Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[AV1611VET]

You're free to believe whatever you like, no matter how preposterous.

Fair enough?

Fair enough -- thank you.

(For the record though, my wife called me a "smark alec" for asking that.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The science demonstrating an ancient age of the Earth and a lack of a recent global flood have not changed in 200 years of scientific history. The evidence has only piled up higher and higher in that time. Even in 1831 the evidence so strongly contradicted a global flood that Adam Sedgwick recanted, and he was one of the strongest flood geologists. Again, that was in 1831, nearly 200 years ago.

We can agree on the age of the earth being ancient (GAP theory), and we can agree on periodic massive flooding over most areas of the earth. Has science determined when these various floods occurred and if any are as recent as Noah's flood purports to be?

And what flood model was used? Noah's flood was a one-of-a-kind event but no one seems to know exactly how it took place, which would make identifying evidence at least a little difficult, I would think.

Of course the whole question centers on whether one believes that the earth and all things on it happened by chance or were purposely created. If purposely created then there is room for intervention by the creator. If not, then not.

 

[KWCrazy]

You appear to ignore what comes AFTER your emphasis. The verse neither states nor implies that a rainbow had never occurred before. You appear to "prove" your point by simply restating it as fact! Can't you at least provide some kind of EVIDENCE for your position that rainbows were "new" to the earth?

There isn't really any evidence either way. The indication is that it was the first rainbow, as it was established as the covenant between God and man. There are only three other times a rainbow is even mentioned in the Bible: Ezekiel 1:28, Revelation 4:3, and Revelation 10:1. Apparently it's not a very important subject, though each time it is mentioned it is used in the context of God and his sovereign power. Apparently it was quite a big thing after the flood, since there are several verses in the passage which discuss it.

Previously it was noted that in the time of Adam no rain had fallen on the earth. Genesis 2:5-6
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground.

Surely some time between Adam and Noah it rained, but rainbows require sunlight and rain saturated skies at the same time. Did they exist? Is "I have set my bow in the cloud" a description of a new action or old? It could be either. We don't know the saturation of water vapor in the air at the time. The possibility exists that rainbows had been seen before, and the possibilities exist that the flood forever changed the water cycle of the planet. Regardless, it was a sign that God would never AGAIN destroy all ife on the planet.

At "the last supper" Jesus establish the bread and the wine as symbols of "my flesh" and "my blood". Did bread and wine exist prior to having that symbolic significance?

Are we being foolish here?

So why do you believe rainbows were any different?

There are many who believe it was the first rainbow. I frankly have no strong feelings one way or another. Most theologians I have known talked about the rainbow being established after the flood. Does that contradict science? What in the Scriptures doesn't?

For that matter, do you think circumcision had never existed as a custom before Abraham was told that it would be a covenantal sign? (I don't take a strong side either way on that one. Just curious.)

Circumcision and baptism were already in existence before they became part of the covenent. I just find it hard to believe that Noah would be impressed by a rainbow if they were an everyday event, and further, the amount of water on the earth could well have made serious changes to the water cycle.

As to whether the rainbow being a minor side-issue, I was saying it was or wasn't. You had made the assertion that rainbows had never appeared prior to their having covenant significance and I merely observed that there was ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for that position.

Actually the Scriptural debate boils down to whether the verb used was in present tense or past tense. As to to the global flood, there is no doubt it was intended to kill all living land dwellers other than the eight in the ark.

Yet, to make you point, you simply quoted the same passage and somehow "extracted" the imagined fact from the text.

Not at all. I posted a passage instead of a verse to give it proper context. Many people try to post a word or a phrase with no context. I have no problem with anyone reading what I read differently. I have a problem with people misrepresenting what is written.

The fact that God "set his bow in the clouds" says NOTHING about whether the rainbow had existed before.

It depends on the usage of the verb "set." Did He JUST set the bow in the clouds, or did He do it a thousand years before? In context. it appears that God is revealing to Noah something new.

I don't think this will be on the final test either way.

You appear to confuse a RESTATEMENT of your position as if such interpretations constitute EVIDENCE of your positions.

As I've said many times before, I have no problem with people reading the text and coming away with a different conclusion IF their interpretation is based on the Scriptures and not the theories of men.

