Genuine Questions.

[Gander]

When I first joined this forum I was asked a question that I had really not previously given much thought too.
The question was did I believe in a young earth creation or an old earth creation?
At the time I leaned towards an old earth creation with the gap theory being a distinct possibility in my mind. As I said though, I had never given it much thought.
Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.
I do however have some genuine questions. Although I have found plenty of information on the internet, I have not found anyone of authority I can address genuine queries too.
I have therefore decided to put up a couple of my queries on this forum.

My first question is; Following the flood how did fauna (especially large mammals) become distributed across the various continents especially those such as America and Australia that are separated by oceans from the ark's resting place?

Question two;When and why did meat eaters become meat eaters? When did they evolve (horizontally) into carnivors. Pre-flood or post-flood?

Thanks.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

One of the tenants of many who believe that the bible is 'symbolic' in gen 1 is that the flood did not occur as stated.

 

[lucaspa]

Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory.

Can I ask what your 'heavy duty research' has consisted of? You realize that scientists thought that the earth was old long before Darwin published Origin?

My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.

I'm afraid your confidence doesn't come from science, then. But I would ask what you think the "evolutionist theory" is? Rather than "bankrupt", I see evolution explaining more and more phenomenon. Every month, PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, lists about 600 new papers supporting and using evolution. That's a lot of papers for a "bankrupt" theory!

My first question is; Following the flood how did fauna (especially large mammals) become distributed across the various continents especially those such as America and Australia that are separated by oceans from the ark's resting place?

This is one of the pieces of data that falsified young earth creationism in the first place, by helping falsify the Flood. The Flood is necessary in order explain the geological column of sedimentary rock. But geographical distribution of animals can't happen as it does if all animals radiated from the Ark's resting place.

Many creationists invoke land bridges. But that doesn't explain why only marsupials are in Australia and only tenrecs (an order of mammals) is in Madagascar. Yes, kangaroos can hop there and perhaps beat the placental deer and horse there before the land sank again, but what about the marsupial mole and the koala? They can't move that fast and beat the deer and horses!

I suggest you add a couple of books to your reading list:
1. The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young. Both an evangelical Christians and a geologist.
2. Genesis and Geology by CC Gillespie. A historian who goes over how the Flood and YEC were falsified in the period 1790-1850 in England. Notice that this is before Origin of the Species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

I would also suggest you add www.asa.org and http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/index.stm to your list of research places. The last is the Association of Christian Geologists.

 

[Henhouse]

When I first joined this forum I was asked a question that I had really not previously given much thought too.
The question was did I believe in a young earth creation or an old earth creation?
At the time I leaned towards an old earth creation with the gap theory being a distinct possibility in my mind. As I said though, I had never given it much thought.
Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.
I do however have some genuine questions. Although I have found plenty of information on the internet, I have not found anyone of authority I can address genuine queries too.
I have therefore decided to put up a couple of my queries on this forum.

My first question is; Following the flood how did fauna (especially large mammals) become distributed across the various continents especially those such as America and Australia that are separated by oceans from the ark's resting place?

Question two;When and why did meat eaters become meat eaters? When did they evolve (horizontally) into carnivors. Pre-flood or post-flood?

Thanks.

I think most people (those who believe in a WW flood or not) believe in some form of 'land bridge' idea - that at some point in history the continents were conected. THere are many views about when, how, etc.
One view is that the flood coincided with the ice age; there was water everywhere, but some was ice; that way you have the 'land bridge' immediately after the flood (this helps avoid the problem of having more land above water then than now, at a time you may think it should be the other way around). I don't know if this idea is common, or even well thought-out, it just is an idea.

The other question is easier to answer. Gen 9 has God giving permission to eat animals. (post flood). Some people think animals (and maybe people) turned to meat eating before the flood, and that was part of the problem (the earth being filled with violence). I don't like that idea, because you have God destroying people for breaking the rules, then immediately changing that very rule to accomadate them. I dunno, doesn't seem right.

Does this help? (Seems like most of the people in this area of CF are not YEC, so it may be hard to get many opinions from YEC people.)

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Why did you convert YECism... thats horrible ;_;!
You know there is no evidence to support... well any REAL evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

When I first joined this forum I was asked a question that I had really not previously given much thought too.
The question was did I believe in a young earth creation or an old earth creation?
At the time I leaned towards an old earth creation with the gap theory being a distinct possibility in my mind. As I said though, I had never given it much thought.
Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.
I do however have some genuine questions. Although I have found plenty of information on the internet, I have not found anyone of authority I can address genuine queries too.
I have therefore decided to put up a couple of my queries on this forum.

