Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[AV1611VET]

Who recorded the six days of creation?

Adam.

 

[Bradskii]

Adam.

He wasn't there when it happened. Maybe he just used the evidence. Or maybe God sat him down and said 'Listen, I need you to remember what I'm about to tell you. OK? It's important. Someone's going to write it all down in a book. What's a book? Look, that's not important. First, there was.light...'

 

[AV1611VET]

He wasn't there when it happened.

That is correct.

Maybe he just used the evidence.

Eight times Adam records God directly ("And God said ..."), when as yet he didn't exist. So he did it after the fact.

Or maybe God sat him down and said 'Listen, I need you to remember what I'm about to tell you. OK? It's important.

Genesis 3:8a And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:

It is the consensus of opinion that this was a daily occurrence: sweet fellowship with the Creator on a quotidian basis.

Others did it too:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Someone's going to write it all down in a book. What's a book? Look, that's not important. First, there was light...'

Your sarcasm is clouding your understanding.

Adam was created and given a home, a job, and a wife: i.e., maturity without a history.

He also had a command of the English language.

It seems inconceivable to me that he didn't know what a book was.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

 

[Bradskii]

He also had a command of the English language.

And the Saxon language no doubt. As the Jacobean English version of the bible contains a large percentage of Saxon grammar. Which may confuse some people - Adam knowing the language of a country that wouldn't exist until the 8th century. Who would have guessed that Adam and Eve were conversing in an early version of German.

The things we discover on the interweb...

 

[AV1611VET]

And the Saxon language no doubt. As the Jacobean English version of the bible contains a large percentage of Saxon grammar. Which may confuse some people - Adam knowing the language of a country that wouldn't exist until the 8th century. Who would have guessed that Adam and Eve were conversing in an early version of German.

The things we discover on the interweb...

Like I said, your sarcasm is clouding your understanding.

Or maybe it's the other way around.

Your lack of understanding is generating your sarcasm.

Either way, your cause-and-effect is biting you on your rear end.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Like I said, your sarcasm is clouding your understanding.

Or maybe it's the other way around.

Your lack of understanding is generating your sarcasm.

Either way, your cause-and-effect is biting you on your rear end.

Who knew that Adam would write a story with the political needs of a future king of England in mind? Or that the Hebrews would translate that story in a way that ensured an exact reversal of that translation hundreds of years later when said king commissioned his translation.

GWIMW

 

[Bradskii]

Like I said, your sarcasm is clouding your understanding.

Or maybe it's the other way around.

Your lack of understanding is generating your sarcasm.

Either way, your cause-and-effect is biting you on your rear end.

That's not sarcasm. Presumably your claim that Adam knew English is tied in to the claim that the bible was originally written in Jacobean English. It must have been the patois of the day in Adam's time. And the Jacobean bible, as translated by Tyndale, used a great deal of Saxon vocabulary. It was during the time of the change between old english and the more modern version. So Adam would have - must have, known some Saxon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, your sarcasm is clouding your understanding.

Or maybe it's the other way around.

Your lack of understanding is generating your sarcasm.

Either way, your cause-and-effect is biting you on your rear end.

Who knew that Adam would write a story with the political needs of a future king of England in mind? Or that the Hebrews would translate that story in a way that ensured an exact reversal of that translation hundreds of years later when said king commissioned his translation.

GWIMW

Ditto for you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ditto for you.

That's the ticket - avoid addressing the problem by pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[Bradskii]

Ditto for you.

No, we should pursue this. What type of English did Adam speak? The version in which the bible was originally written? I won't bother you with the sort of accent he might have had.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not sarcasm. Presumably your claim that Adam knew English is tied in to the claim that the bible was originally written in Jacobean English. It must have been the patois of the day in Adam's time. And the Jacobean bible, as translated by Tyndale, used a great deal of Saxon vocabulary. It was during the time of the change between old english and the more modern version. So Adam would have - must have, known some Saxon.

You make a post that you don't understand how Adam could have written Genesis 1, when he hadn't been created yet.

I explain how, but instead of a light bulb coming on, you want to take a minor point and dwell on it.

You're not here to learn, are you?

You want to ask good questions ... and they usually are ... but in reality, you're just baiting for ridicule.

That's sad.

But the Bible predicts it.

 

[Job 33:6]

What if you were redpilled into seeing that Darwinism's interpretation of the evidence is wrong? The evidence doesn't speak for itself, especially since no human was around to record what happened. The evidence must be interpreted by our presuppositions.

As someone else's noted, feel free to share these presuppositions .

Some people suggest that because we weren't around in the past, that we cannot know if the planet is old or young.

I think the simplest way to explain old earth geology is to describe basic features of the earth, and to relate these features to principals and laws of relative dating.

For example, let's say we have a formation with 5,000,000 varves in it. Such as the green river formation.

In a young earth view, we might be led to believe that all of these varves formed, perhaps a single year. Which would be about 13,000 varves per day. Or 570 varves per hour, or 9 varves per minute.

Wha'ts worth noting is that, we also have things like animal trackways and feeding trace fossils between these layers. So to suggest that 9 formed per minute just doesn't make any sense. And with a formation that is 2,000+ feet in thickness, we might be looking at about 5 feet of deposited sediment every day. So of course it wouldn't make any sense to have fossil trackways of birds walking through it or feeding trace fossils through it either, suggesting that birds were grazing in the middle of it's deposition. Surely they would be instantly buried while walking around.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/27920/Hogue_ku_0099M_15856_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&ved=2ahUKEwiThtj3xfvwAhXMVc0KHY-SBQEQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3zsjaryo5PIx1XZaq-GEeG


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/27920/Hogue_ku_0099M_15856_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&ved=2ahUKEwiThtj3xfvwAhXMVc0KHY-SBQEQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3zsjaryo5PIx1XZaq-GEeG

And sometimes we might hear young earthers say, well maybe multiple varves formed in a single year, or maybe they were deposited for more than a year.

But even if we assumed that perhaps this formation was deposited over a 100 years long flood, it still doesn't make any sense. 5,000,000 varves over 100 years is 50,000 varves per year, or 137 varves per day, or 20 feet of deposition per year, or a little over half an inch of deposition per day. Still an environment in which we couldn't logically have animals wandering around grazing in the middle of it. These birds would hypothetically be walking around under water and literally walking around at light speed to get their tracks in fast enough before they got buried.

But it gets worse. Maybe this isn't simple enough for young earthers or doesn't seem explicit enough.

When we look closer, we come to find fossiliferous beds of this green river formation are observed in the shapes of prehistoric lakes, oval shaped deposits. Why would they be in the shape of lakes?

When we look further, we see that the center of these lake shaped deposits contain anoxic deposits toward their center, while deposits further toward he edge of these lakes appear to be oxidized. Why would oxygen be found in shallow portions of the lake shaped deposits, but not in deeper parts toward the center? It just so happens to appear just as typical lakes do where there is less oxygen in deeper portions.

Then we look further and we only find fossils of things like small freshwater fish, insects and birds within these lake shaped deposits. Why don't we find any sea or ocean related water animals? Whales, sharks, corals, squids etc.? Why do we only find animals that we might expect to live around a lake?

And it gets even worse for young earthers, when we realize that the green river formation consists of just a small sliver of an overall far thicker geologic column with even more obstacles for young earthers to face (see the shallow orange layer in the cross section below).

By all accounts, anyone who's honest about the discussion would come to conclude that these are simply prehistoric lakes, and that a lot of time passed for their deposition. And for people who are familiar with geology, we know that there are innumerable examples of geologic structures and features similar to the above, that simply logically could not form in anything less than millions of years.

James Hutton could see this at siccar point back in the 1700s, what is the excuse of young earthers?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the ticket - avoid addressing the problem by pretending it doesn't exist.

What problem?

You can pretend anything is a "problem" to keep from having to turn a light on, can't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we should pursue this. What type of English did Adam speak? The version in which the bible was originally written? I won't bother you with the sort of accent he might have had.

Did Adam write Genesis 1? if so, how is it he could have done so, when eight times he directly quotes God; yet he wasn't there yet?

 

[Bradskii]

You make a post that you don't understand how Adam could have written Genesis 1, when he hadn't been created yet.

I explain how...

And we'll go with that. And you've told us in what language. I'm asking if it was early English, Jacobean or modern. Because you said the bible was written in Jacobean English. I just want you to confirm that's what he spoke.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just want you to confirm that's what he spoke.

Why? you should know by now, shouldn't you?

But for the record, I'll confirm it.

Now ... back to your mental block please?

 

[Job 33:6]

As someone else's noted, feel free to share these presuppositions .

Some people suggest that because we weren't around in the past, that we cannot know if the planet is old or young.

I think the simplest way to explain old earth geology is to describe basic features of the earth, and to relate these features to principals and laws of relative dating.

For example, let's say we have a formation with 5,000,000 varves in it. Such as the green river formation.

View attachment 300109

In a young earth view, we might be led to believe that all of these varves formed, perhaps a single year. Which would be about 13,000 varves per day. Or 570 varves per hour, or 9 varves per minute.

Wha'ts worth noting is that, we also have things like animal trackways and feeding trace fossils between these layers. So to suggest that 9 formed per minute just doesn't make any sense. And with a formation that is 2,000+ feet in thickness, we might be looking at about 5 feet of deposited sediment every day. So of course it wouldn't make any sense to have fossil trackways of birds walking through it or feeding trace fossils through it either, suggesting that birds were grazing in the middle of it's deposition.
View attachment 300110
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/27920/Hogue_ku_0099M_15856_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&ved=2ahUKEwiThtj3xfvwAhXMVc0KHY-SBQEQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3zsjaryo5PIx1XZaq-GEeG


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/27920/Hogue_ku_0099M_15856_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&ved=2ahUKEwiThtj3xfvwAhXMVc0KHY-SBQEQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3zsjaryo5PIx1XZaq-GEeG

And sometimes we might hear young earthers say, well maybe multiple varves formed in a single year, or maybe they were deposited for more than a year.

But even if we assumed that perhaps this formation was deposited over a 100 years long flood, it still doesn't make any sense. 5,000,000 varves over 100 years is 50,000 varves per year, or 137 varves per day, or 20 feet of deposition per year, or a little over half an inch of deposition per day. Still an environment in which we couldn't logically have animals wandering around grazing in the middle of it.

But it gets worse. Maybe this isn't simple enough for young earthers or doesn't seem explicit enough.

When we look closer, we come to find fossiliferous beds of this green river formation are observed in the shapes of prehistoric lake shaped, oval shaped, deposits. Why would they be in the shape of lakes?
View attachment 300111


When we look further, we see that the center of these lake shaped deposits contain anoxic deposits, while deposits further toward he edge of these lakes appear to be oxidized. Why would oxygen be found in shallow portions of the lake shaped deposits, but not in deeper parts toward the center? It just so happens to appear just as typical lakes do where there is less oxygen in deeper portions.
View attachment 300112


Then we look further and we only find fossils of things like small freshwater fish, insects and birds within these lake shaped deposits. Why don't we find sea or deep marine animals? Whales, sharks, , corals, squids etc.? Why do we only find animals that we might generally expect to live near lakes?

And it gets even worse for young earthers, when we realize that the green river formation consists of just a small sliver of an overall far thicker geologic column with even more obstacles for young earthers to face (see the shallow orange layer in the cross section below).
View attachment 300113


By all accounts, anyone who's honest about the discussion would come to conclude that these are simply prehistoric lakes, and that a lot of time passed for their deposition. And for people who are familiar with geology, we know that there are innumerable examples of geologic structures and features similar to the above, that simply logically could not form in anything less than millions of years.

James Hutton could see this at siccar point back in the 1700s, what is the excuse of young earthers?

And some might ask, well what does all this have to do with evolution?

When we understand that the earth is millions of years old, and we begin viewing the geologic column as a timeline of events, layers on the bottom predate and must have been deposited before layers on the top, therefore fossils in the bottom layers predate fossils in the top layers, then we come to the realization that we have a fossil succession.

And when we look for logical explanations for this fossil succession, indeed, the only explanation that explains it perfectly, is the theory of evolution. With corroborating evidence from ERV phylogenies, comparative anatomy phylogenies, biogeographic distributions, phylogenies related to cytochrome C studies, phylogenies related to protein studies, phylogenies based on DNA similarities and differences, and on and on and on.

Every where we go, every independent field of study we examine, we find the fossil records phylogeny depicted, over and over and over again in fields of study that have nothing to do with geology and everything to do with biology. Meaning that the fossil record is not a product of hydraulic sorting, but rather its a product of biological descent with modification. The fossil record is directly reflected in our biology. And biology is directly reflected in the fossil record.

Meaning that we can literally use our DNA to accurately predict where fossils will be, and how deep they will be in the Earth. The two are intimately entwined. And this only makes sense in light of evolution by common descent.

@Humble_Disciple , and you have a choice to either accept the bold letters above, and to come to terms with what God has created. Or, you will forever be in limbo, where the world will never make sense to you. It's your choice.

Unfortunately a lot of young earthers are not well versed in science and don't understand these concepts. But it's as clear day to anyone familiar with science. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

So we are basically left with two choices. We either accept young earth creationism and literally reject every field of science, or we accept, as the very least, descent with modification by some means of evolution (even if it were evolution guided or controlled by God). And there really is no in-between.

 

[Bradskii]

Why? you should know by now, shouldn't you?

But for the record, I'll confirm it.

Right! Why the reticense? So he must have had a decent knowledge of Saxon vocabulary. That was the point I was making. And maybe he spoke it with a Gloucester accent (Tyndale was from those parts).

As I said, the things we learn online...

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said, the things we learn online...

* cough *

 

[Oneiric1975]

You're not here to learn, are you?

And you're here to teach?