Question about Old Earth

[Assyrian]

I like to talk about this theological question more than the flood.

Would it be a "very good" creation if the creature is able to rebel against the creator? Obviously God calls it :"very good". What is it good about?

Clearly free will is a good thing as in mankind created in the image of God. It is more a question for YECs who claim there was no death before the fall, and as someone who believes in an old earth while calling yourself YEC, this may not include you, but for other YECs a built in kill switch does not seem consistent with a world free from death.

 

[juvenissun]

Clearly free will is a good thing as in mankind created in the image of God. It is more a question for YECs who claim there was no death before the fall, and as someone who believes in an old earth while calling yourself YEC, this may not include you, but for other YECs a built in kill switch does not seem consistent with a world free from death.

I do not understand the meaning of death among animals. But since we have a theory of the Fall, then there should be no death for human before that. I suspect the death of animal and the death of human are of two different natures. But I am not sure how to describe them in detail. Why does God allow us to kill animals? Veggies are good enough to support a healthy human life.

I like YEC because I spent my whole life in studying OEC, but I fee it is not enough at the end. To a certain degree, OEC is almost deceptive. OEC describes the processes, but it says nothing about the origin. YEC has hard time to explain some processes, but it hits right on the head of the origin problem.

For example, this question came to me recently: What is the origin of the stony meteorite? If it came from an exploded planet, then what is the origin of that planet? All OEC theories can do nothing to even suggest an answer.

 

[Assyrian]

I do not understand the meaning of death among animals. But since we have a theory of the Fall, then there should be no death for human before that. I suspect the death of animal and the death of human are of two different natures. But I am not sure how to describe them in detail. Why does God allow us to kill animals? Veggies are good enough to support a healthy human life.

I like YEC because I spent my whole life in studying OEC, but I fee it is not enough at the end. To a certain degree, OEC is almost deceptive. OEC describes the processes, but it says nothing about the origin. YEC has hard time to explain some processes, but it hits right on the head of the origin problem.

For example, this question came to me recently: What is the origin of the stony meteorite? If it came from an exploded planet, then what is the origin of that planet? All OEC theories can do nothing to even suggest an answer.

Not much point in YEC having an explanation if does not fit the evidence, clearly they have an explanation, just not one that bears any resemblance to reality. Much better an explanation that does fit the facts, even if we do not have all the details. As for the origin of the meteorite, their composition is made of heavier elements such as carbon silicon oxygen iron nickel, aren't those elements formed in exploding stars? The original planet would have coalesced from this material.

 

[juvenissun]

Not much point in YEC having an explanation if does not fit the evidence, clearly they have an explanation, just not one that bears any resemblance to reality. Much better an explanation that does fit the facts, even if we do not have all the details. As for the origin of the meteorite, their composition is made of heavier elements such as carbon silicon oxygen iron nickel, aren't those elements formed in exploding stars? The original planet would have coalesced from this material.

Here is an example on the consequence of TE. If you believe in evolution, then you MUST treat the death of animal exactly the same as the death of human.

I am not exactly sure, but I think Christianity treats the death of animal very differently. In other words, the death of animal may not count as the "real" death (just like the life of plant is not a "real" life).

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?

and

Number 2 would be the interesting topic to cover, but in general what would be the effects of that much water and pressure on dating schemes. General question, nothing too overly complicated or specific.

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like you are looking at #1, or at least mainly focussing on the effects of those things on the dating schemes.

1. If the earth were 4.5 billion years old, and a global flood happened in ~2350 BC as in a literal reading of genesis, then how would the dating methods be affected?

So, let's go over some dating methods:

1. varves - previously deposited varves could be washed away completely. If not washed away, a flood layer deposited on top of them would not destroy them. Pressure could compact them into sandstone or such. None of those would add layers. So the information could be lost, or if not lost, would not be altered (the layers would still be there in the same number).

2. Dendrochronology - the flood could destroy tree rings, or could bury and fossilize them. I don't see any way that that a flood would make a young dendro. sample look old.

3. C-14. The water and pressure would not change the rate of radioactive decay, because all kinds of experiments have been done to show that radioactive decay rates are unaffected by pressure, water, chemicals, temperature, movement, you name it. Changing the atmospheric concentration of C14 would change the method results, but that would make a big spike or dip in samples from around 2350, which we don't see. Any change would have to also affect the other methods the same or we would't see C-14 matching so well (after a constant calibration factor) with the many other methods it agrees with.

4. Ice cores - the flood would destroy any ice layers, so there would be none older than 2350 BC. Ice floats, so even ignoring the melting affect of the water, the sheets would float off the land and be lost.

5. Uranium disequilibrium - like other radioactive methods, it's unaffected by pressure, water, chemicals, temperature, movement, etc. So no change here.

6. Themoluminesence - I don't know enough about this one to say.

7. Obsidian hydration - obsidian hydration rates are affected by temperature, and likely moisture, though their distance to the suface is the biggest factor. Deeply buried samples would slow their aging and hence look younger than they are. Scientists take into account exposure conditions, and deeply buried samples aren't used. So perhaps a flood would make many samples give random results?

8. Amino Racimization - the protein must be preserved for this to be used, so anything that would destroy proteins would simply destroy the sample. Heated protein is obvious because it is "denatured". Water has no effect. So as long as the sample survived, it seems this would be unaffected.

9. Electron spin - is reset by heating, so if a flood happened with a lot of heat, all electron spin tests would give a date of 2350 BC or more recent.

10. K-Ar is unaffected by heat/water, so no affect, as with other radiometric dating methods (again, assuming the sample is intact - take a sample from inside a rock, etc.)

11. Geomagnetic polarity. - any changes to the earth's field would be recorded by this method, so a flood where the field changed would be detected by it. Because large rock masses cannot be cooled below a certian rate, we've seen plenty of formations that formed millions of years ago, and took thousands of years to cool, each in succession after the other.

12. U to Pb, Rb to Sr, etc, are all radiometric - see #10.

13. dislocation formation - woud be unaffected as it is caused by cosmic rays and occurs deep inside a metal sample, where the water and chemicals cannot reach. Temperature has no effect.

14. Heliometric dating method (based on calculations and observations of the sun, such as seismic waves in the sun) would of course not be affected by things going on on the earth, even if the whole earth blew up.

So hey, there's scratching the surface, at least!

Papias

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Here is an example on the consequence of TE. If you believe in evolution, then you MUST treat the death of animal exactly the same as the death of human.

That's silly. Why would that be the case? Humans are rational and animals are not. Animals cannot understand "human" rights, and humans can.

That's as silly as saying that because creationists say that there are different "kinds" of flesh, that any killing of human flesh is murder, so amputated limbs must be given full funerals.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood.
Fiction books are very detailed, maybe more so than the Flood story. Other symbolic storys are also very detail but it isn't make it true.

I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.

This sort of thing makes reads want to disagree with you and it would be very easy to turn this sentance around so it is aimed at you.

Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?

The two arn't really compatible, but what has science ever done for us

EDIT: Specifically, if anyone can provide insight in regards to the following question: What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on the various dating methods employed by science?

I assume it would make them wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

Here is an example on the consequence of TE. If you believe in evolution, then you MUST treat the death of animal exactly the same as the death of human.

I have a different relationship with my own species. Other species are not created in the image of God and don't have an eternal destiny. So no the death of animal is not quite the same.

I am not exactly sure, but I think Christianity treats the death of animal very differently. In other words, the death of animal may not count as the "real" death (just like the life of plant is not a "real" life).

I think it is bizarre when creationist claim plants aren't alive. Anyway, Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.

 

[philadiddle]

I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.

***Holds up mirror

 

[juvenissun]

I have a different relationship with my own species. Other species are not created in the image of God and don't have an eternal destiny. So no the death of animal is not quite the same.

I think it is bizarre when creationist claim plants aren't alive. Anyway, Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.

Exactly. Plants have no blood.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:



That's silly. Why would that be the case? Humans are rational and animals are not. Animals cannot understand "human" rights, and humans can.

That's as silly as saying that because creationists say that there are different "kinds" of flesh, that any killing of human flesh is murder, so amputated limbs must be given full funerals.

Papias

As a TE, I think you can turn around and punch your own face for that statement.

 

[Faith.Man]

Question for OECs, really would like it answered.

I've been meaning to open up a thread on this for quite a bit, the topic is Noah's flood.

What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood. I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.

Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Specifically, if anyone can provide insight in regards to the following question: What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on the various dating methods employed by science?

I authored another thread called Noah's Flood: Local or Global? You might find it interesting.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426346/

 

[Assyrian]

Exactly. Plants have no blood.

Sorry, common Creationist argument, but it doesn't follow. It says the life of flesh is in the blood, but it doesn't say anything about the life of plants or where it might reside. "unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies". Seriously Juv, have you any concept how bonkers this claim makes Christianity sound? Plants aren't alive??? How is a non believer with an ounce of God given sense in his head supposed to respond to the Gospel if Christians keep convincing him the bible is full of delusional nonsense?

Matt 18:7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

Christians often wash their hand of responsibility for other people believing the gospel, if they reject God it is their decision, or it is up to the Holy spirit to convict people's hearts. But God holds us responsible for the stumbling blocks we make too. Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." That was OT prophets talking about the Israelites of their time, but we really need to make sure it doesn't apply to us too.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

As a TE, I think you can turn around and punch your own face for that statement.

**turns around and punches own face.**


Ow!


You are right. I should clarify:

Non-human animals are not rational.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, common Creationist argument, but it doesn't follow. It says the life of flesh is in the blood, but it doesn't say anything about the life of plants or where it might reside. "unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies". Seriously Juv, have you any concept how bonkers this claim makes Christianity sound? Plants aren't alive??? How is a non believer with an ounce of God given sense in his head supposed to respond to the Gospel if Christians keep convincing him the bible is full of delusional nonsense?

Matt 18:7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

Christians often wash their hand of responsibility for other people believing the gospel, if they reject God it is their decision, or it is up to the Holy spirit to convict people's hearts. But God holds us responsible for the stumbling blocks we make too. Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." That was OT prophets talking about the Israelites of their time, but we really need to make sure it doesn't apply to us too.

I don't care about the problem you said. One does not have to think about this question (say: crazy creationist !). But if one does, he needs to understand.

I asked several residential biologists one question and none of them wanted to offer me a positive answer (it is still possible I did not find the right person):

Given a grain of seed, how can you tell (before planting it) whether would it germinate or not? In fact, this is a very practical question. The older the seeds (a few years old), the fewer of them will come up. Sometimes, none of them will. Could I say that they all "died" before they even "live"?

So, given a grain of seed, is the seed alive? or potentially alive? How do you tell? Is "alive" or "dead" a good description to the seed?

God does not create plants as early as Day 3 for no reason.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:



**turns around and punches own face.**


Ow!


You are right. I should clarify:

Non-human animals are not rational.

Papias

I criticize you from a TE point of view: Punch yourself AGAIN!

Animals ARE rational.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't care about the problem you said. One does not have to think about this question (say: crazy creationist !).

My reaction was that it's sad rather than crazy.

But if one does, he needs to understand.
I asked several residential biologists one question and none of them wanted to offer me a positive answer (it is still possible I did not find the right person):

Given a grain of seed, how can you tell (before planting it) whether would it germinate or not? In fact, this is a very practical question. The older the seeds (a few years old), the fewer of them will come up. Sometimes, none of them will.

And some fertilised human eggs are viable and will implant and grow. Others won't and you can't tell them apart. But what has that got to do with anything?

Could I say that they all "died" before they even "live"?

I suspect the seeds are simply dormant, just that not all of them revive. Of course they deteriorate in storage some to a point when they cannot revive. Personally I think the idea of seeds dying works best as a metaphor for Christ's death burial and resurrection, and our death and new life in him. But don't forget the picture in the OT about life being in animal's blood and ransoming our lives is really about Christ too. It is only if Creationists want to take 'life in the blood' literally and try to construct a list of what they consider alive, to be consistent they need to include seeds dying. If there are problems with that, then they need to reconsider the whole project.

So, given a grain of seed, is the seed alive? or potentially alive? How do you tell? Is "alive" or "dead" a good description to the seed?

If the seed really was dead, it would take a miraculous resurrection each time a new plant grows from a seed.

God does not create plants as early as Day 3 for no reason.

Or God waited until after he made Adam to create plants because they needed a gardener.

 

[juvenissun]

My reaction was that it's sad rather than crazy.

And some fertilised human eggs are viable and will implant and grow. Others won't and you can't tell them apart. But what has that got to do with anything?


I suspect the seeds are simply dormant, just that not all of them revive. Of course they deteriorate in storage some to a point when they cannot revive. Personally I think the idea of seeds dying works best as a metaphor for Christ's death burial and resurrection, and our death and new life in him. But don't forget the picture in the OT about life being in animal's blood and ransoming our lives is really about Christ too. It is only if Creationists want to take 'life in the blood' literally and try to construct a list of what they consider alive, to be consistent they need to include seeds dying. If there are problems with that, then they need to reconsider the whole project.

If the seed really was dead, it would take a miraculous resurrection each time a new plant grows from a seed.

Or God waited until after he made Adam to create plants because they needed a gardener.

On this regard, I wish i could be you, so my thoughts could be less tangled. On the other hand I don't really wish to be you. Because being a literalist, I am able to enjoy a lot more reasonable understandings then only on what you accepted. (did I get it backward?)

In the Garden of Eden, there is only gardener, but no shepherd. Right? So would it be right to suggest that there are plants in the Heaven, but no animals?

 

[signal4]

A global flood like Noah's would make the earth look a lot older than it really is. It's no surprise that a lot of people think the earth is millions of years old.

 

[Assyrian]

On this regard, I wish i could be you, so my thoughts could be less tangled. On the other hand I don't really wish to be you. Because being a literalist, I am able to enjoy a lot more reasonable understandings then only on what you accepted. (did I get it backward?)

I think I follow what you are saying, did you mean 'than' instead of 'then'? My big problem here, apart from the fact Jesus showed us God speaks in metaphor, is what you consider 'reasonable'. Is plants aren't alive and animals may not really be alive either, a reasonable understanding?

In the Garden of Eden, there is only gardener, but no shepherd. Right? So would it be right to suggest that there are plants in the Heaven, but no animals?

No. First you would have to show heaven is simply a reconstruction of Eden, then you would have to ignore all the livestock, the birds of the heavens, and beasts of the field wandering around before God made Eve to keep things a bit tidier.