A question for Old Earth Creationists

[AV1611VET]

Nah, I simply like tweaking the weak of faith.

Christians who have strong faith can believe in God even if the first two books of the Bible are false. Weak Christians will go to amazing lengths to defend the indefensible.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No kidding?

And what happens?

You either get corrected, or you guys stand around saying stuff like:

Joe: Hey, did you know that gravity is Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]?
Fred: Uh ... ya. Did you know that E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?

Not quite, you have to account for the fact that in physics there are theories which stand on more equal footing than you will see in most other areas of science, so arguments from both sides can be equally valid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite, you have to account for the fact that in physics there are theories which stand on more equal footing than you will see in most other areas of science, so arguments from both sides can be equally valid.

What do you mean?

You mean they actually disagree with each other?

And here I thought science was set in stone!?

So by way of example:

Here, someone can get away with telling us the Flood was local.

But "over there," if that same person were to say the Flood was local, he might have to contend with an argument from someone with a real education in that field?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean?

You mean they actually disagree with each other?

And here I thought science was set in stone!?

So by way of example:

Here, someone can get away with telling us the Flood was local.

But "over there," if that same person were to say the Flood was local, he might have to contend with an argument from someone with a real education in that field?

Nothing is "set in stone" that is a foolish creationist type of idea.

The problem with a local flood is that it makes the Ark superfluous. Since only local creatures would be killed, which leaves man out since he was widespread at the supposed time of the Flood, a local flood would not have solved God's problem. And the evidence is abundantly clear that there was no global flood. In other words it is a lose lose situation for Flood advocates.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What do you mean?

You mean they actually disagree with each other?

And here I thought science was set in stone!?

So by way of example:

Here, someone can get away with telling us the Flood was local.

But "over there," if that same person were to say the Flood was local, he might have to contend with an argument from someone with a real education in that field?

Yes, people disagree, and I am sure there are some legit people in the field of geology who feel a massive flood which impacted the whole of the world could have occurred. You just won't find these people in places like AiG, because they still have careers with some reputation.

But in no area have I seen as much disagreement combined with genuinely intelligent arguments for different perspectives than physics. Biology not so much, some on aging and inheritance patterns, but not a whole lot of stuff there.

 

[RickG]

Taking the part of an Old Earth Creationist for the moment in order to explain the fossil record for them.
Two possibilities:
1. God set up the first life form(s) and the physical laws of the universe such that the resulting reproduction of the life form(s) would be imperfect but not so imperfect as to kill off all the progeny.
God is omniscient so he knew that one of the resultant life forms would have intelligence at a level where they could understand creation and realize there is a God. Once that species developed, God started interacting with it. That process of evolution along with sedimentation produced the fossil record we have.

2. God started the first life form and allowed it to reproduce. Throughout the eons, God fiddled with the DNA a little to push evolution toward humanity. That process of evolution along with sedimentation produced the fossil record we have.

That was actually pretty easy....uh...unless I misunderstood the directive (it really wasn't a question, despite the use of a question mark) in the first post.

Thanks for the response, it is very interesting. But actually, I was wanting someone to explain the fossil record without evolution. The idea behind this inquiry is that there is no need to quantify transitional fossils, they are irrelevant. Simply put, there cannot be a 3.5 Ga fossil record without evolution, which YEC's realize and therefore do everything to discredit dating methods. Of course, with OEC's it poses an even bigger problem. The only solution there is they just appeared "ex nihilo" throughout geologic time.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Thanks for the response, it is very interesting. But actually, I was wanting someone to explain the fossil record without evolution. The idea behind this inquiry is that there is no need to quantify transitional fossils, they are irrelevant. Simply put, there cannot be a 3.5 Ga fossil record without evolution, which YEC's realize and therefore do everything to discredit dating methods. Of course, with OEC's it poses an even bigger problem. The only solution there is they just appeared "ex nihilo" throughout geologic time.

?? Perhaps I don't understand OEC that well. I was under the impression that most were accepting of evolution and worried with reconciling it with the text of Genesis.

 

[RickG]

?? Perhaps I don't understand OEC that well. I was under the impression that most were accepting of evolution and worried with reconciling it with the text of Genesis.

There are versions of OEC both with and without evolution. There is also the GAP theory where they believe Genesis to be literal with the exception that all the earth science happened in a gap between day one and day two, or something like that. As for myself, I find it much easier just to view the creation account as a non literal story, that way there is no need to make science fit where it really doesn't. OEC's and GAP's constantly have to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Queller]

You didn't observe diddly.

You weren't there when Noah disembarked, and you haven't been to Neptune.

In both cases neither were you.

 

[dad]

Taking the part of an Old Earth Creationist for the moment in order to explain the fossil record for them.
Two possibilities:
1. God set up the first life form(s) and the physical laws of the universe such that the resulting reproduction of the life form(s) would be imperfect but not so imperfect as to kill off all the progeny.

That puts OEC squarely outside of God's bible loop. Any relation to creation they claim becomes moot and hypocritical.

2. God started the first life form and allowed it to reproduce.

See above. Creation must mean creation by God of all that He says He created in the bible, and in the times and ways He said.

 

[DerelictJunction]

That puts OEC squarely outside of God's bible loop. Any relation to creation they claim becomes moot and hypocritical.See above. Creation must mean creation by God of all that He says He created in the bible, and in the times and ways He said.

Whatever... I was just responding to the directive from the OP. That you disagree with what OEC's believe doesn't catch anyone by surprise.

Perhaps you could provide your explanation of the ordering in the fossil record from a YEC perspective.

 

[dad]

Whatever... I was just responding to the directive from the OP. That you disagree with what OEC's believe doesn't catch anyone by surprise.

Perhaps you could provide your explanation of the ordering in the fossil record from a YEC perspective.

Sure. Easy to do. God created man and animals bird fish etc one week. That was in the former state. Most animals and man could not fossilize. Many things that could fossilize after death did so, and that is what the fossil record is..a very very partial incomplete sampling of life. The rapid plant growth and rapid ability to evolve also factored into the fossil record, layers could be laid down far faster than we would see today.

One cannot deny the creation by God, if one wants to claim His word is on your side.

 

[RickG]

Sure. Easy to do. God created man and animals bird fish etc one week. That was in the former state.

Explain this former state.

Most animals and man could not fossilize. Many things that could fossilize after death did so, and that is what the fossil record is..a very very partial incomplete sampling of life.

Rather before or after this absurd "former state", it still shows evolution.

The rapid plant growth and rapid ability to evolve also factored into the fossil record, layers could be laid down far faster than we would see today.

Provide evidence for a former state. Scientific evidence.

One cannot deny the creation by God, if one wants to claim His word is on your side.

God's word is in the earth, the physical evidence he provided for us to examine and understand. That physical evidence is uncorruptible by man, conversely, those writings by man is fallible.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure. Easy to do. God created man and animals bird fish etc one week. That was in the former state. Most animals and man could not fossilize.

What is it about humans that make them unable to be fossilized?
What experiments have been run to determine the extent into the animal kingdom that this unfossilizability is prevalent?

Many things that could fossilize after death did so, and that is what the fossil record is..a very very partial incomplete sampling of life.

What is in the bones of the animals that fossilize and is absent in the bones of humans?
Some animals and plants are fossilized in separate layers than other animals and plants. Why weren't these animals and plants able to fossilize in the same layer since they came into existence and lived at the same time?

The rapid plant growth and rapid ability to evolve also factored into the fossil record, layers could be laid down far faster than we would see today.

What is it about the speed of plant growth and the evolving of animals that affects the thickness of the sedimentary layers or the speed at which the sediment is deposited?

One cannot deny the creation by God, if one wants to claim His word is on your side.

Many on this site claim His word and don't deny creation by God. They just differ with you on the mechanism employed by God to do the creating.

 

[Queller]

Explain this former state.

You'll be soooorrrrrrry

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain this former state.

No death.

No entropy.

No spinose structures.

Universe an open system, fueled by Shekinah energy.

 

[Loudmouth]

No death.

No entropy.

No spinose structures.

Universe an open system, fueled by Shekinah energy.

No entropy? Your body would stop functioning without entropy. You do realize that, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No death.

No entropy.

No spinose structures.

Universe an open system, fueled by Shekinah energy.

No entropy? Your body would stop functioning without entropy. You do realize that, don't you?

Did I mention "no death"?

You know: no cessation of telomere activity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did I mention "no death"?

Did I mention no bodily function?

Your metabolism would be like a car that randomly shifted from drive to reverse.

You know: no cessation of telomere activity?

Without entropy, the TCA cycle would move in random directions. You wouldn't be able to metabolize sugars.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I mention no bodily function?

Your metabolism would be like a car that randomly shifted from drive to reverse.



Without entropy, the TCA cycle would move in random directions. You wouldn't be able to metabolize sugars.

It's not called a Different State Past for nothing!