My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah, I think a lot of what we come to understand as "laws that govern the universe" may not be wholly (100% of the time) consistent to our understanding.

They are quite consistent. Astronomical measurement of distant quasar emission lines show that the physical constants have changed from very very little to not at all in the last ~10 billion years.

Now what exactly Venus is;

It's a rocky planet of similar radius, mass, and density as the Earth.

is a good question because nothing can get through the atmosphere to know is it like unto the structure of this planet?

We can only directly probe about 0.1% of the radius of the Earth, but we know what it is made of: Fe/Ni core, rocky mantle, + crust. Venus is very similar and the measurements are done in similar fashion, though we obviously know much more about the interior of the Earth than just the basic radial structure and composition.

The assumption is the atmosphere is nitric acid.

It's actually sulfuric acid and we know that because we can measure the spectrum of the Venusian atmosphere.

Which... is that what makes comets "glow"? (I don't know?)

Comets "glow" in optical light reflected from the Sun of the cloud of ice crystals that erupt from the comets. (They also glow in x-rays due to some fun charge transfer reactions with the solar wind, but that's a different story.)

I wonder too, if Venus is a comet that hit what ever planet had become the asteroid belt. (That would make sense too.)

It is not, and it would not make sense. The asteroid belt is outside the orbit of Mars, not inside the orbit of Earth where Venus is. Comets strike planets all of the time and it is more like the comet is the insect as the planet is to the windshield of your car. Splat!

There's some interesting archeology on planet earth. I ran across an article; at least a decade ago now that stated that under X amount of feet of mud in China; they found a civilization that had writing that looked like cuneiform.

Interesting, perhaps it actually was cuneiform, or it was just a writing system that used groups of straight lines or marks.

(The precursor to Hebrew.)

Cuneiform is not the precursor to the Hebrew script. The pre-Caananite script derives from simplified hieroglyphs.

Obviously this is different than the style of writing China used in subsequent centuries. Which makes me wonder? We know "where" Noah's ark "landed" (or at least the name of the mountain; yet was Ararat in ancient times where it is today? (Not sure we know?) Could Noah have started in what is today China?

There's another theory that an asteroid hit the basin that became the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm sure many have, but the Gulf of Mexico is not a crater. Even the famous crater of 65 Million years ago that wiped out the dinos is but a small fraction of the size of the Gulf. (It is not even as wide as the near by Yucatan.

If that is true; that would make sense too of what became the origin point of what commenced the dividing of the continents.

Crustal rifts are not created by collisions.

If a "tidal wave" started on that end of "Pangea" and Noah was on the other end of "Pangea" the safest direction for the ark to have gone would have been out over the Pacific ocean. All the debris from one end of "Pangea" would have had it's largest deposits on the other end of the east coast of the Pacific. Yet the "end" of the "ring of fire" is off the coast of Japan. That is the deepest sub ocean trench that we know of. Thus if a lot of debris from the continent ended up on the Pacific ocean; it would have been swallowed up by volcanic activity by now.

Which brings me to another "observable point" about the techtonic plates on this planet.

"As the lightening from the east to the west; so shall the coming of the son of man be."

The "mid-Atlantic ridge" begins somewhere in Iran.

It does not. The southern end of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at the boundary of the Antarctic plate and ocean. It extends through the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (hence the name) and terminates in the Arctic Ocean at the Gakkel Ridge which is effectively an extension through the Arctic north of Siberia where the North American Plate then extends into far eastern Siberia. The only part of the M-A Ridge proper that is above sea level is Iceland.

Iran is the most seismically active country on the planet. The ridge runs up into Russia (The Ural mountains is the dividing point between the European and Asian plates. It runs up over Scandinavia, south between Britain and Iceland and down the center of the Atlantic Ocean. From there it goes around South America, up the west coast of North America and down the east coast of Asia. It goes south around Australia (Which at one point was probably part of South East Asia or India? The fault line goes up over North India, cuts through the Persian Gulf, literally through the middle of Jerusalem into the Meditation Sea. It ends somewhere on the southern end of Spain. Literally travels "east to west". "Meeting up" and ending almost exactly where it started.

Now, fast forward from Noah's ark to the crucifixion. What happened when Jesus died? (There was an earthquake.) Now if that had run from the origin point of the dividing of the continents starting from the flood; it literally would have split the planet in half.

Now fast forward again to the 2nd coming. The commencement of the destruction of this earth starts with Jerusalem. Aint that wild!

Another interesting thing from archeology.

3 civilizations: Rome, the Mayans and the Chinese all record what looks like a comet coming from the earth.

Comets don't come from planets, but a comet low in the sky might look like that. A comet would appear low in the sky if it was interior the orbit of the Earth making it appear closer to the Sun on the sky.

Josephus talks about this. He calls it "the sword of the Lord". The Romans record the same phenomena. Both Romans and Josephus pinpoint this to the 1st century. The Chinese also pinpoint this to the 1st century. The Mayans; it's hard to tell because we're not exactly sure when their calendar started.

That seems odd. Unless they don't know which of the major cycles are involved, the Mayan calendar is quite precise.

Now go back to Exodus. When Israel left Egypt; what did they see on their side of the division between them and the Egyptian army? (They saw a cloud.) What'd the Egyptian army see? (They saw a pillar of fire.)

Fast forward again to the ascension. What did the disciples see? (A cloud.) What did the rest of the world see? (A pillar of fire?)

When Jesus returns; what do you suppose will be the first thing the global media will report? (Probably a comet approaching earth!)

Interesting huh!
Ponder that a bit!

 

[Wolseley]

Yeah, I think a lot of what we come to understand as "laws that govern the universe" may not be wholly (100% of the time) consistent to our understanding.

Now what exactly Venus is; is a good question because nothing can get through the atmosphere to know is it like unto the structure of this planet? The assumption is the atmosphere is nitric acid. Which... is that what makes comets "glow"? (I don't know?) I wonder too, if Venus is a comet that hit what ever planet had become the asteroid belt. (That would make sense too.)

There's some interesting archeology on planet earth. I ran across an article; at least a decade ago now that stated that under X amount of feet of mud in China; they found a civilization that had writing that looked like cuneiform. (The precursor to Hebrew.) Obviously this is different than the style of writing China used in subsequent centuries. Which makes me wonder? We know "where" Noah's ark "landed" (or at least the name of the mountain; yet was Ararat in ancient times where it is today? (Not sure we know?) Could Noah have started in what is today China?

There's another theory that an asteroid hit the basin that became the Gulf of Mexico. If that is true; that would make sense too of what became the origin point of what commenced the dividing of the continents. If a "tidal wave" started on that end of "Pangea" and Noah was on the other end of "Pangea" the safest direction for the ark to have gone would have been out over the Pacific ocean. All the debris from one end of "Pangea" would have had it's largest deposits on the other end of the east coast of the Pacific. Yet the "end" of the "ring of fire" is off the coast of Japan. That is the deepest sub ocean trench that we know of. Thus if a lot of debris from the continent ended up on the Pacific ocean; it would have been swallowed up by volcanic activity by now.

Which brings me to another "observable point" about the techtonic plates on this planet.

"As the lightening from the east to the west; so shall the coming of the son of man be."

The "mid-Atlantic ridge" begins somewhere in Iran. Iran is the most seismically active country on the planet. The ridge runs up into Russia (The Ural mountains is the dividing point between the European and Asian plates. It runs up over Scandinavia, south between Britain and Iceland and down the center of the Atlantic Ocean. From there it goes around South America, up the west coast of North America and down the east coast of Asia. It goes south around Australia (Which at one point was probably part of South East Asia or India? The fault line goes up over North India, cuts through the Persian Gulf, literally through the middle of Jerusalem into the Meditation Sea. It ends somewhere on the southern end of Spain. Literally travels "east to west". "Meeting up" and ending almost exactly where it started.

Now, fast forward from Noah's ark to the crucifixion. What happened when Jesus died? (There was an earthquake.) Now if that had run from the origin point of the dividing of the continents starting from the flood; it literally would have split the planet in half.

Now fast forward again to the 2nd coming. The commencement of the destruction of this earth starts with Jerusalem. Aint that wild!

Another interesting thing from archeology.

3 civilizations: Rome, the Mayans and the Chinese all record what looks like a comet coming from the earth. Josephus talks about this. He calls it "the sword of the Lord". The Romans record the same phenomena. Both Romans and Josephus pinpoint this to the 1st century. The Chinese also pinpoint this to the 1st century. The Mayans; it's hard to tell because we're not exactly sure when their calendar started.

