Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Speedwell]

Nope, they can form in days or weeks, many layers even at the same time.

Or years, or centuries. And geologists know how to tell the difference.

 

[Hieronymus]

LOL! You seem to have an obsession about science,

So you still haven't noticed it is the popular science community that has an obsession with refuting Genesis?

 

[Speedwell]

So you still haven't noticed it is the popular science community that has an obsession with refuting Genesis?

Only because some of you want to shove it up the noses of other people's kids in the public schools.

 

[Hieronymus]

Or years, or centuries. And geologists know how to tell the difference.

To be accepted by the scientific community and be proclaimed through their channels, it has to fit the naturalistic models, which desperately need LOTS of time.

 

[Hieronymus]

Only because some of you want to shove it up the noses of other people's kids in the public schools.

You really have no idea, do you?

 

[Speedwell]

To be accepted by the scientific community and be proclaimed through their channels, it has to fit the naturalistic models, which desperately need LOTS of time.

Yeah, we've seen that argument before: cosmologists are forced to hold on to their old cosmos theory in spite of knowing better so the wicked false theory of evolution has the time it requires and evolution as part of the conspiracy of demonic atheists to deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for their hedonistic lifestyles.

 

[Speedwell]

You really have no idea, do you?

Not a bit. I notice, for instance, that JWs think the Bible tells them that blood transfusions are wrong, but they are not out clamoring for them to be outlawed; likewise Seventh Day Adventists think the Bible tells them not to eat meat, but they are not advocating that meat should be removed from public school cafeterias--and we are not arguing about it in this forum, either. Why are you here?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah, we've seen that argument before: cosmologists are forced to hold on to their old cosmos theory in spite of knowing better so the wicked false theory of evolution has the time it requires and evolution as part of the conspiracy of demonic atheists to deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for their hedonistic lifestyles.

Not my words and you know it.
The answer is familiar to you by now, yet you seem to pretend you don't get it:
Natural(istic) models.
They simply NEED LOTS of time.

 

[Speedwell]

Not my words and you know it.
The answer is familiar to you by now, yet you seem to pretend you don't get it:
Natural(istic) models.
They simply NEED LOTS of time.

Of course they do, and God has all the time in the world. It's you who only has six days.

 

[RickG]

Nope, they can form in days or weeks, many layers even at the same time.

What type of strata forms in days or weeks? Be specific.

 

[Hieronymus]

What type of strata forms in days or weeks? Be specific.

I think that would usually be sand, clay and limestone(sediments) 'sandwich', even multiple 'sandwiches' simultaneously.
It doesn't accumulate top down, but downstream (horizontal stream of water with particles).
But that's what i understand of it.
We saw it happen with Mt St Helen's in a day, but not sure if there was limestone or clay there.

 

[RickG]

I think that would usually be sand, clay and limestone(sediments) 'sandwich', even multiple 'sandwiches' simultaneously.

There are both marine and terrestrial sandstones and they are quite unique in the way they are deposited and appear in the strata. In addition to that there are different types of those sandstones which is unique to the environment in which they were deposited, the type of sand in the sandstone, and particle size. These include detrital constitutents, authigenic minerals, framework grains, matrix, and cement. Each of those are unique in the way they are deposited. This is not assumed, each has been observed in real time. I have even been involved in this myself in the field while studying sedimentary petrology and stratigraphy.

Limestone is a carbonate rock and is totally different from that of sandstones. There are different types of limestone as well that are unique to their deposition, constituents and chemistry. Limestone does not form by any flood process.

Clay is not a rock but it would come under the general classification of sandstones, but not in the since in which you may think. Deposited clay is from very fine particles mostly at river deltas which eventually form shale.

We saw it happen with Mt St Helen's in a day, but not sure if there was limestone or clay there.

No, what we saw are Mt. St Helen's was unconsolidated layers of volcanic ash.

 

[USincognito]

Nope, they can form in days or weeks, many layers even at the same time.

No they can't. Limestone doesn't form in days or weeks. Metamorphic rock doesn't form in days or weeks. Fossils don't form in days or weeks. As always you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you still haven't noticed it is the popular science community that has an obsession with refuting Genesis?

That is a bizarro world statement.

 

[sfs]

Complete nonsense. The text speaks for itself is the basis of scholarship. Using the ancient Near East cultural context is only good if you need it because the text is confusing.

Here's a simple challenge: try reading one of John Walton's books: The Lost World of Genesis One. Walton has a very high view of scripture, is an evangelical and teaches at an Evangelical school, and believes in a historical Adam and Eve. Just read the book and report back to us not just that he's wrong about Genesis, but why he's wrong. I've read plenty by creationists. Have you actually read the views you're rejecting?

The message can be interpreted correctly. We are to set aside bias. That's the point of true scholarship.

Yet we see that the Bible is and has been interpreted very differently, by Christians who appear to have been entirely sincere in their desire to interpret it correctly. Unless your view is that it is straightforward to interpret the Bible correctly, and it just so happens that the correct interpretation is the one embraced by whatever particular 21st century branch of Christianity you reside on, you have to deal with the reality that there are many approaches to interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Walton has a very high view of scripture ...

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Day 1 speaks of time. Even if one thought it was about light, we cannot assume a physicist’s concept of light—we have to think like ancient Israelites. Day 1 contains nothing material.

SOURCE

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And he probably thinks Moses, as an "ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herding, desert nomad," wrote Genesis 1.

 

[sfs]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

I think that's quite as likely as many of your other ideas.

SOURCE

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Yeah, I know. And you know what ancient Israelites meant by the Hebrew word translated "created" better than a Bible scholar and Hebrew expert because. . . why, exactly?

And he probably thinks Moses, as an "ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herding, desert nomad," wrote Genesis 1.

Tut, tut, AV. It sure sounds like you're condemning the man without actually having a clue what you're talking about. No, there's no way Walton would describe Moses that way.

 

[SteveB28]

Actually no. It is based on scholarship. Scholarship lets the text speak for itself. It's only upon outside influences that change ones thoughts about the text. It's called outside bias. And for Genesis this outside bias is usually based upon science. Since science tries to tell us Genesis cannot be accurate therefore their must be another answer. The other answers are usually relegated Genesis being poetry or referring to other uninspired ancient literature. Instead of just letting scripture speak for itself. Of you do there is no other answer. Failure to,take,it at face value is not scholarship but biased thinking not based on scripture but outside influence.

Bias??!

You complain of bias?!

You approach the examination of those scriptures ALREADY CONVINCED that they were written under the inspiration of a god!!

Good grief.....

 

[Speedwell]

Bias??!

You complain of bias?!

You approach the examination of those scriptures ALREADY CONVINCED that they were written under the inspiration of a god!!

Good grief.....

Not only that, he approaches them with a preconceived idea of how they must have been inspired.

 

[rjs330]

Not only that, he approaches them with a preconceived idea of how they must have been inspired.

And just what do you think inspiration means?

But this is precisely what is written: God has prepared things for those who love him that no eye has seen, or ear has heard, or that haven’t crossed the mind of any human being . God has revealed these things to us through the Spirit. The Spirit searches everything, including the depths of God. Who knows a person’s depths except their own spirit that lives in them? In the same way, no one has known the depths of God except God’s Spirit. We haven’t received the world’s spirit but God’s Spirit so that we can know the things given to us by God. These are the things we are talking about—not with words taught by human wisdom but with words taught by the Spirit—we are interpreting spiritual things to spiritual people. But people who are unspiritual don’t accept the things from God’s Spirit. They are foolishness to them and can’t be understood, because they can only be comprehended in a spiritual way. Spiritual people comprehend everything, but they themselves aren’t understood by anyone. Who has known the mind of the Lord, who will advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:9‭-‬16 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.2.9-16.CEB

Note he says words taught by the Holy Spirit. The things they tell us are not just words. They are words taught by the Holy Spirit. Completely different than words taught by culture or other ancient writings.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, there's no way Walton would describe Moses that way.

You sure of that?