But in this case you are making the unbiblical claim that if Noah and his predecessors had sprayed water into the air in a fine mist on a sunny day, light would have failed to refract to create prismatic colors. To do, you would have to make claims about the index of refraction which would render Noah and his predecessors effectively blind. After all, how could the lens of an eye operate where the physics of light defies the focusing of light.

How do we know the molecular make-up of the air was the same? How do we know whether morning or afternoon rains were ever followed by bright sunlight?
In the King James version, we read in Genesis 9:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud.

"I do" is an active verb. So is "Shall be." This translation indicates something new.
The New English Translation words it this way: "I will place my rainbow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth."

I will is absolutely an active verb use, meaning it had not been done before.

I find that the creationist tendency to favor tradition over what the Bible actually says often leads them into destroying their own arguments.

Spurious accusation. I eschew tradition.

If it is so "plain", why do so many scholars who read Hebrew point out that the Genesis text says nothing about a global flood?

And now, from the insignificant we denigrate to the lie you will try to pull off without any passages from the Scripture whatever to support your distortions.

And why do they also deny your claim that "every land dwelling thing on the PLANET earth that breathed air" was destroyed?

And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

If they deny the word of God they are false teachers.

As you surely know, everyone agrees that this statement applied to the ERETZ (the land) but not to the PLANET EARTH.

Your statement is a blatant and deliberate falsehood.

Genesis 7:
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Apparently not everyone agrees with you.

Indeed, if the Hebrew text had intended to refer to ALL lands, ERETZ would have been in the plural! But it was not!

You cannot possibly infer a regional flood out of that pasage and be classified as a sentinent person.

Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 3:6
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Luke 17:
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

There exists NO DOUBT that the Bible very specifically describes a global flood that destroyed all of life on the surface of the earth.

I'm curious, when Genesis also says that people from every nation journeyed to Egypt to buy food during the famine, do you consistently and literally interpret that to mean that people from Japan, South Africa, Panama, and Hawaii trekked to buy grain from Joseph?

I'm curious. When the Bible states that the water prevailed 15 cubits above the mountain peaks, do you think that the water could have stacked up in itself to flood one region of the earth and not the other so that your precious theory of evolution could survive?

Why are you questioning whether God lied? God did NOT promise "to never again strike down every living creature". No, he promised to not do so "as I have done"! You have a habit of cutting God's statements short in order to make your case.

Now THAT'S the lie of the year!! I have a tendency to post TOO MUCH, not too little. As you recall, I'm the one who posted all the other verses to bracket the one you posted.

Now if God had NOT struck down every living creature, how could he not vow to do "as I have done?" That makes no sense whatever. You're twisting the Scriptures in a desperate attempt to make them say what you want them to say.

God included the "as I have done" to make clear that (1) he was NOT saying that he would never again render judgment on a massive scale, (2) but he WAS saying that he would not repeat that particular kind of year long flood of Noah's ERETZ and thereby destroy all NEPHESH life within the ERETZ.

Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
Genesis 8 again, in full context:
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22 “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”

In fact, we already established that if God had wished to say that ALL LANDS were subject to the watery judgment, he could have used ERETZ in the plural, as the Biblical text does in other contexts when a much large geographic area was the intention!

I find it amazing that you can strain out so much information and dwell on whether a single word was used in plural or not; like the man who can strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Fortunately, and understanding of Genesis is not required for salvation.

A little common sense needs to be applied here. Dr. Brewer is correct that kol eretz could refer to a limited area. He is also correct that kol ha shama’im appears in Deuteronomy 2:25, where it might not refer to the whole world (though it is certainly arguable that it could refer to the whole world). Where the common sense comes in is to look at all these facts together. Dr. Brewer seems to imagine that a Flood in the region of Mesopotamia could cover “every high hill” to a depth of 15 cubits (Genesis 7:20) and yet remain as a local, albeit very large event. This is simply not credible. It makes far more sense to accept the plain meaning of the text, which is that the water covered the entire planet, covering every high hill. Dr. Brewer suggests that there were mountains visible at the edge of the Flood area, quoting Genesis 8:5-9. In fact, the obvious meaning of this passage is that some mountains had become visible, as the waters were abating.
source

