radiometric decay did not occur prior to the flood? I can't parse this.

No. Prior to the universe state change, about a century after the flood. From all accounts in the bible, the universe had to be a lot different down. The only thing it resembles, as far as I can see, is the future of the bible. Certainly not the present. And, I see no reason to assume there is decay in heaven, now, do you?
Simple.

 

[dad]

This is a possible explanation. Prove it's the right one.

No need, since you can't disprove it, and it is the only one that leaves God as true. Why concoct fables when no need exists at all?