My first question is; Following the flood how did fauna (especially large mammals) become distributed across the various continents especially those such as America and Australia that are separated by oceans from the ark's resting place?

Question two;When and why did meat eaters become meat eaters? When did they evolve (horizontally) into carnivors. Pre-flood or post-flood?

Thanks.

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a lack of good answers for your two questions may have been evidence against a Flood?

 

[Gander]

Why did you convert YECism...

I did not convert. I discovered.

As I wrote in my original post, before I started to really delve into the subject I leaned towards the gap theory. My mind has been made up purely by the scientific evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

Heh... where did you get this "scientific evidence"? Published books or AiG?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Probably the joke site DrDino.com XD!

 

[ThePhoenix]

Probably the joke site DrDino.com XD!

I was about to add "Or, God forbid, Kent Hovind"

 

[Gander]

You realize that scientists thought that the earth was old long before Darwin published Origin?

Proves nothing. They also thought it was flat long before Darwin.

I'm afraid your confidence doesn't come from science, then. But I would ask what you think the "evolutionist theory" is? Rather than "bankrupt", I see evolution explaining more and more phenomenon. Every month, PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, lists about 600 new papers supporting and using evolution. That's a lot of papers for a "bankrupt" theory!

You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence. Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution. In other words evolution is good at writing checks it can not cash.

This is one of the pieces of data that falsified young earth creationism in the first place, by helping falsify the Flood. The Flood is necessary in order explain the geological column of sedimentary rock.

I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.

But geographical distribution of animals can't happen as it does if all animals radiated from the Ark's resting place.

Many creationists invoke land bridges. But that doesn't explain why only marsupials are in Australia and only tenrecs (an order of mammals) is in Madagascar. Yes, kangaroos can hop there and perhaps beat the placental deer and horse there before the land sank again, but what about the marsupial mole and the koala? They can't move that fast and beat the deer and horses!

Since I posted my question I have come across the land bridge theory. I am not convinced yet, as I have not had the time to get into any of the detail of this theory.
It should be noted that evolutionists have the same problem as creationists when it comes to mammal distribution. The fossils of marsupials have been found world wide, therefore there must have been a method of intercontinental travel.


Thanks for the references.

 

[Gander]

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a lack of good answers for your two questions may have been evidence against a Flood?

Congratulations. That is the weakest scientific argument I have ever heard.

You have basically said that because there are gaps in our knowledge concerning a subject, then that proves that that subject does not exist. Mankind would not have discovered much if it had applied this principle.

Please do not take offence at this, but your arguments seemed to be based on prejudice as opposed to a desire to seek the truth.

 

[Gander]

Heh... where did you get this "scientific evidence"? Published books or AiG?

You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.

What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name. Likewise you should not blindly reject material because it is proposed by someone (AiG) who you have some kind of prejudice against.

For your information, I have only just discovered the AiG site. (After my original post).

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Please do not take offence at this, but your arguments seemed to be based on prejudice as opposed to a desire to seek the truth.

Do forgive us, as evolutionists. It is just that we hear the same arguments again... and again, so we fall into our own trends.

You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.

And the physical evidence is taken and organized by what institution? (for those of you who know the answer, it shall soon appear upon your screen)... science.
Also, young earth creationism is also yet another scientific theory, located in books and websites, which is not directly in the physical world, like every other theory.

What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name.

All science is but of assumptions, theories, and explainations. However, we argue that the young earth creationism argument is flawed, and should not be counted as a valid explaination for what it preposes to explain. Theories explain evidence and are treated as true until evidence surfaces that contridicts it. Then, the theory must be revised, in order to better explain the world around us. But, as of now, the number of contridictions in the young earth creationist argument grow constantly, as more and more evidences they present can not be used in this case.

Likewise you should not blindly reject material because it is proposed by someone (AiG) who you have some kind of prejudice against.

I will explain to you why such websites we have prejudice against:

The average young earth creationist continually repeats the same theories and evidences in order to gain support for their case. We have heard the name Answers in Genesis so many times, and so many times it is proven to be wrong in explaining the evidences.

 

[Gander]

Do forgive us, as evolutionists. It is just that we hear the same arguments again... and again, so we fall into our own trends.

At least the creationist argument is consistent.

And the physical evidence is taken and organized by what institution? (for those of you who know the answer, it shall soon appear upon your screen)... science.

Wrong answer. Science is not an institution. Science is purely knowledge. It is people who organise (theorise on) that knowledge. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.

Also, young earth creationism is also yet another scientific theory, located in books and websites, which is not directly in the physical world, like every other theory.