A better definition of the Hebrew word on which your entire belief system hangs can be found here:


Remembering these facts let us consider the book of Genesis. Firstly we are told that God created 'the heavens and the earth (eretz)' (Genesis 1.1). Here the word eretz clearly means 'world' from its context, including land and sea. Then we are told God called the dry land 'eretz' (Genesis 1.10), and this is its meaning for the rest of Genesis 1. Thus ‘eretz’ does not just mean one closely defined thing. Thus in 2.1, 4 the meaning reverts back to 'the whole world'. In 2.5 the meaning is probably 'the dry land' and in 2.6 we are not sure.
Thus already 'eretz' can mean 'the whole world including land and sea' and the 'dry land', for ancient man did not have a multiplicity of words to choose from and his thinking was limited to his environment. He had not become too exact in his expressions. His words conveyed ideas, but not with the exactness of modern language.
In Genesis 12.1 Abram is told by God to go to 'a land (eretz) that I will show you'. Here the meaning of eretz is a particular area of land in contrast to other areas of land. This is a third (and the predominant) meaning of eretz. Even today the Jews see themselves as 'the people of the land (eretz)'. So eretz refers generally to land, and the wider meaning must be decided from its context.
source

 

[Lethe]

Surely some time between Adam and Noah it rained, but rainbows require sunlight and rain saturated skies at the same time. Did they exist? Is "I have set my bow in the cloud" a description of a new action or old? It could be either. We don't know the saturation of water vapor in the air at the time.

Ridiculous.

 

[createdtoworship]

Is the creaition lying when it gives us false evidence?

hello, there has been a misunderstanding on your part regarding this subject. Let me explain.


you can't simply say that God "lied" when a being creates something with age dating factors involved. For example if I were a divine being and I created a tree with a trunk that had 300 rings in it (in one second). It would not be lying by all means. Else-Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man? Or Eve? By your reasoning, God would be a liar in all of these situations!

I mean like the radiometric dating which shows that the Moon is billions of years old. Why did God plant these lies in the rocks?

Why did evolutionists plant these lies....

se I can create a logical fallacy as well. It's not that the evolutionists lied when they dated the above items, it's simply that radiometric dating has flaws like everything else.

I wish it were all this easy, to simply call someone a liar. However this is another appeal to emotion to win over an audience to your persuasion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can agree on the age of the earth being ancient (GAP theory), and we can agree on periodic massive flooding over most areas of the earth. Has science determined when these various floods occurred and if any are as recent as Noah's flood purports to be?

And what flood model was used? Noah's flood was a one-of-a-kind event but no one seems to know exactly how it took place, which would make identifying evidence at least a little difficult, I would think.

Of course the whole question centers on whether one believes that the earth and all things on it happened by chance or were purposely created. If purposely created then there is room for intervention by the creator. If not, then not.

It is wrong to say that there has been "massive periodic flooding" over the surface of the Earth. Yes, many parts were underwater, but that was not a flood. Floods are by definition temporary, even if a flood lasted for a year that is an extremely short span of time. The parts of the Earth that were underwater were underwater for millions of years.

Second, different parts of the Earth were underwater at different times. At no time in the last Billion yeas, yes that is Billion with a B, has all of the Earth been underwater. The dating of the different layers is done with several different methods, though radiometric dating plays a huge roll in the hard numbers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hello, there has been a misunderstanding on your part regarding this subject. Let me explain.


you can't simply say that God "lied" when a being creates something with age dating factors involved. For example if I were a divine being and I created a tree with a trunk that had 300 rings in it (in one second). It would not be lying by all means. Else-Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man? Or Eve? By your reasoning, God would be a liar in all of these situations!




Why did evolutionists plant these lies....

se I can create a logical fallacy as well. It's not that the evolutionists lied when they dated the above items, it's simply that radiometric dating has flaws like everything else.

I wish it were all this easy, to simply call someone a liar. However this is another appeal to emotion to win over an audience to your persuasion.

What "lies"? Without a proper link to an article that is at least based upon peer reviewed science all you have is nonsense.

By the way, none of those dates came from "evolutionists"

 

[Subduction Zone]

And gradyll, here is a little hint to make your argument stronger.

