New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

LastSeven · Aug 30, 2013

When I said the creation story was allegorical I was referring to the "days" of creation, not Adam or Eve. In other words, it is unclear how long it actually took for God to create the earth since what we call "days" did not exist before the sun existed.

Adam and Eve's creation and existence are not allegorical, nor is Jesus' lineage.

keith99 · Aug 30, 2013

Loudmouth said:
You are assuming that God did. If you want to claim that God is not lying, then the obvious conclusion is that the biblical authors were lying when they claimed divine inspiration.

I do not recall any claims of divine inspiration in the OT. For that matter I'm not sure there are any in the NT excepting revelation.

nuttypiglet · Aug 30, 2013

I believe much of the OT was divinely inspired, including the creation account. In particular Moses and Enoch.

EternalDragon · Aug 30, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Then we should not find billions of years of radioactive decay in meteors. That prediction fails. We find 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay in meteors.

Therefore, the Bible could not be inspired by God.

You always demand evidence so now put up. What is your evidence of how God or an ID created the universe? What processes did they use that may or may not have caused that much decay in a day? Why is a certain amount of decay NOT indicative of a creation event?

Start from nothing and proceed with the steps.

Subduction Zone · Aug 30, 2013

EternalDragon said:
You always demand evidence so now put up. What is your evidence of how God or an ID created the universe? What processes did they use that may or may not have caused that much decay in a day? Why is a certain amount of decay NOT indicative of a creation event?

Start from nothing and proceed with the steps.

You have this backwards.

He does not believe this so he has nothing to say on how it could be done.

It is your belief. If your beliefs don't match reality then you are clearly wrong.

I am only here to help.

Doveaman · Aug 31, 2013

LastSeven said:
When I said the creation story was allegorical I was referring to the "days" of creation, not Adam or Eve. In other words, it is unclear how long it actually took for God to create the earth since what we call "days" did not exist before the sun existed.

Maybe the sun did exist but only became visible on day four.

To me, Genesis 1 reads more like a re-creation of the earth’s biosphere rather than the original creation of the universe.

Doveaman · Aug 31, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Then we should not find billions of years of radioactive decay in meteors. That prediction fails. We find 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay in meteors.

Therefore, the Bible could not be inspired by God.

I'm not sure your point is relevant to me. I'm an old earth creationist.

Genesis 1 seems to be describing the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet in an even older universe.

The Genesis creation events begin with a dead earth buried in water:

Gen 1:2:
Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deepwaters.

This dead earth was then resurrected (re-created) to life when God spoke light into it.

Gen 1:5:
Then God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

Light is a symbol of divinely inspired life:

John 1:3-4:
Through Him all things were madeIn Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Doveaman · Aug 31, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Then demonstrate that it is a fact.

How do you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the existence of the sun is a fact?

How do you demonstrate to a spiritually blind man that the existence of the Son is a fact?

nuttypiglet · Aug 31, 2013

Doveaman said:
I'm not sure your point is relevant to me. I'm an old earth creationist.

Genesis 1 seems to be describing the re-creation of new earth life on an old earth planet in an even older universe.

The Genesis creation events begin with a dead earth buried in water:

Gen 1:2:
Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deepwaters.

This dead earth was then resurrected (re-created) to life when God spoke light into it.

Gen 1:5:
Then God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

Light is a symbol of divinely inspired life:

John 1:3-4:
Through Him all things were madeIn Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

not always....
In fact you are quoting one verse, then skipping the next, selecting what suits your belief. For example, you quote "let there be light" and the very next verses explain how God separated the darkness from the light, calling them day and night. He even goes on to say there was night and day, a 24 hour period, a day.
IF this was a new beginning for life, then the bible would state it. If the flood in the days of Noah was a new beginning on a new Earth, it would state it.

Davian · Aug 31, 2013

Doveaman said:
How do you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the existence of the sun is a fact?

How do you demonstrate to a spiritually blind man that the existence of the Son is a fact?

Better yet, how would you demonstrate that you, personally, are not, in fact, "spiritually blind"? Do I have only your word to go on? What does the term even mean?