The theories (both evolutionist and creationist) are located in writing, but the actual evidence is in the physical world. What I am saying is that the student should be looking more at the evidence than at the theory. That is not to say that the theory is not important because without knowing the theory you can not test it against the evidence. Without testing the evidence you cannot come to the proof.

All science is but of assumptions, theories, and explainations.

I would strongly dispute that. Take for examples the law of relativety, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics etc. These are not assumptions or theoretical explainations these are science (knowledge) proven in full. They are laws.
Neither evolution or creation can be deemed to be a science in strictly scientific terms because neither of the assumed original conditions are repeatable.
We can only theorise on the cause, but we can test the effects by applying science to the evidence around us. From what I have studied the basic evolutionist model does not fit the evidence, where as the creationist (literal) model does. Yes there are gaps in our understanding (knowledge/science), but that is to be expected. Only God knows everything.

I would like to point out at this point that even if I knew nothing of the theories of creation/evolution, I would believe in creation. Why?

Because I have total faith in Gods word and none in mans understanding.

However, we argue that the young earth creationism argument is flawed, and should not be counted as a valid explaination for what it preposes to explain. Theories explain evidence and are treated as true until evidence surfaces that contridicts it. Then, the theory must be revised, in order to better explain the world around us. But, as of now, the number of contridictions in the young earth creationist argument grow constantly, as more and more evidences they present can not be used in this case.

Yes there have been flaws in creationist theory, yes theories have changed, yes some theories have been disproven sometimes even by creationists. But, for all the gaps and misunderstandings in our knowledge the basic principle of creation has never been disproven. The evidences still far outweigh the problems we might have understanding them.
Evolutionist theory has gone way beyond flawed. It is confused, it is contradictory. There are not gaps in understanding, there are chasms of credulity. There is a total lack of explaination as to the absence of evidence to the foundational theories of evolution.
Evolution is not powered or motivated by any kind of search for true science. It is powered by the desperation of a humanistic society to dismiss God from their existance.
God will not be dismissed. He cannot be disproved. His creation speaks for itself.

I will explain to you why such websites we have prejudice against:

The average young earth creationist continually repeats the same theories and evidences in order to gain support for their case. We have heard the name Answers in Genesis so many times, and so many times it is proven to be wrong in explaining the evidences.

I do not know much about AiG. Please give me an example of something on their website that is proven (not just contested) to be wrong.

 

[Bushido216]

Congratulations. That is the weakest scientific argument I have ever heard.

You have basically said that because there are gaps in our knowledge concerning a subject, then that proves that that subject does not exist. Mankind would not have discovered much if it had applied this principle.

Please do not take offence at this, but your arguments seemed to be based on prejudice as opposed to a desire to seek the truth.

Sigh. It wasn't meant to be the be-all and end-all, you nit, I leave that up to lucaspa.

 

[Bushido216]

You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.

What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name. Likewise you should not blindly reject material because it is proposed by someone (AiG) who you have some kind of prejudice against.

For your information, I have only just discovered the AiG site. (After my original post).

Yes. However, people sometimes cite the material they are using. For instance, lucaspa is citing material. You're not doing that. He's brought the discussion to a level which you cannot attain.

 

[Bushido216]

You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence. Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution. In other words evolution is good at writing checks it can not cash.

I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.

You can't possibly make affirmative statements like that without backing them up with EVIDENCE. Ya know, the EVIDENCE you claim to have?

 

[bdfoster]

Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.

Hi Gander
I've been reading this thread and I am also engaged in fairly heavy duty research into the subject. It's hard to believe that intelligent people can look so hard at the same issue and settle on such opposite positions, but they sure can. But you've said that old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt. I don't see how someone who has thouroughly researched the scientific positions can say that. All through this thread you have said that the old earth positions are lacking in "actual scientific evidence". Aren't you aware of dry-land indicators in the geologic record? Things like paleosols, mudcracks, footprints of air-breathing animals, angular unconformities etc. all document extended periods of exposure to the atmosphere. These occur commonly throughout the geologic record and are a stake through the heart of flood geology.

I really have done some heavy duty research into the subject and I have yet to see any "actual scientific evidence" in favor of a young earth.

 

[hesalive]

[/I suggest you add a couple of books to your reading list:
]

I would like to suggest one book. The Bible. It seems odd that one can look at this book as just a poetic or figurative writing. It would seem to me that our creator would be capable of conveying truth to us in a way that would not require a PHD and years of analysis to understand the main points. By what measure do we decide what is literal and what is figurative? Is Jesus Christ literal or is He figurative as well?

As I have listened to the debate about this topic (young versus old) I find that the basis for both sides is "literal versus figurative" on this topic as well as many others. What I do not find is a yardstick by which the jump from literal to figuative is measured. What say ye?