Always include a link when making a claim. Creationists are infamous for lying. In fact certain methods of lying are identified very strongly with creationists. They include quote mining, moving the goal post, and strawman arguments. And then there is the debating method that was named after a creationist, the Gish Gallup.

Much of that can be avoided if you use proper links. Second it is a good idea to avoid known dishonest sites.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

"I do" is an active verb. So is "Shall be." This translation indicates something new.
The New English Translation words it this way: "I will place my rainbow in the clouds, and it will become a guarantee of the covenant between me and the earth."

I will is absolutely an active verb use, meaning it had not been done before.

No. An "active verb" does NOT specify that something had never been done before. I have no idea where you got that strange idea. Not in a Hebrew grammar class, that is for sure.

I don't think you understand grammatical voice.

Moroever, the NET Bible passage does not confirm your claims.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

It's not that the evolutionists lied when they dated the above items, it's simply that radiometric dating has flaws like everything else.

I wish it were all this easy, to simply call someone a liar. However this is another appeal to emotion to win over an audience to your persuasion.

Give us the source on your table and I will explain the lies.

You remind me of a guy who puts a car on blocks, runs the car in gear for days, and then complains that the odometer is an unreliable measurement of distance traveled. And then the same guy claims that the people who rely upon odometers are relying on a flawed device.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

you can't simply say that God "lied" when a being creates something with age dating factors involved. For example if I were a divine being and I created a tree with a trunk that had 300 rings in it (in one second). It would not be lying by all means. Else-Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man? Or Eve? By your reasoning, God would be a liar in all of these situations!

1) Yes, the 300 tree rings would be a deceptive history unless that divine being explained to observes why he had placed a false history into the tree.

2) "Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man?" The Bible makes no such statement. Much as in English, you've confused "man" with "mankind". One is an adult male; the other is a species.

3) The Bible doesn't claim that Eve was created "full grown" either.

So all of your examples are completely arbitrary. You might as well ask, "Suppose God lied. Would you call him a liar?" The Bible says that God doesn't lie and that only the truth is in him. So your contrived examples defy the scriptures.

You've taken a popular myth ---"embedded age" or "appearance of age" ---and elevated it from mere tradition to the level of inerrant scripture. The Bible says NOTHING about "appearance of age." No tree rings. No Adam created a full grown man. No full grown Eve. Time periods/intervals are not provided. All we have is YOM as seven time divisions. The seventh one was clearly not described as 24hours. (The Bible says that the seventh YOM continues.)

Moreover, we know from the evidence in creation itself that the earth is billions of years old and that individual species were not created individually, instantaneously or otherwise.

Hypotheticals have no value as convincing illustrations in this case.

 

[createdtoworship]

What "lies"? Without a proper link to an article that is at least based upon peer reviewed science all you have is nonsense.

By the way, none of those dates came from "evolutionists"

so creationist made such large predictions? I think not. That would be like evolutionists claiming the earth evolved within 10,000 years. It is evident that the dates came from someone not a creationist (evolutionist).

 

[createdtoworship]

1) Yes, the 300 tree rings would be a deceptive history unless that divine being explained to observes why he had placed a false history into the tree.

2) "Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man?" The Bible makes no such statement. Much as in English, you've confused "man" with "mankind". One is an adult male; the other is a species.

3) The Bible doesn't claim that Eve was created "full grown" either.

So all of your examples are completely arbitrary. You might as well ask, "Suppose God lied. Would you call him a liar?" The Bible says that God doesn't lie and that only the truth is in him. So your contrived examples defy the scriptures.

You've taken a popular myth ---"embedded age" or "appearance of age" ---and elevated it from mere tradition to the level of inerrant scripture. The Bible says NOTHING about "appearance of age." No tree rings. No Adam created a full grown man. No full grown Eve. Time periods/intervals are not provided. All we have is YOM as seven time divisions. The seventh one was clearly not described as 24hours. (The Bible says that the seventh YOM continues.)

Moreover, we know from the evidence in creation itself that the earth is billions of years old and that individual species were not created individually, instantaneously or otherwise.

Hypotheticals have no value as convincing illustrations in this case.

soooooooo, you have babies sitting in a garden with no parents?

Did satan babysit?

Sorry to be so harsh, but you view has no Biblical support.

The argument I provided was sound, if God can create a full grown human being and not be a liar, then He can create a tree with 300 annual rings and not be a liar.

You can't have one without the other, and your view has babies abandoned in the Garden which is....

highly unlikely.

 

[createdtoworship]

Creationists are infamous for lying. In fact certain methods of lying are identified very strongly with creationists. They include quote mining, moving the goal post, and strawman arguments. And then there is the debating method that was named after a creationist, the Gish Gallup.

wow thats a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black:

I have personally called out dozens of quote mines by evolutionists (quoting creationists),

I have personally called out several occasions of evolutionists moving the goal posts,

and I have personally called out at least a dozen fallacies per evolutionists in the last week on this thread (at least!)
Notice my lack of the accusation of "lying"

I figure your not lying, because you believe you are right.

Simply misinformed.

Nothing to do with lying.

Give us the source on your table and I will explain the lies.

You remind me of a guy who puts a car on blocks, runs the car in gear for days, and then complains that the odometer is an unreliable measurement of distance traveled. And then the same guy claims that the people who rely upon odometers are relying on a flawed device.

the image doesn't have a source, probably to avoid all the hate mail.

but it is an offshoot of a study done by ICR and some partners. But there are a lot of disinformation already spread about that, so we will move on.

(no need to waste forums time with "He said, She said"

however to answer your question, here is a reputable site (now prove me wrong- instead of "poisoning the well"- of creation sites)

(that would be #13 fallacy commited in last week)

THE CONTEXT of ALL this DEBATE was radiometric dating and it's assumptions:


"Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."

the above clip was from AIG, answers in genesis.com

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

the image doesn't have a source, probably to avoid all the hate mail.

but it is an offshoot of a study done by ICR and some partners. But there are a lot of disinformation already spread about that, so we will move on.

(no need to waste forums time with "He said, She said"

however to answer your question, here is a reputable site (now prove me wrong- instead of "poisoning the well"- of creation sites)

(that would be #13 fallacy commited in last week)

THE CONTEXT of ALL this DEBATE was radiometric dating and it's assumptions:


"Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."

the above clip was from AIG, answers in genesis.com

the image doesn't have a source, probably to avoid all the hate mail.

How convenient. No surprise.

but it is an offshoot of a study done by ICR and some partners.

Sounds like some of the garbage produced by the RATE Project. And soundly debunked.

As for the lame "operational science versus historical science", that is creationist-speak that any real scientist sees right through for the nonsense that it is. That and the radiometric dating denials. Those are nonsense arguments which I'm not about to waste time debunking for the thousandth time. This is grade school debating level. No thanks.

So you can go ahead: declare and imagine yourself the victor and claim that "evolutionists are afraid to debate the issues". Those ICR and AiG "creation science" arguments are thoroughly debunked on TalkOrigins and countless other sites. I'm not going to repeat a thrashing of C.S. nonsense that has already been done. They are boring. I don't debate Kent Hovind and Ken Ham pseudo-science babbling. As a believer, it pains me that both are considered representative of "Christian thinking" and worse yet, "Biblical thinking".

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

soooooooo, you have babies sitting in a garden with no parents?

Did satan babysit?

Sorry to be so harsh, but you view has no Biblical support.
.

Sorry to be so harsh, but your ignorance of the Bible is appalling. Why do you assume that Satan babysat? Do you rule out angels and even God himself? Isn't God omnipotent? How illogical and self-defeating for your case.However, don't young earth creationists solve any problem by saying, "God can do anything he wishes"? Moreover, Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden before having children. Once again you resort to lame arguments.

Remember what Adam said when he first saw Eve. "At last!" The Hebrew word definitely implies that Adam waiting a LOT longer than a few hours. (Perhaps he was waiting out her childhood and maturity?) But if you are going to say Eve grew up in a few hours, is that like the hyper-evolution after the ark landed which produced ALL species of the "horse kind" within 200 years? (That's much faster than any theory of evolution could imagine---yet Ken Ham bristles when anyone calls that Creation Museum exhibit "hyper-evolution".)

But why assume that Adam and Eve had no parents/care-takers at birth? They were FIRST to be HADAM (human) by being the first to be endowed with the Image of God---which creationists have traditionally described in spiritual terms. Genesis and the rest of the Tanakh says that humans as well as all animals come from "the dust of the ground". And yet even you agree that most humans and most other animals have parents! Do you disagree with the Bible when it says that they came from the dust of the ground----and also had parents? Or do you actually realize (and admit to yourself if not to everyone else) that when Genesis 2:7 says that Adam and Eve (ADAM, the humans) came from ingredients in the soil, the text is making that same statement about all living things being made from inorganic ingredients? Tell me, am I "but dust" or did I have parents? You seem to pretend here that one can only have one or the other. I guess if I am formed from the dust of the ground, I had no parents and was never an infant or teenager. (Great logic on your part.)

We know from the human genome that it is based on that of ancestors which also produced the Great Apes of Africa. So we already know that Adam was the end result of a LOT of processes after "the dust of the ground" which provided the ingredients for all life. Even the ERV locations check out. Even the broken Vitamin C gene location checks out. All of the nested hierarchies check out. Why would God try to fool us into noticing COMMON DESCENT in the genome if, in fact, God used COMMON DESIGN (of which there is zero evidence)? It is all just a big deception on the Creator's part. Right?

Yes. I affirm the theory of evolution because the Bible says nothing to deny it and the Creation which God gave us shouts the facts of evolution. So until you come up with either Biblical evidence or evidence from the created world that suggests that evolution did NOT happen nor play any role in the creation of Adam, then we have nothing to talk about. You just have denial and a lot of tired-old AiG arguments on your side, many of which date back to the 1960's and THE GENESIS FLOOD. That book got shredded back then and is in no better position now.

So find someone willing to do remedial debate practice. I don't do reruns. I want to trade posts with someone with a stronger knowledge of the scriptures (preferably in the original tongues, but I'm willing to compromise there if they have reasonable hermeneutical skills) and a knowledge of science which goes beyond Ken Ham cliches and Henry Morris pseudo-science. (I'm not usually so harsh. But when someone is as ill-informed and as illogical as you've displayed on this thread but display such a high level of arrogance, I take my instruction from the Book of Proverbs on how to handle the mocker of instruction and knowledge.)

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

so creationist made such large predictions? I think not. That would be like evolutionists claiming the earth evolved within 10,000 years. It is evident that the dates came from someone not a creationist (evolutionist).

What an absurd excuse for logic. Unbelievable. Is that the best you can do?

(Creationists have always complained that radiometric dating is inconsistent and contradictory of other dating information. And they've used tables much like that one---although there's usually at least one mollusk entry. But that strategy is a lie. Yes. I said it.)

Once again, your tactics have grown boring.

How about we try one more attempt to return to the OP:

Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? [Just because your table of unknown source mentions some mountains doesn't make it relevant.]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is wrong to say that there has been "massive periodic flooding" over the surface of the Earth. Yes, many parts were underwater, but that was not a flood. Floods are by definition temporary, even if a flood lasted for a year that is an extremely short span of time. The parts of the Earth that were underwater were underwater for millions of years.

Second, different parts of the Earth were underwater at different times. At no time in the last Billion yeas, yes that is Billion with a B, has all of the Earth been underwater. The dating of the different layers is done with several different methods, though radiometric dating plays a huge roll in the hard numbers.

But if large amounts of flood water are retained in catchment areas possibly leaving sediments while some drains away causing erosion, with some leaving no evidence at all of its passing, that would leave rather confusing evidence, wouldn't it?

 

[KWCrazy]

1) Yes, the 300 tree rings would be a deceptive history unless that divine being explained to observes why he had placed a false history into the tree.

Why, exactly, do you think God has to explain anything to you?
If a mature tree has 300 rings (which would be pretty old) and God created a mature tree in an instant, how many rings would it have?
If an elephant has a two year gestation and takes ten years to become an adult, how old is a mature elephant the instant God creates it?
If a rock God creates has the same radioactivity of a 10 million year old rock, how old is it the instant God creates it?

You serious, seriously don't know what you're talking about when you accuse God of creating a false history.

2) "Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man?" The Bible makes no such statement. Much as in English, you've confused "man" with "mankind". One is an adult male; the other is a species.