Doveaman · Sep 2, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
not always....

But some times. Genesis 1 may be one of those times.

In fact you are quoting one verse, then skipping the next, selecting what suits your belief.

The next verse wasn’t relevant to my point.

For example, you quote "let there be light" and the very next verses explain how God separated the darkness from the light, calling them day and night. He even goes on to say there was night and day, a 24 hour period, a day.

But I’m not disagreeing with you.

I was simply showing that the literal creation events in Genesis 1 also appear to be prophetic, pointing to the death and resurrection of Christ, who is the Light of the world.

IF this was a new beginning for life, then the bible would state it. If the flood in the days of Noah was a new beginning on a new Earth, it would state it.

Some things can be inferred based on what was stated.

If the pre-flood world was old, then the post-flood world is new:

And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person. - 2 Peter 2:5.

If the pre-flood earth was destroyed, then the post-flood earth is renewed:

God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people…I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.” - Gen 6:13.

Noah’s flood destroyed the old earth, yet the planet still remains. This is because only the life on the surface was destroyed, and then renewed. The creation of the earth in Genesis 1 may similarly be a creation of new earth life on an old earth planet following its previous destruction.

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. - Ps 104:30.

Doveaman · Sep 2, 2013

Davian said:
Better yet, how would you demonstrate that you, personally, are not, in fact, "spiritually blind"?

How would you demonstrate that you, personally, are not, in fact, physically blind?

Do I have only your word to go on?

How would you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the sun exists?

What does the term even mean?

Physically Blind: Unable to visually comprehend the things revealed by Mother Nature.

Spiritually Blind: Unable to spiritually comprehend the things revealed by Father God.

Spiritual blindness does not mean we do not experience the things of God. It simply means we do not comprehend those things as being from God.

A physically blind man may experience the heat of the sun without visually comprehending the sun. And he may only have your word to go on.

nuttypiglet · Sep 2, 2013

Doveaman said:
But some times. Genesis 1 may be one of those times.
The next verse wasnt relevant to my point.
But Im not disagreeing with you.

I was simply showing that the literal creation events in Genesis 1 also appear to be prophetic, pointing to the death and resurrection of Christ, who is the Light of the world.
Some things can be inferred based on what was stated.

If the pre-flood world was old, then the post-flood world is new:

And [God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person. - 2 Peter 2:5.

If the pre-flood earth was destroyed, then the post-flood earth is renewed:

God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all peopleI am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. - Gen 6:13.

Noahs flood destroyed the old earth, yet the planet still remains. This is because only the life on the surface was destroyed, and then renewed. The creation of the earth in Genesis 1 may similarly be a creation of new earth life on an old earth planet following its previous destruction.

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. - Ps 104:30.

Erm, well in the very start of the bible it says "In the beginning" so it was the absolute beginning for us. It then says "God created the Universe...." which means he made our Universe at that time. Then the creation events on the Earth are explained. So, if what you're saying is true, this must be another Universe too. Adam and Eve were the first, the bible says so. The bible also says "Let us create Man in our own image", talking to the Holy spirit within him. He doesn't seem to imply "Oh, let's make man in our image AGAIN" ?

Doveaman · Sep 2, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Erm, well in the very start of the bible it says "In the beginning" so it was the absolute beginning for us.

Yes, it was indeed the beginning for us, but not necessarily the beginning for the universe.

It then says "God created the Universe...." which means he made our Universe at that time.

Which Bible version did you get that quote from?

My Bible version says “Heaven”, which can be translated: “Atmosphere” or "Sky".

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters...And God called the firmament Heaven. - Gen 1:6-8.

Then the creation events on the Earth are explained.

I agree.

So, if what you're saying is true, this must be another Universe too.

Or simply another Atmosphere being created after the previous one was destroyed.

Adam and Eve were the first, the bible says so.

I agree.

The bible also says "Let us create Man in our own image", talking to the Holy spirit within him. He doesn't seem to imply "Oh, let's make man in our image AGAIN" ?

I agree. There were no men before Adam. But there were dinosaurs.

Davian · Sep 2, 2013

Doveaman said:
How would you demonstrate that you, personally, are not, in fact, physically blind?
How would you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the sun exists?

You tell me.

Doveaman said:
Physically Blind: Unable to visually comprehend the things revealed by Mother Nature.

Spiritually Blind: Unable to spiritually comprehend the things revealed by Father God.

Spiritual blindness does not mean we do not experience the things of God. It simply means we do not comprehend those things as being from God.

A physically blind man may experience the heat of the sun without visually comprehending the sun. And he may only have your word to go on.

Exactly. Demonstrate that you, personally, are not "spiritually blind".

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2013

EternalDragon said:
What is your evidence of how God or an ID created the universe?

All of the evidence from geology, biology, astronomy, etc. The evidence shows that the Earth is billions of years old, that life shares a universal common ancestor, that life evolved, and that the universe is even older than the Earth. The evidence also demonstrates that there was not a recent global flood.

You have been shown all of this evidence.

What processes did they use that may or may not have caused that much decay in a day? Why is a certain amount of decay NOT indicative of a creation event?

Why should the creation event produce any decay? Why should different isotope pairs that decay through different mechanisms all give the same date? How do you get billions of years of decay history into a rock that overlies sediments that carry fossils? Did God create the Earth with fossils already in the ground?

Start from nothing and proceed with the steps.

You first.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2013

Doveaman said:
How do you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the existence of the sun is a fact?

The same way that you demonstrate that radiowaves are real to someone who has sight.

How do you demonstrate to a spiritually blind man that the existence of the Son is a fact?

How can you be blind to something you can't show to exist?

EternalDragon · Sep 3, 2013

Loudmouth said:
All of the evidence from geology, biology, astronomy, etc. The evidence shows that the Earth is billions of years old, that life shares a universal common ancestor, that life evolved, and that the universe is even older than the Earth. The evidence also demonstrates that there was not a recent global flood.

Certain conclusions to the evidence say that, yes. The evidence does not say anything.

Why should the creation event produce any decay? Why should different isotope pairs that decay through different mechanisms all give the same date? How do you get billions of years of decay history into a rock that overlies sediments that carry fossils? Did God create the Earth with fossils already in the ground?

Click to expand...

Scientists can detect decay and isotope ratios. They can't put a date on it. You don't think sediment was shuffled and recombined by the flood. So therefore you think the overlaying sediment was deposited there over millions of years on top of the fossils. That is not my or other peoples view.

You first.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1.

Now you.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Certain conclusions to the evidence say that, yes. The evidence does not say anything.

Those are the only conclusions consistent with the evidence.

Scientists can detect decay and isotope ratios. They can't put a date on it.

Yes, they can, and they do. A scientist can measure the amount of each isotope and determine the amount of time it would take to produce that ratio.

You don't think sediment was shuffled and recombined by the flood.

What flood? What we have are lava flows that overlie and intrude into sediments that carry fossils. The only way for this to occur is if the sediments were already there before the lava flow. Floods don't produce these relationships.

So therefore you think the overlaying sediment was deposited there over millions of years on top of the fossils.

Why wouldn't I think that if there are millions of years between the lava flows that lie above and below these sediments? What other conclusion is there that is supported by the evidence.

That is not my or other peoples view.

I think you have shown that no evidence would ever change their view.

Genesis 1.

What about it? What does that say about the rate of nuclear decay, isotope ratios, etc?

nuttypiglet · Sep 3, 2013

A young boy was given a box of Lego bricks and asked to form some imaginary animals. He created many animals of different characteristics. The boy was removed from the room and two scientists were brought in to examine the animals and give their conclusions. One said "Some are made from common bricks, so they evolved. There is clear evidence for this". The other said "All the animals were obviously created". Two viewpoints, both without evidence, but only one is the truth.

New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

Amil

sola dosis facit venenum

Newbie

Counselor

Regular Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Newbie

fallible

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Newbie

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

fallible

Contributor

Contributor

Counselor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency