Did God Create Fossils?

[SkyWriting]

Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Not fish or insects? Frogs? Trees? Olive vines?

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, is that all?

Birds don't need a lot of space.
2000 - 50,000 total animals by some estimates.
If the average animal was the size of a sheep
the the Ark would be less than 1/2 full.
If the animals hibernated in the dark enclosed boat,
they'd use less space and not eat for much of the year.
This would also solve any behavior problems.

 

[Colter]

Not fish or insects? Frogs? Trees? Olive vines?

Everything! Everything except the Satan creature who he condemned and cursed for misleading the whole world to begin with. The authors of the flood myth had no choice but to keep Satan alive to account for the ongoing problems in the world. If God had really created the world in six days out of nothing he could have just destroyed everything and started over seeing how nothing changed other than the Jews creation of a nationalist hero to buttress their chosen people arrogance.

 

[SkyWriting]

Everything! Everything except the Satan creature who he condemned and cursed for misleading the whole world to begin with. The authors of the flood myth had no choice but to keep Satan alive to account for the ongoing problems in the world. If God had really created the world in six days out of nothing he could have just destroyed everything and started over seeing how nothing changed other than the Jews creation of a nationalist hero to buttress their chosen people arrogance.

Not as it reads.
God brought to Noah two of every land animal,
seven of every bird, plus some extra numbers of "clean " animals.
Other than food, plants are not included, water-happy animals, or insects.

 

[Colter]

Not as it reads.
God brought to Noah two of every land animal,
seven of every bird, plus some extra numbers of "clean " animals.
Other than food, plants are not included, water-happy animals, or insects.

Yes, as it reads, the two flood stories merged together leaves confusion.

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.".

Quite clear, the authors didn't think through their revisions very well.

 

[James Wilson]

Oh-my-gosh! Errrrm, the sand came from the ocean? My gosh, how did you ever do work in the nuclear feild with all that young earth radioactive decay????

No, the sand came from the waves breaking upon the lava and then rolling around the larger broken pieces until they ground each other down into sand.

I didn't make up the observation that scientists observed when visiting the island some years after it had been created. Don't make this into an me-against-you thing. It's just an observation by other scientists and reported in mainstream internet news (not a creationist site). I'm merely relaying their observation to you.

 

[James Wilson]

Also NEVER, EVER, ANYWHERE have we found human skeletons with dinosaurs.

My response to Colter starts with the 2nd paragraph below. First I'd like to respond to the AIG reference that Paloma provided. I was a little disappointed in that because I felt the arguments were a little weak until the end. The two best arguments were the total volume of the Flood deposits (or floods' deposits, if you're an evolutionist) significantly dilute any human skeletons, hence they are hard to find, and the living fossils that were missed through most of the fossil record.

These arguments are bordering on a more powerful argument. To this should be added that all the human remains dug out of the fossil record could fit in a single casket. Evolutionists, please don't attack me for this statement, I'm merely quoting from another publication, I believe by Dr. Gish.

To me the most powerful argument is this: Since the fossil record was almost entirely laid down by the Genesis Flood, the seafloor plants and animals are on the bottom (that's why evolutionists think we came from the sea), then the fish come, then the slower moving land animals that cannot move to higher ground, then lastly, man and horses. Some adjustment for settling and buoyancy issues would explain the fossil record in its present form. Again, this quote is not from me, I think it was from The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris.

 

[James Wilson]

On the issue of Noah's Ark, the whole thing began with miracles. Noah knowing the Flood was coming. Then God ordering the animals to enter the Ark two by two without any help from Noah. I'm sure Noah was wondering how this whole thing would be possible, too. But, God makes a way.

Anything we cobble together or even picture, must be predicated upon, God makes a way.

Whether God had the larger animals bring in the eggs of the smaller, we don't know. Whether most of the animals hibernated, we don't know. Whether all the animals not hatched from an egg were babies anyway, so they wouldn't consume as much as an adult, we don't know. Since God allowed 7 pairs of every clean animal, perhaps some of the clean were butchered during the trip to feed the others. But the best argument is, God made a way.

It doesn't do any good to argue with someone who doesn't believe in God or feels God is a weak god. They don't believe that God CAN make a way. But GOD MAKES A WAY!

 

[James Wilson]

What research have you published on evolution? That is the question.

I guess they shouldn't have published Einstein's first publication on relativity because he was a poor student, none of his professors would recommend him for a degreed job and he was working in the patent office as a clerk, a job not needing a degree.

And nobody else can comment in this blog unless they have published works in that area.

And certainly, no one can comment when Hoghead (with 6 books to his name) makes a comment.

Well, praise the Lord for free speech. And praise God that paradigm shifts often come with the scantest of support, often with only one or two proponents, with millions of books written to the contrary. But that's the neat thing about paradigm shifts: a few new assumptions are incorporated into a new model and everything else that came before is miles behind.

When Einstein introduced the Atomic Age with his work, did anybody go back to the hundred books and papers supporting Newtonian Physics? Nope. New paradigm.

In spite of the fact that I don't have to show published papers in order to comment, I will mention four dealing with the weaknesses of dating techniques used to predict a million years into the future (to do this effectively, you must 'predict' into the past many more years than you go into the future). Unfortunately, I also have to give all the data about where they were published or Hoghead will infer they were only done in the creationist venues:

"Problems with Distant Horizons," ESREL'96 - PSAMIII (1996) (International nuclear energy conference)
"The 10,000-Year Debate," Annual ANS Meeting, DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel and Fissile Material Management (1996)
"Uncertainties in Repository Modeling," PSA96 (1996) (International nuclear energy conference)
“Oil exploration under the catastrophist paradigm,” Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Conference, December (2002)

For the last one, I was required to go through a geologist at the National Lab first. He said my work was unpublishable and then sent e-mails to 7 bosses above me in the 7000-person National Lab demanding that I be fired. It's not easy to oppose the techniques used by evolution. Fortunately, the geologist conference accepted the paper I sent, even though they hated creationists (said so in their website).

Hoghead will point out that these are not evolutionist media. Well, I was working for the nuclear industry and it's unlikely they would fund me to go to present at evolutionist conferences. I was also dealing with radiometric dating methods, without which we could not date the earth. And nuclear engineers are quite comfortable with radiometric dating methods.

Imagine we turn this around and say the Hoghead must have printed his books in AIG, and would have to get it past me as his reviewer. How many books do you suppose he would be able to publish in a hostile media?

 

[Colter]

On the issue of Noah's Ark, the whole thing began with miracles. Noah knowing the Flood was coming. Then God ordering the animals to enter the Ark two by two without any help from Noah. I'm sure Noah was wondering how this whole thing would be possible, too. But, God makes a way.

Anything we cobble together or even picture, must be predicated upon, God makes a way.

Whether God had the larger animals bring in the eggs of the smaller, we don't know. Whether most of the animals hibernated, we don't know. Whether all the animals not hatched from an egg were babies anyway, so they wouldn't consume as much as an adult, we don't know. Since God allowed 7 pairs of every clean animal, perhaps some of the clean were butchered during the trip to feed the others. But the best argument is, God made a way.

It doesn't do any good to argue with someone who doesn't believe in God or feels God is a weak god. They don't believe that God CAN make a way. But GOD MAKES A WAY!

No, that's a poor argument. The carnivorous creatures were already eating things that obviously died. There are 2 different flood stories merged together in the Hebrews narrative. One had 2 of every living thing and the other had 7 pairs of clean animals because it was written post Leviticus.

I don't disagree with God at all. It's not me promoting the theory that God regretted his first creation and failed to change the wicked state of the world by drowning everyone but the Jews! I'm just calling out the rediculous story of the Hebrew government.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why, James, did the geologist think your work was unpublishable? What was the topic? I suspect there is much more to this situation than your views on evolution. Also, I am well aware that the scientific community knows the strengths and weaknesses of the measuring instruments used and then how to compensate for that. Everyone knows there are no prefect measuring instruments. My point about publishing is that I don't trust works published by vanity presses and I am seeing that going on in certain creation-science circles. And yes, the smart thing to do is to seek out a journal or publisher compatible with your views. Otherwise, you will get a rejection letter saying your material does not represent the major theme of the journal. Ask me how I know. I don't see the relevance of Einstein here. yes, he initially had real trouble because he didn't have the necessary credentials and, as I recall, wrote a paper only two pages long with no references. Any conference would automatically reject a paper like that. Also, Einstein was a pioneer in ushering in relativity, a concept creation-science continually seeks to debunk.

 

[James Wilson]

No, that's a poor argument. The carnivorous creatures were already eating things that obviously died. There are 2 different flood stories merged together in the Hebrews narrative. One had 2 of every living thing and the other had 7 pairs of clean animals because it was written post Leviticus.

I don't disagree with God at all. It's not me promoting the theory that God regretted his first creation and failed to change the wicked state of the world by drowning everyone but the Jews! I'm just calling out the rediculous story of the Hebrew government.

I understand. You enjoy tearing things apart. I've been there.

I knew all the contradictions in the Bible, chapter and verse. Everything the Higher Critics dreamed up, I accepted as Gospel.

But then I saw something I wanted more than tearing things up. More than trusting that when the Higher Critics said something, it really was honest scholarship and not just trying to prove their prejudices.

I made a deal with God. I'd accept His Bible, His word, and I requested that He would explain the contradictions to me. And He kept up His end of the bargain.

Usually there was a deeper meaning in the contradictions. God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts. They are above your thoughts." So when we start bordering on thinking one of His thoughts, boy does the brain hurt.

Augustine was walking along the beach one day puzzling about the Trinity. He couldn't understand it.
Then he saw a small boy sitting on the sand with a small hole dug in front of him.
The boy was crying.
"What's the matter, little fellow?" asked Augustine.
"I can't fit the whole ocean in this little hole!"
"Don't you KNOW that you can't fit the whole ocean in that little hole?"
"Don't YOU know that the idea of the Trinity is too big to fit into the mind of man?" replied the little boy (an angel in disguise).

As I explained earlier, sometimes God makes things a little harder, so that we would try a little harder. "Without faith you cannot please God."

If you get tired of just tearing things up, try a little faith in God.

 

[James Wilson]

Why, James, did the geologist think your work was unpublishable? What was the topic? I suspect there is much more to this situation than your views on evolution. Also, I am well aware that the scientific community knows the strengths and weaknesses of the measuring instruments used and then how to compensate for that. Everyone knows there are no prefect measuring instruments. My point about publishing is that I don't trust works published by vanity presses and I am seeing that going on in certain creation-science circles. And yes, the smart thing to do is to seek out a journal or publisher compatible with your views. Otherwise, you will get a rejection letter saying your material does not represent the major theme of the journal. Ask me how I know. I don't see the relevance of Einstein here. yes, he initially had real trouble because he didn't have the necessary credentials and, as I recall, wrote a paper only two pages long with no references. Any conference would automatically reject a paper like that. Also, Einstein was a pioneer in ushering in relativity, a concept creation-science continually seeks to debunk.

But Einstein was the first and most famous believer in Intelligent Design.
Einstein believed in a deity (though not the God of the Bible). Einstein said things like,
"God does not play dice with the universe" (when he disagreed with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory and the resulting quantum physics monstrosity of entangled particles, and cats/particles that can be alive and dead at the same time).
"When you encounter a problem you cannot solve, see how you would do it if you were God... then see if He did it that way." (In other words, Einstein used his belief in a god to help him derive technical solutions).
Einstein compared the search for answers to the questions of the universe to a child wandering in a library full of books... full of answers. He said that the child could learn deep mysteries, if he sought them from the hand of the 'librarian' (Einstein's deity).
Perhaps this is why Einstein could confidently proclaim, "If you can't explain your science to a child, you don't understand it." I think he had modern quantum physics in mind when he said this... nobody can explain modern particle physics to 99.99% of the adults on Earth!

Yet Einstein probably wouldn't be welcome in most of the schools in our nation. Especially when even the university students are so fragile they can't bear to see a 'Trump' sign on campus.

 

[Colter]

I understand. You enjoy tearing things apart. I've been there.

I knew all the contradictions in the Bible, chapter and verse. Everything the Higher Critics dreamed up, I accepted as Gospel.

But then I saw something I wanted more than tearing things up. More than trusting that when the Higher Critics said something, it really was honest scholarship and not just trying to prove their prejudices.

I made a deal with God. I'd accept His Bible, His word, and I requested that He would explain the contradictions to me. And He kept up His end of the bargain.

Usually there was a deeper meaning in the contradictions. God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts. They are above your thoughts." So when we start bordering on thinking one of His thoughts, boy does the brain hurt.

Augustine was walking along the beach one day puzzling about the Trinity. He couldn't understand it.
Then he saw a small boy sitting on the sand with a small hole dug in front of him.
The boy was crying.
"What's the matter, little fellow?" asked Augustine.
"I can't fit the whole ocean in this little hole!"
"Don't you KNOW that you can't fit the whole ocean in that little hole?"
"Don't YOU know that the idea of the Trinity is too big to fit into the mind of man?" replied the little boy (an angel in disguise).

As I explained earlier, sometimes God makes things a little harder, so that we would try a little harder. "Without faith you cannot please God."

If you get tired of just tearing things up, try a little faith in God.

I have faith in God, I trust him, but I don't have faith in biblical idolatry, and I don't trust the people who's father was the devil! They wrote some obviously dumb stuff.! The men who wrote about God were not God. The newspaper is not The News, it's funneled through the bias mind of the journalist. So we have to use a little common since.

To combine true things with false things does not make the whole batch true.


As if the flood story is not bad enough on its own merits, no other culture on earth remembers being related to the arrogant people who coopted ancient history to create the chosen people delusion. The false prophets are still sitting in Israel waiting for their idea of a Jewish Messiah who will never come.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, James, why don't you give us a rundown on all the contradictions and show how you have resolved them? Probably you should start with the two contradictory chronologies in Genesis. Why not take a stab at 2 Sa. 21: 19, which in the original says that Elhanan killed Goliath? Also, I am wondering where you studied about the Higher Criticism, if you don't mind my asking.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, as it reads, the two flood stories merged together leaves confusion.

WHen one elaborates on a story, it does not add confusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.".

You missed the narrow qualifier "every creature that has the breath of life in it."

"Breath of life" is a very specific phrase. Not a general one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Quite clear, the authors didn't think through their revisions very well.

We have not one speck of evidence that anyone was asleep at the pen.
All such claims are by sleeping critics.

 

[Colter]

We have not one speck of evidence that anyone was asleep at the pen.
All such claims are by sleeping critics.

Keep telling yourself that and you will keep believing it.

Each time the stories were redacted the editors left signs of the original.

 

[Colter]

You missed the narrow qualifier "every creature that has the breath of life in it."

"Breath of life" is a very specific phrase. Not a general one.

Don't be a politician, have some respect for yourself! "breath of life" is understood to mean all life, that's the point of bringing the living things into the boat because everything else was going to be killed. Even the unsuspecting children in Sunday school would understand that.

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.