Now go back to Exodus. When Israel left Egypt; what did they see on their side of the division between them and the Egyptian army? (They saw a cloud.) What'd the Egyptian army see? (They saw a pillar of fire.)

Fast forward again to the ascension. What did the disciples see? (A cloud.) What did the rest of the world see? (A pillar of fire?)

When Jesus returns; what do you suppose will be the first thing the global media will report? (Probably a comet approaching earth!)

Interesting huh!
Ponder that a bit!

It's all good stuff; most of the books I've read give evidence to a possible advanced civilization that was wiped out back around 11,500 years ago. The devastation was so complete that very little remains in the way of evidence, although small examples turn up from time to time; coins, cups, nails, knives, chains, hammer heads, axe blades, all of them made from metal, have been found all over the world in impossible strata (if you subscribe to the strictures of Lyellian Uniformitarianism, that is). When the finders of such objects report the finds to the erudite archaeological community, instead of examining the finds, they smile tolerantly and say, "Such objects do not appear in strata at that level," thereby dismissing whatever evidence there is that might fly in the face of their pet theories.

Another interesting tidbit is the rongo-rongo writing from Easter Island; nobody has ever deciphered it, but it bears a close resemblance to the script found on artifacts in the Indus Valley civilization. How did writing used in ancient India find its way to the middle of the south Pacific Ocean?

And, of course, you have architecture in places like Tiahuanaco in South America that is put together in a fashion that even we can't duplicate---it's too advanced for the tools we have. When the Spanish asked the Indians who built the structures, the Indians shrugged and said, "Beats us. They were here when we got here."

Why is the scarring left by huge rock impacts on mountainsides in Canada always on the northwest sides of the peaks, and why is it so high on the sides of the mountains? If they were caused by glaciation, they wouldn't be that high. Maybe the rocks were carried by an ocean sloshing out of its basin on one side, washing across the continent, and dumping into a new basin on the other side? Maybe the marine artifacts found in the American Southwest aren't evidence of an ancient ocean bed at all, but remains of marine life that was left stranded after the water drained off? Why are there entire mountain ranges that are upside-down, with the oldest fossils on the tops of the mountains, while the newer ones are at the bottom, and the strata undisturbed? What kind of force could flip that much weight without destroying the structural integrity of the rock? Ice couldn't. But massive amounts of water could.

Anyway, there's a lot of stuff out there that we don't know; and a lot of stuff that people think they know---but maybe they don't.

 

[The Righterzpen]

They are quite consistent. Astronomical measurement of distant quasar emission lines show that the physical constants have changed from very very little to not at all in the last ~10 billion years.

It's a rocky planet of similar radius, mass, and density as the Earth.

We can only directly probe about 0.1% of the radius of the Earth, but we know what it is made of: Fe/Ni core, rocky mantle, + crust. Venus is very similar and the measurements are done in similar fashion, though we obviously know much more about the interior of the Earth than just the basic radial structure and composition.

It's actually sulfuric acid and we know that because we can measure the spectrum of the Venusian atmosphere.

Comets "glow" in optical light reflected from the Sun of the cloud of ice crystals that erupt from the comets. (They also glow in x-rays due to some fun charge transfer reactions with the solar wind, but that's a different story.)

It is not, and it would not make sense. The asteroid belt is outside the orbit of Mars, not inside the orbit of Earth where Venus is. Comets strike planets all of the time and it is more like the comet is the insect as the planet is to the windshield of your car. Splat!


Interesting, perhaps it actually was cuneiform, or it was just a writing system that used groups of straight lines or marks.

Cuneiform is not the precursor to the Hebrew script. The pre-Caananite script derives from simplified hieroglyphs.

I'm sure many have, but the Gulf of Mexico is not a crater. Even the famous crater of 65 Million years ago that wiped out the dinos is but a small fraction of the size of the Gulf. (It is not even as wide as the near by Yucatan.

Crustal rifts are not created by collisions.



It does not. The southern end of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is at the boundary of the Antarctic plate and ocean. It extends through the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (hence the name) and terminates in the Arctic Ocean at the Gakkel Ridge which is effectively an extension through the Arctic north of Siberia where the North American Plate then extends into far eastern Siberia. The only part of the M-A Ridge proper that is above sea level is Iceland.

Comets don't come from planets, but a comet low in the sky might look like that. A comet would appear low in the sky if it was interior the orbit of the Earth making it appear closer to the Sun on the sky.

