Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

Job 33:6 · May 27, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
It's interesting that the words you state suggest that whales "explosively appeared" 35 million years ago.

Have you pondered why at 35 million years ago, and not 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 million years ago as other animals have?

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?

View attachment 299732

Also, people shouldn't assume that stasis equates to instantaneous appearance. See the following:
View attachment 299733

Preservation plays a key role in what is apparent, preservation of both intermediate fossils, and also preservation of intermediate layers of rock that contain said fossils.

Earth might be 4.56 billion years old, but a stratigraphic succession may only have 5-10,000 feet of column to observe.

If we crammed 1,000,000,000 years into 5,000 feet of rock, imagine how many intermediate forms wouldn't be observed. That's 200,000 years for 1 foot of rock (assuming equal rates of accumulation which doesn't reflect reality).

You could imagine how easy it would be to miss an intermediate form if a speciation event occurs within 200,000 years.

This would of course result in an "appearance" of "jumps" between species. Just as you're describing as your evidence against evolution.

And just one more comment on this @Humble_Disciple , I noted:

"It's interesting that the words you state suggest that whales "explosively appeared" 35 million years ago.

Have you pondered why at 35 million years ago, and not 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 million years ago as other animals have?

Evolution has a perfect answer for why it occurred 35mya and not at any other time. Because whales evolved from ungulate mammals and such mammals didn't evolve until 50 million years ago, and therefore whales had to be younger.

What is your explanation?"

I do still wonder what your thoughts are on this.

Job 33:6 · May 27, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
Well, ya see... the true flowering plants are found in higher strata because they were better swimmers.

<smoke bomb>

Haha. I always pictured something like this:

The flood will never catch me!!!

These seeded plants and flowering plants just running up the side of a mountain. But the non-vascular plants just can't quite keep up.

Estrid · May 27, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
Well, ya see... the true flowering plants are found in higher strata because they were better swimmers.

<smoke bomb>

Nonsense.

See "hydrostatic sorting ".

Humble_Disciple · May 28, 2021

I just finished re-reading the Book of Genesis, and it's clearly written to be interpreted as history. I don't care if the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old or if the flood was local or global, because either way, Genesis is still a historical account. Why do I say this?

The reason is because the genealogies in Genesis would be meaningless and purposeless if they weren't intended to convey historical people. Why go into such detail in portraying mythical figures?

If Adam wasn't a real person, why should we believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real? Genesis makes no distinction between their historicity at all.

Bradskii · May 28, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Why go into such detail in portraying mythical figures?

Rhia and Cronos have birth to Zeus in Crete. Zeus then married Hera and through various extra marital escapes, sired Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Persephone, Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles, Helen of Troy, Minos, and the Muses.

Appalled at the inhumanity of Man be flooded tbe world with the help of his brother Poseidon (think I've heard that story somewhere before).

According to the The Iliad, he sent Agamemnon a dream and is able to partially control his decisions because of the effects of the dream. He then promises his wife to ultimately destroy the City of Troy at the end of the war and be and Poseidon ruin the Achaeans fortress

He prohibits the other Gods from fighting each other and has to return to Mount Ida where he can think over his decision that the Greeks will lose the war but is seduced by Hera and becomes distracted while she helps out the Greeks

When he awakes he realizes that his own brother, Poseidon has been aiding the Greeks, while also sending Hector and Apollo to help fight the Trojans ensuring that the City of Troy will fall.

He's then upset that he couldn't help save Sarpedon's life because it would then contradict his previous decision and is emotionally hurt by the fate of Hector.

He eventually lets the other Gods lend aid to their respective sides in the war and demands that Achilles release the corpse of Hector to be buried honourably.

That's a tiny fraction of the details I could give you about a figure from Greek history. You can use tbe links to find out more. We know more about him then maybe anyone written about in the bible.

What do you think? Was he real or mythical?

Bungle_Bear · May 29, 2021

Bradskii said:
Rhia and Cronos have birth to Zeus in Crete. Zeus then married Hera and through various extra marital escapes, sired Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Persephone, Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles, Helen of Troy, Minos, and the Muses.

Appalled at the inhumanity of Man be flooded tbe world with the help of his brother Poseidon (think I've heard that story somewhere before).