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. 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.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

God was conversing with man the first day, indicating that he, like EVERYTHING ELSE, was created in his mature state.

3) The Bible doesn't claim that Eve was created "full grown" either.

Genesis 2
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

What part of that makes it sound like Eve was a child? She had no mother, did she? She had no father did she? She was called Adam's wife from day one.

Do you ever actually READ the Bible, or do you just make up things about it?

So all of your examples are completely arbitrary.

No they weren't, and your opinion has no basis in Scripture.

You might as well ask, "Suppose God lied. Would you call him a liar?"

He'd never call God a liar. That's what you and the atheists do.

The Bible says that God doesn't lie and that only the truth is in him. So your contrived examples defy the scriptures.

Your statement hs no basis in reality, and it certainly has no basis in the Scriptures. Adam and Eve as babies?? Seriously???

You've taken a popular myth ---"embedded age" or "appearance of age" ---and elevated it from mere tradition to the level of inerrant scripture. The Bible says NOTHING about "appearance of age."

Amazing! You come here mistrepresenting the Scriptures and have the audacity to accuse others of misrepresenting the Scriptures.
“Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,"

"The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

I had to put in there the part about it being the third day so you didn't misrepresent the Scriptures by saying that the land produced seed bearing trees over billions of years.

0 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

So the earth is teeming with living creatures on day five. There were great creatures in the sea, but none of them couldn't POSSIBLY have been created in their mature state as the Scriptures say they were because YOU say they weren't?

All we have is YOM as seven time divisions.

Yet another blatant falsehood. The evening and morning are always the same; one single rotation of the earth; one day. To state otherwise is to repeat a deliberate lie. Yom CAN BE USED to show a time period, such as "In the days of Noah," but when used as it is in Genesis 1 it is always and without exception one calendar day.

You evolutions continue to repeat the same deliberate lies.

The seventh one was clearly not described as 24hours. (The Bible says that the seventh YOM continues.)

Genesis 2:
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.


There is no possible way your statement could be true unless you think God rested for the next 6,000 years.

Moreover, we know from the evidence in creation itself that the earth is billions of years old and that individual species were not created individually, instantaneously or otherwise.

So your position is clear. You absolutely positively do not believe ANYTHING in the Bible if scientists disagree with it.
Here's a question. There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, each one scientifically impossible. Are there any miracles in which you believe?

 

[KWCrazy]

Sorry to be so harsh, but your ignorance of the Bible is appalling.

To which Bible do you refer? Obviously you read a different one than we do.

Why do you assume that Satan babysat? Do you rule out angels and even God himself? Isn't God omnipotent?

"Sorry to be so harsh," but that's the craziest thing I've ever seen in print. Do you serious think Adam and Eve had BABYSITTERS???
I would ask you to demonstrate that in the Scriptures, but I've never even seen that in a comic book.

Remember what Adam said when he first saw Eve. "At last!" The Hebrew word definitely implies that Adam waiting a LOT longer than a few hours. (Perhaps he was waiting out her childhood and maturity?)

I think you're not only reading from an entirely different Bible, I think you're describing an entirely different God. I'm begiinning to wonder here.
Genesis doesn't record Adam's first words to Eve. What it does record him saying is "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

But if you are going to say Eve grew up in a few hours

They were created as man and woman. There is no Bible in existence that I've ever heard of that references them as babies.

But why assume that Adam and Eve had no parents/care-takers at birth?

BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN!!

They were FIRST to be HADAM (human) by being the first to be endowed with the Image of God---which creationists have traditionally described in spiritual terms. Genesis and the rest of the Tanakh says that humans as well as all animals come from "the dust of the ground". And yet even you agree that most humans and most other animals have parents! Do you disagree with the Bible when it says that they came from the dust of the ground----and also had parents?

Why are you here misrepresenting the Scriptures?
Why are you lying about what is clearly written?
Why do you claim that Adam and eve have parents when everything in the Scriptures say otherwise?
Have you not read that Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first man and woman? Is He in your book?

Nothing you say is in the Scriptures. If it were, you could produce the passages to prove it.

Yes. I affirm the theory of evolution because the Bible says nothing to deny it

Either you've never read the Bible or you have a completely different Bible.

I will leave your heresy with the words of 2nd Peter 2:
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment