Genesis Chapters 1-14 Theological Foundations

[Jig]

Assyrian makes some good points, not to mention the probability, based on the fact that it's recorded that Noah planted a vineyard after he left the ark, that he took grape seeds on the ark with him. Still, if the flood was global, and the tomato was not introduced into the middle east until the 18th century, then where did the seeds come from? In fact, in 1881, they said it was not cultivated in the region until 40 years prior to that. Look it up on wiki, and follow the references listed below the article. Even more than that, the tomato is native to South America, as is the potato.

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water. Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.

Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting. Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the ark, or accidental inclusions in such food stores (Gen. 6:21).

Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores. The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove (Gen. 8:11) shows that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the ark.

There are many simple, plausible explanations for how plants could have survived the flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of a global flood as described in the Bible based on the tomato or potato plant not being regional.

 

[Assyrian]

Did the sloths cling to dead vegetation too?

 

[Jig]

Did the sloths cling to dead vegetation too?

The South American sloth is a stumbling block for you, huh? You want to know how it got to the ark, huh?

First thing first, obviously the topography of the Earth wasn't what we observe today before the Flood. Sloths (or sloth-kind creatures) may have easily lived in the vicinity of the ark given a vastly different global topography and climate. The fact that they are in South America now, doesn't mean that they were only there then. South America surely didn't even exist. In other words, they may not have needed to travel far to get to the ark.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/328876#ixzz11Tq8BZPq​

 

[shernren]

Ahhhh, but how did they get back?

 

[Jig]

Ahhhh, but how did they get back?

How did humans make it back to South America?

 

[Papias]

Volcanic explosions.

I've heard creationists claim that divine volcanic explosions blasted regional animals to their present locations, because they obviously couldn't have traveled under their own power - too slow, wrong climate, no food, no water, and so on. So....

Sloths - Boom!

Koala bears - Boom!

Ice worms - Boom!

Blind Mexican Cave Salamanders - Boom!

Penguins - Boom!

Blind Mexican Cave Fish- Boom!

and so on, for literally hundreds of cases. It was quite a shower, er.. show.

Papias

P. S. The many, many problems with a literal ark make it clear to anyone we hope to save that if Christians go around claiming that the ark story is literal (like claiming that the pomegranate faced woman is literal), then we are just making Christianity look silly.

More problems are here: Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

 

[Jig]

Volcanic explosions.

I've heard creationists claim that divine volcanic explosions blasted regional animals to their present locations, because they obviously couldn't have traveled under their own power - too slow, wrong climate, no food, no water, and so on. So....

Sloths - Boom!

Koala bears - Boom!

Ice worms - Boom!

Blind Mexican Cave Salamanders - Boom!

Penguins - Boom!

Blind Mexican Cave Fish- Boom!

and so on, for literally hundreds of cases. It was quite a shower, er.. show.

Papias

P. S. The many, many problems with a literal ark make it clear to anyone we hope to save that if Christians go around claiming that the ark story is literal (like claiming that the pomegranate faced woman is literal), then we are just making Christianity look silly.

More problems are here: Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy and acts only as a distraction.

 

[shernren]

How did humans make it back to South America?

Across the Bering Strait, over a few thousand years.

I suspect the sloths would not have taken kindly to such intemperate weather - to say nothing of the tomatoes.

 

[coolguybrad]

Across the Bering Strait, over a few thousand years.

Do you think they were there post flood and pre flood?

 

[Jig]

Across the Bering Strait, over a few thousand years.

I suspect the sloths would not have taken kindly to such intemperate weather - to say nothing of the tomatoes.

The tomato seeds (and others) would not need to migrate like humans and animals - though migrating humans and animals have had a hand in scattering seeds worldwide. In one of my previous post I mentioned how I thought the seeds may have been preserved over the course of the Flood. Some could have been dispersed great distances due to a couple of the preservation means mentioned (e.g. in the stomachs of bloated, floating animals, etc.)

As for the sloth, any number of things could have happened. Your assumptions are NOT based on the actuality of a global flood or include the possibility of supernatural involvement. We have no idea what the climate might have looked like (near or at the Bering Strait) immediately after the Flood. It may have been more accessible and passable.

Either way, I believe that divine migration took place. Just as God divinely directed and migrated the animals He wanted in the ark TO the ark, He might have divinely directed and migrated them to different parts of the new world.

Also, you are suggesting that the sloth we see today would have been the same sloth that exited the ark many thousands of years ago. Just because I am a YEC does not mean I don't believe in micro-evolution or adaption within kinds. I'll suggest that the sloth may have been more capable of such a long journey before adapting to its current South American environment.

 

[shernren]

So basically

As for the sloth, any number of things could have happened. Your assumptions are NOT based on the actuality of a global flood or include the possibility of supernatural involvement. We have no idea what the climate might have looked like (near or at the Bering Strait) immediately after the Flood. It may have been more accessible and passable.

You don't know,

Either way, I believe that divine migration took place. Just as God divinely directed and migrated the animals He wanted in the ark TO the ark, He might have divinely directed and migrated them to different parts of the new world.

You have no idea how,

Also, you are suggesting that the sloth we see today would have been the same sloth that exited the ark many thousands of years ago. Just because I am a YEC does not mean I don't believe in micro-evolution or adaption within kinds. I'll suggest that the sloth may have been more capable of such a long journey before adapting to its current South American environment.

But you're willing to make any number of unfounded assumptions to make it happen.

So why didn't you just say all that? You could've gotten to the point of your post much quicker if you did.

Thing is, I don't get how people like you can coexist with flood geology. How can people who say "The world could have looked like anything after the flood" and the people who say "Feature X/Y/Z proves that the flood happened!" possibly get along? Indeed, I thought YECs knew for sure that the Ice Age occurred right after the Flood - when else could it have occurred? I don't know about you but I think the sloths would have found it hard pressed to make it across a few thousand kilometers of glacier. (To say nothing of the horses. And the piranhas.)

I think Ken Ham is a bigger enemy to you than any of us TEs are. He disagrees with you at many points on what happened to the Earth, and he "believes the Bible" - which must mean that you don't.

 

[Jig]

So basically You don't know, You have no idea how,

I was hypothesizing. I was providing rational answers on how it could have happened. Of course, I don't know how it exactly happened, I wasn't there - and neither were any Darwinianists. My conclusions were directly based on my philosophical world view - just like with Darwinianists.

Thing is, I don't get how people like you can coexist with flood geology. How can people who say "The world could have looked like anything after the flood" and the people who say "Feature X/Y/Z proves that the flood happened!" possibly get along?

Of course no ones knows what it looked like after the Flood - we weren't there. We can hypothesizes about what it may have looked like. There is nothing wrong with that. There is plenty of physical evidence that can be interpreted in support of a global flood.

You may ask me what this evidence is but it would be pointless. You will interpret it differently because you will be viewing it through a completely different philosophical world view then I am. The issue isn't about evidence, the issue is who has the correct interpretation. My world view goes above and beyond what science can provide - my source is special divine revelation: the Bible.

Indeed, I thought YECs knew for sure that the Ice Age occurred right after the Flood - when else could it have occurred? I don't know about you but I think the sloths would have found it hard pressed to make it across a few thousand kilometers of glacier. (To say nothing of the horses. And the piranhas.)
I think Ken Ham is a bigger enemy to you than any of us TEs are. He disagrees with you at many points on what happened to the Earth, and he "believes the Bible" - which must mean that you don't.

It's normal for people to disagree. Many TEs disagree over issues as well. This says nothing about the validity of their position though.

 

[coolguybrad]

It's normal for people to disagree. Many TEs disagree over issues as well. This says nothing about the validity of their position though.

Disagreeing about the different shades of red (TE) is dramatically different than disagreeing about what the differences are between a car and a rock (YEC).

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

It's normal for people to disagree. Many TEs disagree over issues as well. This says nothing about the validity of their position though.

If a field is a pseudoscience, little progress will be made, because they aren't actually studying something and letting the evidence lead them. If a field is a real science, then progress will be made over time.

Evolution has made incredible progress, and as a result, the basics are agreed upon by everyone. Yes, you can find disagreement, but that is at the growing edges - which any scientific field has. For instance, all TE's agree that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, that the geologic time periods are in a specific order from Hadean to Holocene, that hundreds of transitional fossils have been found, on the specific order of evolution of life, that humans didn't live with trilobites nor dinosaurs, but did live with passenger pigeons, and so on. The basics are agreed upon.

OK, what about creationists? They don't have a core set of findings they agree on. Even the basics are still up in the air. Here are some very basic questions they don't agree on:

•Age of the Earth– 4.6 Billion? Millions? 6,000?
•Hyperevolution after flood– Yes? No?
•Macro-evolution– AIG, IDers, Yes, others No.
•Did Noah take all animals? Dinosaurs? What?
•What is a “Kind”?- Species? Family? Genus? Order?
•Humans Evolved from Apes – Behe, etc yes, most no.
•Human or Ape fossils? No agreement on which are human and which are ape.
•Strata formed by Flood? – No? Yes? Sometimes?
•Water Canopy?- Yes? No? Comet?
•All Animals Designed as Vegetarians? AIG & others Yes, many other creationists recognize this as absurd.​

If they were basing conclusions on evidence, then they'd agree on the basics, like the TEs.

Jig, perhaps you can propose core questions that creationists agree on? I listed many that TE's agree on, and could do so for dozens of questions.

Thanks-

Papias

 

[Mallon]

•Age of the Earth– 4.6 Billion? Millions? 6,000?
•Hyperevolution after flood– Yes? No?
•Macro-evolution– AIG, IDers, Yes, others No.
•Did Noah take all animals? Dinosaurs? What?
•What is a “Kind”?- Species? Family? Genus? Order?
•Humans Evolved from Apes – Behe, etc yes, most no.
•Human or Ape fossils? No agreement on which are human and which are ape.
•Strata formed by Flood? – No? Yes? Sometimes?
•Water Canopy?- Yes? No? Comet?
•All Animals Designed as Vegetarians? AIG & others Yes, many other creationists recognize this as absurd.​

Don't forget:
- Dinosaur bones: Real evidence of past history? Placed there by devil to fool humans?

 

[Greg1234]

•Age of the Earth– 4.6 Billion? Millions? 6,000?​

Whether the earth is 600 trillion years old or 2 minutes old, man was created as man. The age of the earth does not affect that fact..

•Hyperevolution after flood– Yes? No?

These recordings are after and secondary to the creation of man.

•Macro-evolution– AIG, IDers, Yes, others No.

Your faction holds that any kind of deterrence in reproduction is an act of speciation. Even if you called the fluctuation in enzyme potency enzymation that would not be evidence that bacteria can turn into men. And all documented cases of referenced activity reveals only creationism.

•Did Noah take all animals? Dinosaurs? What?

Created. Creationism

•What is a “Kind”?- Species? Family? Genus? Order?

Start with 1 Cor 15:39. Thats enough to contend the Darwinist with and your protozoa to people presentation. The rest is being revealed.

•Humans Evolved from Apes – Behe, etc yes, most no.

Man was created as man. Any reference to bacterial ancestry and in between is Darwinism.

•Human or Ape fossils? No agreement on which are human and which are ape.

Created separately. No divergence from beast to men. Creationism

•Strata formed by Flood? – No? Yes? Sometimes?

The men in the flood were created. The earth encapsulating the flood created. Creationism.

•Water Canopy?- Yes? No? Comet?

The earth was created. Creationism.

•All Animals Designed as Vegetarians? AIG & others Yes, many other creationists recognize this as absurd.

Creationism.
​

We will discuss the details between ourselves in an effort to explore and understand the fact that man was created as man, or Creationism. We don't need the Darwinist poking and distracting with the Darwinian doctrine. Thanks anyways.