According to the The Iliad, he sent Agamemnon a dream and is able to partially control his decisions because of the effects of the dream. He then promises his wife to ultimately destroy the City of Troy at the end of the war and be and Poseidon ruin the Achaeans fortress

He prohibits the other Gods from fighting each other and has to return to Mount Ida where he can think over his decision that the Greeks will lose the war but is seduced by Hera and becomes distracted while she helps out the Greeks

When he awakes he realizes that his own brother, Poseidon has been aiding the Greeks, while also sending Hector and Apollo to help fight the Trojans ensuring that the City of Troy will fall.

He's then upset that he couldn't help save Sarpedon's life because it would then contradict his previous decision and is emotionally hurt by the fate of Hector.

He eventually lets the other Gods lend aid to their respective sides in the war and demands that Achilles release the corpse of Hector to be buried honourably.

That's a tiny fraction of the details I could give you about a figure from Greek history. You can use tbe links to find out more. We know more about him then maybe anyone written about in the bible.

What do you think? Was he real or mythical?

The British monarchy has genealogy back to Noah. If the Queen is real, Noah must be too.

Bungle_Bear · May 29, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
I just finished re-reading the Book of Genesis, and it's clearly written to be interpreted as history. I don't care if the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old or if the flood was local or global, because either way, Genesis is still a historical account. Why do I say this?

The reason is because the genealogies in Genesis would be meaningless and purposeless if they weren't intended to convey historical people. Why go into such detail in portraying mythical figures?

If Adam wasn't a real person, why should we believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real? Genesis makes no distinction between their historicity at all.

The Japanese emperor can be traced back to Amaterasu, queen of the kami and ruler of the universe. Are you saying Naruhito is not a real person? Or is Amaterasu real?

Bradskii · May 29, 2021

Bungle_Bear said:
The British monarchy has genealogy back to Noah. If the Queen is real, Noah must be too.

If I had a twin sister, then she'd be a direct descendant of Noah and he must have existed. But I don't have a sister, so he cannot have existed. QED.

Let's see Humble pick a hole in that!

KevinT · May 29, 2021

Bradskii said:
C'mon, Kevin. God needed to make an old world in 6 days so that Adam could have his vegetables. How else could He have kept him and Eve fed? He can't just make food appear out of nowhere!

Edit: Oh, sorry. My bad. I've just been told that He can.

I'm not following you here. If God made vegetation (vegetables) on day #3, then everything would be good to go when he made man on day#6. I don't see how this applies to my proposal for mankind living on the world for a very long time before Adam and Eve sinned.

What am I missing in your concerns?

Edit: I just now saw that your account is labeled as "Athiest." So you will then have concerns about the entire creation account not seeming to make sense. I get that. Terraforming a planet in 6 days would be quite an accomplishment!

AV1611VET · May 29, 2021

Bradskii said:
What do you think? Was he real or mythical?

Real.

Bradskii · May 29, 2021

KevinT said:
I'm not following you here. If God made vegetation (vegetables) on day #3, then everything would be good to go when he made man on day#6. I don't see how this applies to my proposal for mankind living on the world for a very long time before Adam and Eve sinned.

What am I missing in your concerns?

Edit: I just now saw that your account is labeled as "Athiest." So you will then have concerns about the entire creation account not seeming to make sense. I get that. Terraforming a planet in 6 days would be quite an accomplishment!

It would be. But some don't think it's enough. Seems that God might have to squeeze some age into the planet even though it took 6 days. So we have a mature planet with all the fruit and veg that Adam would need. Apparently God can't make them fully formed.

Bradskii · May 29, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Real.

A veritable plethora of gods. And goddeses, nymphs, titans, muses...the list goes on.

AV1611VET · May 29, 2021

Bradskii said:
A veritable plethora of gods. And goddeses, nymphs, titans, muses...the list goes on.

If, as some suggest, stars are angels' homes, and assuming we have 200 billion galaxies with 200 billion stars in each one, and a third of the angels followed Lucifer in his rebellion, then:

200 billion x 200 billion / 3 = a veritable plethora of gods.

Estrid · May 29, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
I just finished re-reading the Book of Genesis, and it's clearly written to be interpreted as history. I don't care if the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old or if the flood was local or global, because either way, Genesis is still a historical account. Why do I say this?

The reason is because the genealogies in Genesis would be meaningless and purposeless if they weren't intended to convey historical people. Why go into such detail in portraying mythical figures?

If Adam wasn't a real person, why should we believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real? Genesis makes no distinction between their historicity at all.

Written to be interpreted as history isn't the same as
"Is history". Every cultures mythology is taken
just as seriously, as literal and true.
And, as in the Bible, they may go into tremendous
detail.
They all serve a purpose even if none are real.

Historical accounts are never 100% accurate.
By the time something has been retold, reinterpreted
and told and passed down, the percent of accurate
might be closer to 1 %.

At what percent do they stop being true, accurate,
or, "History", at all?

As for "flood", it is written as "whole earth".
A little splash splash in a local area makes
no sense. No "ark" of stupendous (impossible)
size, no every kind of animal.
World wide definitely did not happen.
Nor did various parables, etc.

If you take everything as history you get unicorns
and talking animals and Jesus is a door.

Does any of this destroy faith?
God is just as real, regardless.

pitabread · May 29, 2021

nevermind

Ophiolite · May 29, 2021

Bradskii said:
That's a tiny fraction of the details I could give you about a figure from Greek history. You can use tbe links to find out more. We know more about him then maybe anyone written about in the bible.

Now you are playing dirty, using facts and logic and reason to destroy an argument that was already teetering on the brink of The Risible Gorge.

Humble_Disciple · May 29, 2021

The New Testament repeatedly affirms Adam as the historical father of all humanity, by whom sin entered the world:

The New Testament assumes a literal creation of Adam. Adam is a type of Christ who is to come:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come (Romans 5:14).

The first Adam became a living being:

And so it is written, The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam a life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45).

For Adam was first formed then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13).

Adam was made from the dust of the earth while Eve was made from the side of Adam. Therefore, Paul can say:

And He has made us one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26).

In , the Apostle Paul discussed the literal bodily resurrection of Christ and of believers. He wrote:

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22).

From the construction For as . . . so also it is clear that if all do not die in Adam, then none shall be made alive in Christ. If Adam is not a literal historical person, then the Christian has no hope of the resurrection. If Adam is merely figurative, then our resurrection is merely figurative. Elsewhere, Paul not only confirms the Genesis account, he relates it to Jesus:

For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Creation Of Eve

The Bible says Eve, the first woman, was created by a supernatural direct act of God. She was made from Adams side. The biblical account of the creation of Eve is rejected by theistic evolutionists. They say man and woman evolved together from some ape-like creature over a span of several million years. However, the writers of the New Testament support the literal truth of this account of Eves creation:

For man is not from woman, but woman from man (1 Corinthians 11:8).
Can Theistic Evolution Solve the Controversy between Creation and Evolution?

If the New Testament is repeatedly wrong about Adam somehow being a mythical figure, including Jesus' genealogy in Luke 3:23-38, how can we trust any historical claims that the New Testament makes about Jesus, including His resurrection?

I don't care if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or 6,000 years old or if there was a local flood or a global flood. I care about honoring the New Testament's repeated affirmation of Adam as the historical father of all humanity.

An evolutionist will point to similarities between chimps and humans and insist that we must share a common ancestor, but a Christian who trusts the New Testament as the bedrock for our salvation will look at the vast differences between chimps and humans that evolution cannot explain.

Reflections on Human Origins
William A. Dembski
version 2.1, 18aug04

ABSTRACT: The evolutionary literature treats the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors as overwhelmingly confirmed. Moreover, this literature defines evolution as an inherently material process without any guidance from an underlying intelligence. This paper reviews the main lines of evidence used to support such a materialist view of human evolution and finds them inadequate. Instead, it argues that an evolutionary process unguided by intelligence cannot adequately account for the remarkable intellectual and moral qualities exhibited among humans. The bottom line is that intelligence has played an indispensable role in human origins...
https://billdembski.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

Bradskii · May 29, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
An evolutionist will point to similarities between chimps and humans and insist that we must share a common ancestor, but a Christian who trusts the New Testament as the bedrock for our salvation will look at the vast differences between chimps and humans that evolution cannot explain.

I see you quoting Demski, so one would assume you accept him as a trusted source. It's good to know that you at least accept his view that the best science available confirms common descent:

"If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it." Teaching Intelligent Design: Dembski, William A.

So be it indeed.

pitabread · May 29, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
An evolutionist will point to similarities between chimps and humans and insist that we must share a common ancestor, but a Christian who trusts the New Testament as the bedrock for our salvation

You know those aren't mutually exclusive, yes?

Or are you in the camp of believing that Christians that accept human common ancestry aren't real Christians?

AV1611VET · May 29, 2021

pitabread said:
Or are you in the camp of believing that Christians that accept human common ancestry aren't real Christians?

Are you in the camp of believing that Atheists that accept God's common design aren't real Atheists?

Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Whoot!

Whoot!

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads