Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[dad]

Funny how flowering plants today constitute the vast majority of weedy species that propagate quickly.

In today's world, that may be. But we had a lot of different conditions back then. Besides, there were no weeds in Eden now were there? They came with the fall, one one assume. Then, we need to look at what plants were created on the planet at large. For example, possibly trilobites, and certain trees, that may have been useful. In some flood prone areas today, we have trees, with great roots

"The environment where the plants thrive, is a wet, waterlogged swamp, which is inundated periodically for once or two times a day, or depends on the characteristics of local tidal periods.

other terrestrial vegetation, mangroves developed the aerating component. The above-ground part of the root system will enable the plants to allow the gas exchange process."

http://wawa.essortment.com/mangroverootfu_rnrq.htm

Also, today, we have certain natural processes, that work a certain way. Like how a lake becomes eventually dry land. In the former state, we can envision great differences, so that such processes could be a lot faster. The earth did need to get hospitable in a hurry.

An example is human activity can accelerate this process even in this state.

"Lakes also receive nutrients from human activities. This can literally make a lake old before its time. This accelerated transition is called cultural eutrophication. Nutrients from fertilized yards and gardens, agricultural areas, stormwater runoff, urban development, failing septic systems, land clearing, municipal and industrial wastewater, runoff from construction projects, and recreational activities contribute to accelerated enrichment or eutrophication."

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/algae/lakes/lake_Information.html

I wonder how in the past, other types of plants were able to get out to these places faster...

Well, as I said, it is very likely some creatures and plants were created out of Eden area as well. Another thought is Adam, at the time, before the fall, was master of the universe!!! I seem to recall hearing Dr J Vernon McGee talk about that. He suggested that Adam could command the sea, and wind, and sun, and all the universe, and was not just a gardener. He may have been onto something there. If that is the case, why, that means Adam could have traveled far far out of the garden to look around at his world. He may even have had an idea to plant some seeds, he knew would help the planet at large get hospitable?? Failing that we always have God, and the great starship available. Intelligent design, in the extreme. I just can't buy into the flukeenstance fables.

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

No one can be wrong all the time.

Too back scripture says the snake spoke to Eve.

Yes, how we speak in heaven is the issue. Communicate might be a better word there. But, hey, maybe some animal's noises were translated on the fly, so we heard what they were really saying, or some such. In that case, spoke is a good word. God can't lose either way.

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

Little kids have a lot on the ball, try and learn something. Over complicated, heavily assumptive, godless pipe dreaming fables just have the wrong ring to them. Something is wrong in that mix. Something fierce.

You should try educating "creation scientists" then.

Well, don't they read Christian idea forums?? I figure some might catch on eventually.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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?

POINT OF ORDER: I've not been following this debate but I would like to interject that no one is ever required to prove a negative.

It is up to the claimant to prove the positive statement, it is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove a claim in order for the claim to carry a necessary "truth".

Even if no "disproof" were supplied, it does not make the claim ipso facto proven.

 

[dad]

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

No, she saw it. She told of it. It doesn't get any better than that. I use eyewitness in the literal way, not some silly modern legalistic sense.

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

Sons of man? Where would they not be??

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.

No, if Eve had daughters, Adam could get them pregnant. Sons are no problem.

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.

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"

Was there a point here somewhere?

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

Work #1;

The clues cannot be seen properly by pagans, or others who assume there was no God, and that this universe is the one that is forever.

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...

I don't reject either. Nice try.

 

[dad]

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).

Right. This was important to Eve.

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.

Great. They had to come from somewhere.

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.

Great, thanks. That should clinch the issue, for reasonable men.

 

[dad]

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

Well, I don't know that. Do you? If so, prove it.

 

[Vene]

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.

Oh good. So, then I guess that since the rate of radioactive decay hasn't changed it means that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

 

[Vene]

No, if Eve had daughters, Adam could get them pregnant. Sons are no problem.

Hey look, it's incest!

The clues cannot be seen properly by pagans, or others who assume there was no God, and that this universe is the one that is forever.

Oh dear, we have a problem now. First off, many Christians reject creationism completely (there are a few in this very thread). Second, that completely destroys objectivity. And third, early geologists went out looking for evidence of the global flood and come up with nothing.

 

[dad]

Remember the bold part and watch:

OK.

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.

Well, there is evidence that is where God put men. To assume He stuck us in a paradise that was uninhabitable is the ultimate in absurdity.

The man whom he had formed... one the sixth day.

Yes, I think most know that. Point????

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

The garden, far as I can tell was planted on day 3. Man put in it a few days later. I see no reason to assume otherwise. Your confusion seems to lie in thinking that chapter 2 is some created order. No. Not at all. It was all done already at the start of the chapter. So, the garden was not planted after we were created, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes more sense to me to assume that the plants created on day three was at the same day as the planting of the garden. Now, if someone wants to assume He made the seeds, and then planted most in Eden, that is fine as well.
Piece of cake.

 

[dad]

Oh good. So, then I guess that since the rate of radioactive decay hasn't changed it means that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

No, there was no decay, therefore no rate of decay to change, if there was no decay pre split.

 

[dad]

Hey look, it's incest!

No, incest is a present state thing, it never existed back then.

Oh dear, we have a problem now. First off, many Christians reject creationism completely (there are a few in this very thread).

That is no problem. They are gullible.

Second, that completely destroys objectivity.

Only where the object assumed is a same state past.

And third, early geologists went out looking for evidence of the global flood and come up with nothing.

They were barking up the wrong tree. They didn't know what to look for.

 

[Vene]

No, incest is a present state thing, it never existed back then.

By definition a man having sex with his daughter is incest. What definition are you using?

That is no problem. They are gullible.


Only where the object assumed is a same state past.

They were barking up the wrong tree. They didn't know what to look for.

And you start with the assumption that the Bible is 100% true. How do we know that your assumption is valid and that you aren't the gullible one? And why is it that these misguided geologists set the groundwork that allows for modern geologists to find oil deposits? They still are using the model that says there was never a global flood.

No, there was no decay, therefore no rate of decay to change, if there was no decay pre split.

Then why is it that we find that in various dating methods we (referring to scientists in general) find a constant rate of decay and by extrapolating it back we are able to set it at dates older than 6000 years?

 

[dad]

POINT OF ORDER: I've not been following this debate but I would like to interject that no one is ever required to prove a negative.

Great. That is why I stay positive.

It is up to the claimant to prove the positive statement, it is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove a claim in order for the claim to carry a necessary "truth".

Bible rules are not science rules. If you want to be negative and posit a case that leaves God a liar, you need to prove it. New rules, deal with it.

Even if no "disproof" were supplied, it does not make the claim ipso facto proven.

Or versa visa.

 

[dad]

By definition a man having sex with his daughter is incest. What definition are you using?

That definition never existed back then. So they never used it. It exists now, we use it.

And you start with the assumption that the Bible is 100% true. How do we know that your assumption is valid and that you aren't the gullible one?

You don't.

And why is it that these misguided geologists set the groundwork that allows for modern geologists to find oil deposits? They still are using the model that says there was never a global flood.

They dug around in the muck and rocks, and detected a pattern. The pattern is pretty good, how it got there is a fable, as they tell it.

Then why is it that we find that in various dating methods we (referring to scientists in general) find a constant rate of decay and by extrapolating it back we are able to set it at dates older than 6000 years?

Because the universe was not the same, present decay cannot extend into the past.

 

[Vene]

That definition never existed back then. So they never used it. It exists now, we use it.

But the action did exist. They also didn't speak English then, does this mean that we can't discuss their actions using English? I am speaking of an action, namely a man having intercourse with his daughter. Do you support this?

You don't.

Then why should I listen to you?

They dug around in the muck and rocks, and detected a pattern. The pattern is pretty good, how it got there is a fable, as they tell it.

I'll be honest, I'm not a student of geology. However, I will look at a post here by a man who does know geology. To sum it up briefly, he states that a natural geologic formation (the Grand Canyon) could not have been formed by flood waters, but instead only by the slow erosion of a river running through it. He then compares it's features to that we should expect by observing the effects of other floods and the canyon's inconsistency to them.

Because the universe was not the same, present decay cannot extend into the past.

What changed it and where is your evidence?

 

[Naraoia]

That is no problem. They are gullible.

Give me a break.

They were barking up the wrong tree. They didn't know what to look for.

This seems to suggest you do. Pray enlighten us.

 

[Naraoia]

Because the universe was not the same, present decay cannot extend into the past.

How do you get amounts of decay that consistently indicate very old ages if decay only started a few thousand years ago?

 

[dad]

But the action did exist. They also didn't speak English then, does this mean that we can't discuss their actions using English? I am speaking of an action, namely a man having intercourse with his daughter. Do you support this?

I think it happened. It was called multiplying. Whether brother sister, or parental, I see no limits in the bible at the time. Do you? If so, show us.

Then why should I listen to you?

Why listen to anyone?

I'll be honest, I'm not a student of geology. However, I will look at a post here by a man who does know geology. To sum it up briefly, he states that a natural geologic formation (the Grand Canyon) could not have been formed by flood waters, but instead only by the slow erosion of a river running through it.

I do not say it was flood. So?? Neither was it slow, but since you don't know much about it, as you say, I doubt you could mount a case for that one!

What changed it and where is your evidence?

How was it the same, and not changed, and where is you evidence? The bible indicates it was different in many ways. There is no reason to accept your negative claim.

 

[dad]

How do you get amounts of decay that consistently indicate very old ages if decay only started a few thousand years ago?

Easy. The daughter material did not get there as a result of decay as it now does get there.

 

[dad]

Give me a break.
This seems to suggest you do. Pray enlighten us.

The flood was small potatoes, compared to a universe state change. We need to account for the many changes that came from that, AFTER the flood. Such as possibly the ice age, mountain building, rapid continental movement, etc. They assumed that the flood was the big event that most recently happened. They came up empty.

 

[Vene]

I think it happened. It was called multiplying. Whether brother sister, or parental, I see no limits in the bible at the time. Do you? If so, show us.

Simple genetics says you fail. You see, all humans have a pair of alleles for variation within their chromosomes. Even assuming that Adam and Eve each had the maximum amount of variation (for a total of 4 different variations on each trait) it does not account for the variety that we currently see. Mutations may have provided some, but 6000 years is not enough time considering the length of each generation for humans (even worse if you think that Adam lived to be 900 years old).

Why listen to anyone?

To further understanding of a subject. But, in this case, you have not convinced me that you have any idea what you're talking about.

I do not say it was flood. So?? Neither was it slow, but since you don't know much about it, as you say, I doubt you could mount a case for that one!

Which is why I directed you to posts from a man who does know about the subject.

[/quote]How was it the same, and not changed, and where is you evidence? The bible indicates it was different in many ways. There is no reason to accept your negative claim.[/quote]
The evidence is that we have not observed a difference in the rate of decay. Without anything to suggest that there was a difference there is no reason to assume so. And as for the Bible, it was written by men who thought that having cattle mate in the presence of stripped sticks brings stripped offspring.
[bible]Genesis 30:37-39[/bible]
I am not going to that book for scientific knowledge if that is what they think.