That seems odd. Unless they don't know which of the major cycles are involved, the Mayan calendar is quite precise.

Thank you for sharing; you're entitled to your opinion and your own theories. I disagree.

But you are correct, they believe Venus is covered in sulfuric acid and is believed to be roughly the same size as earth. Although I think they believe it's a lot denser than earth. (It's atmosphere certainly is.)

 

[Wolseley]

@Wolseley
"The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down; of the big lake they call Gitchee-Goomee!....."

(I'm on the opposite end of Gitchee Goomee.)

I'm on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan---Michee-gami, "Big Lake". And I was in the service with a guy from Mississippi---Michee-zeebee, "Big River". Ojibwa is a fascinating language.

 

[eclipsenow]

Sure. Whatever you say. I'd ask you if you've read it, but you would undoubtedly reply that you don't need to. No matter; no skin off my nose. Carry on.

I have a mere Social Sciences Advanced Diploma - and no scientific training further than high school. But I'm with Hans Blaster. It's not that I'm not open to new information - it's that the internet is utterly full of complete rubbish and one has to learn to be an adult when processing it! The summary shows this book you're pushing has worse scientific writing than an episode of Star Trek. And I'm not talking the original series - I'm talking about the horrible stuff coming out these days like in Discovery and Picard! They don't even attempt to sound "sciencey", but just make horrible things up like it's an episode of "Rings of Power" - a complete genre category mistake.

Please - read wikipedia on supernova and other good youtube sources. Don't push this book - it's awful.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's all good stuff; most of the books I've read give evidence to a possible advanced civilization that was wiped out back around 11,500 years ago. The devastation was so complete that very little remains in the way of evidence, although small examples turn up from time to time; coins, cups, nails, knives, chains, hammer heads, axe blades, all of them made from metal, have been found all over the world in impossible strata (if you subscribe to the strictures of Lyellian Uniformitarianism, that is). When the finders of such objects report the finds to the erudite archaeological community, instead of examining the finds, they smile tolerantly and say, "Such objects do not appear in strata at that level," thereby dismissing whatever evidence there is that might fly in the face of their pet theories.

Yeah, I've read those types of accounts too. It's rather common that there's a lot of stuff found in various rock layers that "shouldn't be there".

Another interesting tidbit is the rongo-rongo writing from Easter Island; nobody has ever deciphered it, but it bears a close resemblance to the script found on artifacts in the Indus Valley civilization. How did writing used in ancient India find its way to middle of the south Pacific Ocean?

Good question?

Yeah, there's evidence of early Mesopotamian writing in Canada.

There's also theories I've heard people say that there's remnants of early astronomical calendars (similar to Stonehenge) in North America too. Although there's not enough that's been unearthed to verify that for certain.

And, of course, you have architecture in places like Tiahuanaco in South America that is put together in a fashion that even we can't duplicate---it's too advanced for the tools we have. When the Spanish asked the Indians who built the structures, the Indians shrugged and said, "Beats us. They were here when we got here."

There's a lot of that type of stone architecture around the world that people can't explain. The Sphinx was underwater at some point; which makes me wonder if it was derived from some other pre-flood structure? (But the flood was like 7000 or so years ago.)

Interesting, if you line up the patriarchs ages in the Bible, except for where it says "he called his name..." we get a planet that's a little more than 13,000 years old at this point. Which raises some interesting questions. There were originally 12 tribes; then 13. 12 apostles; then 13? Does that mean anything? (I don't know?)

Another interesting thing I found in Revelation. The "1000 year reign". The term "thousand years" is a "duel plural". Does that mean 2000 years? Well 2000 years post crucifixion is 2033 AD. Does that mean anything? (I don't know that either.)

Why is the scarring left by huge rock impacts on mountainsides in Canada always on the northwest sides of the peaks, and why is it so high on the sides of the mountains? If they were caused by glaciation, they wouldn't be that high.

This I wasn't aware of. Interesting.

This would support my theory that the flood was initiated from a tidal wave that started on one side of Pangea. Now if we are looking at multiple sized rock fragments hitting earth.

Apparently I'm not the only one who has this theory: (and lookie - these Harvard professors think it hit off the coast of Mexico!)

New theory behind Chicxulub impactor that killed the dinosaurs

New theory explains origin of comet that killed the dinosaurs.

news.harvard.edu

Maybe the marine artifacts found in the American Southwest aren't evidence of an ancient ocean bed at all, but remains of marine life that was left stranded after the water drained off?

AND; does this make you wonder about the large fresh water basin that's basically under the western half of the North American continent? That has intrigued me. I'm not aware of any other underground fresh water basin that big anywhere else on the planet.

Why is there entire mountain ranges that are upside-down, with the oldest fossils on the tops of the mountains, while the newer ones are at the bottom, and the strata undisturbed? What kind of force could flip that much weight without destroying the structural integrity of the rock? Ice couldn't. But massive amounts of water could.

I've heard this too. But that begs the question too of fossils laid down during the flood conceivably could be flipped from volcanic activity too. There are several examples of intersecting layers of rock that are "out of alignment too". Then there's examples of places where there's just big stacks of sedimentary rock jutting up out of the plains. Then the Grand Canyon is basically a big crack in the ground. Look at the sediment layout inside of it. Erosion doesn't do that. That's an earthquake fault line.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Wolseley - Speaking of "scientific research" you might find this interview fascinating: They talk about the academic dishonesty in this interview. It's fascinating!

James Linsey is a mathematician and he wrote a paper on mathematic calculations about glaciers and geology. They rejected the paper because there was "no notations" from "a female viewpoint" or reference to "native mythology on the formation of ice".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you for sharing; you're entitled to your opinion and your own theories. I disagree.

It's not about opinions and if you want to disagree you need to bring counter evidence to the scientific consensus.

But you are correct, they believe Venus is covered in sulfuric acid and is believed to be roughly the same size as earth. Although I think they believe it's a lot denser than earth. (It's atmosphere certainly is.)

The atmosphere is only a tiny amount of the mass. The overall mass of Venus is 81.5% of Earth, the volumes 85.7% of Earth so it is about 5% less dense.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's not about opinions and if you want to disagree you need to bring counter evidence to the scientific consensus.


The atmosphere is only a tiny amount of the mass. The overall mass of Venus is 81.5% of Earth, the volumes 85.7% of Earth so it is about 5% less dense.

Everything "scientific consensus" says about any subject that they can't objectively measure is theory.

A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.

And the "scientists" lie. We know that!

 

[eclipsenow]

Everything "scientific consensus" says about any subject that they can't objectively measure is theory.

A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.

And the "scientists" lie. We know that!

There are many Christian evolutionary biologists and old earth scientists that would question a literalistic reading of Genesis. Otherwise why do organisations like BioLogos - God's Word. God's World. - BioLogos exist?

I think you need to calm down, stop resorting to the 'it's all a conspiracy' tired old meme, and start going through the evidence calmly and systematically. The bible has many genres of writing in it, and the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are known to be quite distinct from what comes after.

 

[The Righterzpen]

There are many Christian evolutionary biologists

"Christian evolutionary biologist" is an oxymoron. According to evolutionary.... THEORY (ehhm!) (Or at least Darwinian evolutionary theory.) "Evolution" is a result of death. Allegedly species "evolve" to survive. But according to the Bible there's no death until sin. And sin doesn't become a factor until creation is complete. So... where does that put, specifically Darwinian evolution?

And if you don't believe the Bible is accurately conveying the creation of the cosmos; (or history in general) why would you believe anything it says about Jesus Christ?

I don't deny that populations adapt to the environment. But adaptation is not "evolution"; (at least in the sense Darwin described it).

and old earth scientists that would question a literalistic reading of Genesis.

Define "old earth". I don't believe this planet is 6000 years old; but it's not billions of years old either.

You have no way of proving your THEORY on age of the earth is accurate. Matter of fact; the evidence points to a literal 24 hour day. We still operate under a literal 24 hour day system. And any Hebrew language scholar will tell you that the first chapter in Genesis does not lend to the concept of "day" being long spans of time. In every context "yom" is used; it's a 24 hour day. So why would you assume that wouldn't be the case in Genesis?

Thus if you believe God is omnipotent; why do you doubt He could create the cosmos in 7 literal days?

think you need to calm down, stop resorting to the 'it's all a conspiracy' tired old meme

I never said "conspiracy theory". (Never put "conspiracy" with "theory".) All I said is that a theory is an opinion and therefore not a fact.
theory

And yes, take your own advice. Go through the evidence calmly and systematically!

 

[dlamberth]

1. Was the Flood story scientifically researched?

In the early days of geology studies, the Bible had a heavy influence on the trajectory of scientific research.
So yes to #1.

2. If so, was it thoroughly researched to see if it comported to how it was documented in the Bible?

Yes.
What had to be confronted in the research of those early days of geology study, is that the Earth at every turn was telling a different story. That caused a lot of issues among differing geologist. There was a bit of wrangling over this. One area locally that started out with a Genesis trajectory but changed because the research your wondering about are the Ice Age Floods here in the Pacific Northwest. That's just one example of many.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the early days of geology studies, the Bible had a heavy influence on the trajectory of scientific research.
So yes to #1.

Yes.
What had to be confronted in the research of those early days of geology study, is that the Earth at every turn was telling a different story. That caused a lot of issues among differing geologist. There was a bit of wrangling over this. One area locally that started out with a Genesis trajectory but changed because the research your wondering about are the Ice Age Floods here in the Pacific Northwest. That's just one example of many.

Thank you, sir.

 

[dlamberth]

"Christian evolutionary biologist" is an oxymoron. According to evolutionary.... THEORY (ehhm!) (Or at least Darwinian evolutionary theory.) "Evolution" is a result of death. Allegedly species "evolve" to survive. But according to the Bible there's no death until sin. And sin doesn't become a factor until creation is complete. So... where does that put, specifically Darwinian evolution?

Your bringing up two different things. Darwin and Evolution is directed towards change in the physical aspect of life. The theory of sin is a spiritual trajectory directly aimed at the human soul. The "Christian evolutionary biologist" would be looking into change in the physical world. And in the same breath, letting God take care of their soul in the spiritual world.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Your bringing up two different things. Darwin and Evolution is directed towards change in the physical aspect of life. The theory of sin is a spiritual trajectory directly aimed at the human soul. The "Christian evolutionary biologist" would be looking into change in the physical world. And in the same breath, letting God take care of their soul in the spiritual world.

The Bible doesn't separate these two categories though. Scripture is very clear that death didn't exist until sin came into the picture.

So "evolutionary theory" (possibly even what we'd call environmental adaptation) wouldn't be a factor until after the fall. Can an individual animal or plant exhibit an environmental adaptation in the course of it's life? (Theoretically that seems possible; should the need arise. Yet prior to the fall; what need would arise?)

Were there plants and animals conceived before the fall? (Which is possible and also where adaptation could theoretically come into play.) But even at that, it wouldn't actually be "adaptation" as much as general genetic combination variations that are a natural process of DNA's replication during reproduction. Because in the 7 days before the fall; there wouldn't be environmental change to have to adapt to.

Now the ability to adapt after the fall to environmental factors that are a consequence of the fall; I believe was inherent in the genomes of the individual organisms created from the onset. And all destructive genetic mutations would have been a result of the fall.

Now one interesting thing we do know is that "2nd generation" of genetic mutations; does bear in reproducibly viable 3rd generation on; the ability to "naturally" correct the mutation. We saw this in Chernobyl. The lifeforms directly exposed to the radiation from the accident; produced physically noticeable mutated offspring. Yet the reproductively viable offspring did not produce more physically noticeable mutated offspring.

There were genetic mutations in the DNA of 3rd generation on; but they didn't necessarily show up in physically noticeable variants as the generations passed. (A wolf born with 3 legs didn't automatically give birth to another wolf with 3 legs. = subsequent wolf generation had 4 legs and as time went on; mutations that were in generation 2, 3, and 4 had disappeared by generation 5.) So the populations came to look like the populations before the accident; despite the genetic mutations were still present in the individual animal's genome.

Which raises the question of whether or not what we call "junk DNA" is really the remnants of past genetic corrections? Which if this is the case; this would explain why a good percentage of the human race still has "Neanderthal" DNA. Thus "Neanderthals" weren't an "evolutionary link" they were the exhibit of a post fall genetic disorder that had been corrected in time.

Now I don't know if this is the case with female plants, or "genetically less complicated" animals (should such a thing actually exist?) but with female mammals, the entire DNA structure of the individual female is present in the egg before fertilization. And out of fertilization what ever "life process" determines which DNA of either father or mother remains as the final make up of the offspring? I suspect that is dictated by the "breath of life" that comes from God. Thus theoretically a female human could have up to 99.??? percent of solely her mother's DNA.

Now percentages of which parents' DNA? I don't know if that's been statistically sequenced; but theoretically, it doesn't have to be "50/50". (Or at least with a girl it wouldn't have to be.) Now with a male; I guess that would depend on how much "extra DNA could be borrowed from the mother?) Certain aspects of genetic traits that make males male have to come from the father, because females can't produce Y chromosomes.

So thus it is theoretically possible that genetic contributions from either parent aren't as "strait forward" as we assume.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Bible doesn't separate these two categories though. Scripture is very clear that death didn't exist until sin came into the picture.

Modern American Creationists have lost the 'grittiness' of Eden - and I think make it into a very Pollyanna sort of place. However, check these thoughts on death before the fall from John Calvin - one of the Reformers - way before Charles Darwin ever made us question the origins of humans. (Calvin lived 1509 to 1564.) Calvin is basically a theological checklist for modern Anglican orthodoxy. And here he is arguing what death before the fall would have looked like. I wish American creationists actually read outside their theological comfort zone and realised there is so much more to Genesis than their dry, reductionist 'shopping list' of what God did when. There's so much more going on!
Did Death Occur Before the Fall? - Common Question - BioLogos

 

[The Righterzpen]

Modern American Creationists have lost the 'grittiness' of Eden - and I think make it into a very Pollyanna sort of place. However, check these thoughts on death before the fall from John Calvin - one of the Reformers - way before Charles Darwin ever made us question the origins of humans. (Calvin lived 1509 to 1564.) Calvin is basically a theological checklist for modern Anglican orthodoxy. And here he is arguing what death before the fall would have looked like. I wish American creationists actually read outside their theological comfort zone and realised there is so much more to Genesis than their dry, reductionist 'shopping list' of what God did when. There's so much more going on!
Did Death Occur Before the Fall? - Common Question - BioLogos

"BioLogos's" interpretation of death is clearly contrary to Scripture.

If you believe Scripture is written by the Holy Spirit and that God can not lie than Scripture is correct and the "scientists" and "theologians" you state believe in "spiritual" (as opposed to including physical) death predated sin; than those "scientists" and "theologians" are clearly wrong. And what the "scientists" say about the fossil record is up for debate also; because the fossil record isn't consistent with their theory either.

God told Adam and Eve "in the day that you eat of this fruit you shall surely die". The phrase "surely die" in Hebrew entails a death that has multitudinous layers to it. Not just "spiritual" death. The meaning of the language is inherent in the language itself. Romans 5:12 death is through the venue of sin.

Then you have Romans 8:19-21. "The creature" (the rest of life in this cosmos) is subject to the bondage of corruption because of human sin. Why would "the creature" be part of the redemption plan if it wasn't part of the fall? What would be the point of recreating the heavens and earth if it was created in death? (Isaiah 65:17 and Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13 reiterates that the cosmos will be recreated.)

Your "scientific theory" presents you with a more pressing problem regarding redemption! If Christ is not raised we will all perish for eternity. 1 Corinthians 15:12-18 Why would there be a resurrection if the cosmos was created in death? If death is merely "spiritual" there's no reason for Christ to rise from the dead.

Your "scientific theory" is nothing but a rebranding of the heresy of gnosticism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everything "scientific consensus" says about any subject that they can't objectively measure is theory.

A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.

And the "scientists" lie. We know that!

Theory has nothing to do with this. The mass and radius and atmospheric spectrum measurements of Venus are just that measurements. Can you demonstrate a measurement that challenges those values? (I don't think so.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

Theory has nothing to do with this. The mass and radius and atmospheric spectrum measurements of Venus are just that measurements. Can you demonstrate a measurement that challenges those values? (I don't think so.)

The mass and radius of Venus have nothing to do the question of the origin or age of the universe.
"Scientific" assessments of origin and age are THEORIES.

Measurement of a planet is a potentially observable phenomena; (go back and read my initial response) provided we are capable of getting close enough to evaluate the accuracy of the measurement.

Everything "scientific consensus" says about any subject that they can't objectively measure is theory.

A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.

And the "scientists" lie. We know that!

Nice try though.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Theory has nothing to do with this. The mass and radius and atmospheric spectrum measurements of Venus are just that measurements. Can you demonstrate a measurement that challenges those values? (I don't think so.)

Venus comet THEORY:

Eight New Reasons To Accept the Revised Venus Theory

Here are eight new reasons to accept the Revised Venus Theory, improving on the original Venus Theory of Immanuel Velikovsky.

www.scientiapress.com