I thought I had them at the flood, but...

[MartyF]

all the professional scientists I know are deeply committed to finding the truth.

You've never met a scientist in your life.

they refuse to read scientific textbooks, or read thousands of scientific journal papers.

You haven't read one, much less thousands.

tomorrow if they discover that new data contradicts their theory ... then they take their theory and throw it in the trash bin.

No, really. You haven't met a scientist before. You also are completely ignorant about history.

 

[Space Doc]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

 

[Space Doc]

Valetic, you are not far wrong. I struggled with this point long ago before becoming a scientist. Adam was not the first creation. Genesis 1:1 Says: In the beginning. Verse 2 days the earth BECAME FORMLESS AND VOID! Isaiah says God did NOT create it "tohu vs bohu." ( FORMLESS and void) but he created it to be inhabited. Get a Strong s Concordance and Dictionary. Study it for yourself. I wrestled for years knowing God was NOT STUPID! He drowned earth #1 for the same reason as #2. SIN! Demons! Idolatry! We have no Biblical idea when Creation #1 occurred. Millions? Bilions? Some Creationists cringe at the idea of an Old Earth. I authored a book: Evolution, Science or Monkey Business? Evolutionists Loved it! It have them something REAL to think sbout. Some Creationists Hated me! "I was playing into hands of evolutionists! You decide, but get Strongs!

 

[Chips]

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

Sounds about right. Keep building your faith on the foundation of Jesus.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[Yarddog]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

I would ask that you never forget that night that you met Jesus. Scripture is truth though it may not mean what some Christians think, just as it didn't mean what Jews thought it meant.

Jesus Christ is in scripture from the beginning. Why do you think the Gospel of John begins with the same three words that the book of Genesis does, " In the beginning".

Genesis is revelation about Jesus. The world before Jesus was born into the world was chaos and dark. Then came the Light. Jesus fulfilled all.

The two creation stories are God's children's two creations. We are born into the world and then born again as children of God, righteousness.

The 6th day of creation equates to the day that Jesus was crucified. The 6th day, Friday, or as Christians call it, Good Friday. The day when God, Jesus Christ, had completed all of the works that had been set before him to accomplish, except dying for man. As the Gospel of John tells us Jesus' last words before dying were. "It is finished".

There are no other works through which salvation comes except those of Jesus. The 7th day day then has the 2nd creation story, which is man's born again experience, God's rest. Man cannot achieve this through works but must be created righteous by God.

Praise his holy name.
Jesus is Lord.

 

[tdidymas]

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

It seems to me that you are basing your faith in God on a narrow interpretation of Gen. 1, according to your statement here. The Bible is not a science textbook. Our faith in God should be based on what we know the word of God actually says, that is, what is clear about our relationship with Christ. Theories about origins is a side issue, since it is controversial.

I also waver between young and old earth because of evidence I see and well thought out arguments on both sides. I also pay no attention to ridiculous theories and/or analysis that has one or the other as an assumption. However, I have not been willing to spend the overwhelming number of hours to become an expert in geology and other sciences, so I remain on the outskirts of the debate, and I put my belief in origins on the shelf so to speak. But I have read enough to know that in floods, sediment layers are laid over various times from hours to weeks, depending on the turbulence and the density of materials, and possibly other factors. This could also explain separation of fossil types.

On the old Earth side, there are some evidences such as length of time it takes for stalagmites and columns to form in caves, estimated up to 250,000 years. Of course, one would have to examine how that estimation was made, and what assumptions were involved.

But whether young or old Earth, the Bible indicates that the human race is about 6,000 years old. I'm still open for an old Earth geologically, as I theorize that an old creation points to the eternal nature of God. I haven't reached the end of the book yet.
TD

 

[Steve Petersen]

Valetic, you are not far wrong. I struggled with this point long ago before becoming a scientist. Adam was not the first creation. Genesis 1:1 Says: In the beginning. Verse 2 days the earth BECAME FORMLESS AND VOID! Isaiah says God did NOT create it "tohu vs bohu." ( FORMLESS and void) but he created it to be inhabited. Get a Strong s Concordance and Dictionary. Study it for yourself. I wrestled for years knowing God was NOT STUPID! He drowned earth #1 for the same reason as #2. SIN! Demons! Idolatry! We have no Biblical idea when Creation #1 occurred. Millions? Bilions? Some Creationists cringe at the idea of an Old Earth. I authored a book: Evolution, Science or Monkey Business? Evolutionists Loved it! It have them something REAL to think sbout. Some Creationists Hated me! "I was playing into hands of evolutionists! You decide, but get Strongs!

So we should be able to identify Adam's descendants genetically.

 

[Valetic]

Valetic, you are not far wrong. I struggled with this point long ago before becoming a scientist. Adam was not the first creation. Genesis 1:1 Says: In the beginning. Verse 2 days the earth BECAME FORMLESS AND VOID! Isaiah says God did NOT create it "tohu vs bohu." ( FORMLESS and void) but he created it to be inhabited. Get a Strong s Concordance and Dictionary. Study it for yourself. I wrestled for years knowing God was NOT STUPID! He drowned earth #1 for the same reason as #2. SIN! Demons! Idolatry! We have no Biblical idea when Creation #1 occurred. Millions? Bilions? Some Creationists cringe at the idea of an Old Earth. I authored a book: Evolution, Science or Monkey Business? Evolutionists Loved it! It have them something REAL to think sbout. Some Creationists Hated me! "I was playing into hands of evolutionists! You decide, but get Strongs!

This would mean a great evil overcame the power of God in the past and that your God is not all sufficient or enough for us.

I have strongs but the average person needs to be able to read genesis and understand what it means, not jump through hoops to solve divinci's code.

I thank God that you have challenged evolutionists to believe the bible with old earth theories. There is no greater hope in all of this than to open some minds and ears to hear the gospel and believe in Jesus who God raised from the dead.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know but I have a passion for apologetics and I just believe if the bible really is God's word then he should have been able to preserve it through and through and that means If there really was a flood than there should be evidence of that flood and I believe it's out there and that's what I'm out to find so when I come in contact with these atheist or evolutionist and they want to ask me questions about biblical Origins I can have an answer and hopefully open their minds to spread the gospel.

I get that a lot. And it's an easy thing to deal with. Most atheists are generally reasonable and knowledgeable, but there are "fundy atheists" who are more hostile to religion than they are supportive of their own beliefs. They need special care.

If an atheist comes at you with how unlikely a literal flood is, you can deal with him from both directions. There was a flood of Biblical (but not worldwide) proportions in the Middle East at about the right time, and since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, there is that. ("eretz" can mean all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean "global")

On the other hand, there are many Christians who believe the flood is an allegory, and that's an acceptable interpretation as well. So either works.

Generally, that's the last time I hear that objection from that particular atheist. He has nothing to grab onto.

Likewise, you can point out the ancient theologians like Augustine who accepted that the creation week was not a literal history, and point out that on the other hand, no major Christian denomination has ruled out a literal creation week. It's not a requirement for a Christian to believe either of these.

And when you ask him, "which of these do you think is most likely?", he'll end up agreeing with some group of Christians or another. And at that point, there's no point in playing the game, is there?

 

[The Barbarian]

First thing you have to realize is that Evolution is not science.

You're a little confused about the issue. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, which has been confirmed by several independent lines of evidence.

Common descent seems to be what creationists generally think of as evolution, but as you see, it's not. Would you like to learn now we know common descent is true?

It fails every test in science.

You've been misled about that. For example, the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs was formulated according to scientific principles. Huxley noticed homologies between birds and archosaurs (crocodiles) and hypothesized that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs.

Later on, genetic, biochemical, fossil, and embyrological evidence confirmed his hypothesis. As you might know, scientific hypotheses become theories when they are repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Evolution is an alternate creation myth

for those who want to deny the God of Abraham.

Two major errors there. First, the creation story isn't a myth. It's an allegory. Second, Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin The Origin of Species 1872 edition

Evolution, just like other creation myths, gives unseen, mysterious forces which can't be proven

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Natural selection is quite observable, and even measurable. Because it is observable and understandable, it can predict evolutionary outcomes that can be measured.

In Evolution Myth, the unseen, mysterious force is time.

That's a common misconception. Time, in itself, could not produce the variety of life we see. Random variation and natural selection does that. So many creationists have been indoctrinated to believe that evolutionary theory says that time does it all. If you learn nothing else, learn that this misconception is wrong.

God won't send you to hell for being a creationist. He doesn't care whether or not you accept the way He did it. But he does care about people adding new beliefs and claiming one must accept them to be a Christian. Be careful not to do that.

 

[Valetic]

I get that a lot. And it's an easy thing to deal with. Most atheists are generally reasonable and knowledgeable, but there are "fundy atheists" who are more hostile to religion than they are supportive of their own beliefs. They need special care.

If an atheist comes at you with how unlikely a literal flood is, you can deal with him from both directions. There was a flood of Biblical (but not worldwide) proportions in the Middle East at about the right time, and since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, there is that. ("eretz" can mean all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean "global")

On the other hand, there are many Christians who believe the flood is an allegory, and that's an acceptable interpretation as well. So either works.

Generally, that's the last time I hear that objection from that particular atheist. He has nothing to grab onto.

Likewise, you can point out the ancient theologians like Augustine who accepted that the creation week was not a literal history, and point out that on the other hand, no major Christian denomination has ruled out a literal creation week. It's not a requirement for a Christian to believe either of these.

And when you ask him, "which of these do you think is most likely?", he'll end up agreeing with some group of Christians or another. And at that point, there's no point in playing the game, is there?

Actually there is more evidence in the wording of the bible that points to a global flood than a local flood.

I don't think I'd ever get into this topic unless an evolutionist asked me though. Im more concerned about removing the veil so to say, and my studies in this is to remove that veil if it is a stumbling block to believing what the bible says for a person.

I do appreciate your comment though. I just reread genesis 6 and 7 just for you

 

[oldrunner]

That the Genesis flood is a fact, and worldwide is covered in the OT and NT. Jesus gives the example of Noah (Mat.24:38-39). Genesis 6 says God will destroy all flesh that breathes air. 2nd Peter 2, 2-3, confirms only 8 people were saved in the whole Earth. And he also makes the interesting statement, " they deliberately ignore-or are willfully ignorant", of the fact of a world wide flood, this is tied to religious deception of the second coming of Jesus too. That this is not a spiritual battle is being naïve, and you'd do well to think of it as such.

Our foundation has to start right if we are to understand. Ps. 104:8-9, shows that the whole world was changed during the flood. New mountains were formed, new valleys were formed. There are giant mountains under the sea, and deep valleys-when the fountains of the deep was broken up. That this is describing the flood and not the creation event, is seen in verse 9, " You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the Earth".

Knowing this, there should be no wonder why there are certain fossils out of place. And when the water drained off the Earth it dug massive canyons and messed up a uniform table even more. The whole ball of wax is that it happened very quickly, and is young enough that various cultures still have oral and some written history, of the event. The power of water is awesome!

That fact that the Bible states we have "willfully ignorant" people within the Church, that will always side with secular sources to deceive the sheep, should be of no surprise. This because we are continually being warned by the testimony of Scripture of this. A young Earth was never a problem until just recently, when we became smarter than Go.

 

[MartyF]

Blah.blah, blah, blah, blah blah,

blah.

A brief summary of what you wrote.

Ape evolve into human.

Replicate.

That simple.

If you can't do it, I don't want a description of how beautiful your fictional teapot is.

Your writing shows absolutely no understanding - only regurgitated Atheist myth.

Marty

 

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian said: ↑
Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, which has been confirmed by several independent lines of evidence.

Common descent seems to be what creationists generally think of as evolution, but as you see, it's not. Would you like to learn now we know common descent is true?

You've been misled about that. For example, the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs was formulated according to scientific principles. Huxley noticed homologies between birds and archosaurs (crocodiles) and hypothesized that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs.

Later on, genetic, biochemical, fossil, and embyrological evidence confirmed his hypothesis. As you might know, scientific hypotheses become theories when they are repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Two major errors there. First, the creation story isn't a myth. It's an allegory. Second, Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin The Origin of Species 1872 edition

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Natural selection is quite observable, and even measurable. Because it is observable and understandable, it can predict evolutionary outcomes that can be measured.

That's a common misconception. Time, in itself, could not produce the variety of life we see. Random variation and natural selection does that. So many creationists have been indoctrinated to believe that evolutionary theory says that time does it all. If you learn nothing else, learn that this misconception is wrong.

God won't send you to hell for being a creationist. He doesn't care whether or not you accept the way He did it. But he does care about people adding new beliefs and claiming one must accept them to be a Christian. Be careful not to do that.

A brief summary of what you wrote.

I'm thinking we're about to see some creative writing...

Ape evolve into human.

Nope. Didn't say that. See above.

Replicate.

Nope. Didn't say that.

You apparently didn't even read what I wrote, and made up something else, presenting it as my words. That simple.

Your writing shows no comprehension of anything I wrote - only regurgitated creationist doctrines.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

young earth/old earth... I think probably both are wrong. There is a lot of evidence to support a younger earth but 6000 years... maybe not quite.

Genesis is interesting. Everything after Abraham gets really detailed and less mythical but everything before it gets is a lot different and has very mythical flavour to it.

I see the israelites coming out of Egypt with a lot of theological misconceptions that needed fixing but also probably a people rich with various mythical accounts of how things came to be. The stuff about Abraham however was their own stuff that that would be important to them which is why it would be so detailed, the stuff that is more broad probably has greater chance of getting corrupted and borrowed from other cultures/people

Perhaps under the direction of God, Moses took these existing myths and turned them into contextual accounts that proclaims the glory of a monotheistic God and that everything has come from him rather than a pantheon of other deities. It may a focus less concerned about the literal or how things actually happening and more concerned about pointing to the right one.

 

[Valetic]

young earth/old earth... I think probably both are wrong. There is a lot of evidence to support a younger earth but 6000 years... maybe not quite.

Genesis is interesting. Everything after Abraham gets really detailed and less mythical but everything before it gets is a lot different and has very mythical flavour to it.

I see the israelites coming out of Egypt with a lot of theological misconceptions that needed fixing but also probably a people rich with various mythical accounts of how things came to be. The stuff about Abraham however was their own stuff that that would be important to them which is why it would be so detailed, the stuff that is more broad probably has greater chance of getting corrupted and borrowed from other cultures/people

Perhaps under the direction of God, Moses took these existing myths and turned them into contextual accounts that proclaims the glory of a monotheistic God and that everything has come from him rather than a pantheon of other deities. It may a focus less concerned about the literal or how things actually happening and more concerned about pointing to the right one.

I just have one question.

Why would God let Moses record them and let it remain in the Torah if it were not true?

 

[The Barbarian]

Why would God let Moses record them and let it remain in the Torah if it were not true?

Allegorical language doesn't mean it's untrue. It merely means it's not a literal history. History, as we know it, was an alien concept to most ancient cultures until the Greeks began to collect evidence and determine actual events. And that was relatively late, even in Greek culture.

So we shouldn't be trying to impose our concepts on the message God gave to the Israelites before they even had a concept of history.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

How does the plants and animals being separated show time? Doesn’t that show evidence of rapid water burial? We can’t dig in the ground of a forest and find the animals who died the last few years. They decayed away to
nothing.

And why does the age of the earth matter anyway? The bible says the animals are older than man, the earth older than the animals and the solar system older than the earth. Where is an age given for these?

 

[The Barbarian]

How does the plants and animals being separated show time?

Different ages of the strata. Which are determined by physcists, not paleontologists. And of course, the fact that unfolded strata show sequence.

Doesn’t that show evidence of rapid water burial?

That is one of the most common ways vertebrate fossils are made but most invertebrates are fossilized by slow accumulation of sediment. A common form of fossilization is an animal dying, either in a river, or washed down a river by a storm. Where the water slows, such as at a delta, a lot of fossils show up.

We can’t dig in the ground of a forest and find the animals who died the last few years. They decayed away to nothing.

It's one of the reasons we don't have very good data on a lot of forest animals from the past. The acids from fallen leaves make fossilization quite unlikely. Grasslands with rivers is much better. This is why there are so many hominin fossils, compared to those of forest apes.

And why does the age of the earth matter anyway?

It doesn't, as far as salvation is concerned. It matters scientifically, because science is a search for the truth.

The bible says the animals are older than man, the earth older than the animals and the solar system older than the earth. Where is an age given for these?

You're right. That's not what the Bible is about.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Different ages of the strata. Which are determined by physcists, not paleontologists. And of course, the fact that unfolded strata show sequence.

That is one of the most common ways vertebrate fossils are made but most invertebrates are fossilized by slow accumulation of sediment. A common form of fossilization is an animal dying, either in a river, or washed down a river by a storm. Where the water slows, such as at a delta, a lot of fossils show up.

It's one of the reasons we don't have very good data on a lot of forest animals from the past. The acids from fallen leaves make fossilization quite unlikely. Grasslands with rivers is much better. This is why there are so many hominin fossils, compared to those of forest apes.

It doesn't, as far as salvation is concerned. It matters scientifically, because science is a search for the truth.

You're right. That's not what the Bible is about.

Well the only help I can give is that scientists are not at all unbiased. And way too many are far from honest. I can assure you, for example, that dead animals in a lab away from acid rain will decay. Put a few scavengers in the pen and the remains will be gone even faster. Add ants and the like and they’ll be no evidence at all.

I work with scientists and the group they least trust are other scientists. I’d be cautious in trusting them.

Reminds me of the “carbon footprint” scare and I wondered if any of those scientists took grade school biology where one learns that the plants need CO2 to survive and there are whole lot more leaves than people. This is the inconvenient truth they forget and want us to pay money to make CO2 decline. No one asks how money reduces CO2 nor suggests planting more trees.

Also scientists keep changing their “truth.” Today this, tomorrow that.