The creation is not under question

[Online.Gamer.79]

No, that's not true. Tuff and aeolian sandstones are deposited by wind/gravity and often lithification happens without any more water than is present in those "dry" sands like desert sands. Rare rainfall seeping into the sand is more than enough over the ages to produce rock. Moreover, after the deposits containing the fossils are buried, groundwater often intrudes so, even though there was never any water involved in burying the organism, moisture can later fuse the grains further.

If we're just thinking about the deposition of the sediment, then we don't necessarily need water. Some counterexamples are:

• Aeolian sandstones, such as the Lower Permian Rotliegend sandstone of the North Sea. These are deposited by wind, not water.
• Some types of sedimentary breccia, which are chiefly deposited by gravity, not water.
• Tuff, which are deposited by gravity and wind, not water. They also undergo substantial compaction and lithification with or without water.

No sedimentation without water?

No flood required. In fact, this couldn't happen in a flood.



Most of those fossils are invertebrates, mostly forams and other small organisms with shells. Most land vertebrates are found in river deposits. Which is what we see happening today.



We still see such sedimentation forming rock today. So today's conditions are entirely sufficient to account for the same sort of sediment we find in the rocks. And its difficult to see how the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in a flood, when you can find fossil deserts and forests in between the supposed "flood sediments." How do you think entire desert and forest ecostystems had time to develop and be buried in the short time you think the Flood happened?



There aren't just marine fossils on Mt. Everest. Mount Everest is made of marine fossils. It is continental shelf crust, pushed up when India moved north and pushed into Asia. The process is still going on, and the Himalaya mountains are still rising. So again, you see marine fossils only forming in oceans, not some supposed flood.



So we can conclude either that there was a single great flood, or that there have been a lot of floods in human history. The data supports a lot of floods, some of them big enough that people started legends about them. Sorry, that doesn't work for you, either.

There was a huge regional flood in the Middle East about the right time, when the Black sea was filled. It wasn't global of course, and the Bible doesn't say that Noah's flood was global either, so that might be it.

And the fact that seas have covered the parts of the earth at different places and times, doesn't support a global flood, either. There's neither historical, nor Biblical, nor physical evidence for a global flood.

No, that's not true. Tuff and aeolian sandstones are deposited by wind/gravity and often lithification happens without any more water than is present in those "dry" sands like desert sands. Rare rainfall seeping into the sand is more than enough over the ages to produce rock. Moreover, after the deposits containing the fossils are buried, groundwater often intrudes so, even though there was never any water involved in burying the organism, moisture can later fuse the grains further.

If we're just thinking about the deposition of the sediment, then we don't necessarily need water. Some counterexamples are:

• Aeolian sandstones, such as the Lower Permian Rotliegend sandstone of the North Sea. These are deposited by wind, not water.
• Some types of sedimentary breccia, which are chiefly deposited by gravity, not water.
• Tuff, which are deposited by gravity and wind, not water. They also undergo substantial compaction and lithification with or without water.

No sedimentation without water?

No flood required. In fact, this couldn't happen in a flood.



Most of those fossils are invertebrates, mostly forams and other small organisms with shells. Most land vertebrates are found in river deposits. Which is what we see happening today.



We still see such sedimentation forming rock today. So today's conditions are entirely sufficient to account for the same sort of sediment we find in the rocks. And its difficult to see how the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in a flood, when you can find fossil deserts and forests in between the supposed "flood sediments." How do you think entire desert and forest ecostystems had time to develop and be buried in the short time you think the Flood happened?



There aren't just marine fossils on Mt. Everest. Mount Everest is made of marine fossils. It is continental shelf crust, pushed up when India moved north and pushed into Asia. The process is still going on, and the Himalaya mountains are still rising. So again, you see marine fossils only forming in oceans, not some supposed flood.



So we can conclude either that there was a single great flood, or that there have been a lot of floods in human history. The data supports a lot of floods, some of them big enough that people started legends about them. Sorry, that doesn't work for you, either.

There was a huge regional flood in the Middle East about the right time, when the Black sea was filled. It wasn't global of course, and the Bible doesn't say that Noah's flood was global either, so that might be it.

And the fact that seas have covered the parts of the earth at different places and times, doesn't support a global flood, either. There's neither historical, nor Biblical, nor physical evidence for a global flood.

There is solid evidence that there was no global flood

 

[Online.Gamer.79]

Key word "lithified" meaning the sand turned into stone and you need water for that "Lithification is the process by which sediments combine to form sedimentary rocks. ... With compaction, sediment grains get squished together, reducing the size of the original pore space that divided them. Cementation is the process by which (dissolved minerals) crystallize and glue sediment grains together"


Fossils are primarily found, not in river deltas but, in worldwide sedimentary rock formation that cover 75% of the earth’s surface!


There is plenty historical and physical evidence that confirm a worldwide flood! Evidence such as in the sedimentary layer which are worldwide and cover about 75% of all the worlds land surface. These layers were laid down by water because of the preponderance of marine fossils in them! Marine fossils found on every continent to the highest mountain ranges like the Himalayas and Mt Everest! The layers are separated, by the action of water, into almost pure deposits of certain minerals!

Dr. James Perloff holds PhDs from Harvard, MIT and Oxford., awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, researched historical accounts of the flood and wrote: “Legends have been reported from nations such as China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, etc.—composing a list that could go on for many pages”
“In 95 percent of the more than (two hundred flood legends), the flood was worldwide; in 88 percent, a certain family was favored; in 70 percent, survival was by means of a boat; in 67 percent, animals were also saved; in 66 percent, the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66 percent, the survivors had been forewarned; in 57 percent, they ended up on a mountain; in 35 percent, birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9 percent, exactly eight people were spared “



Not surprising! But not just Kansas...the whole world was once under water! Any cursory study of how the sedimentary layers, that cover 75% of earth's land mass, where formed will show that materials were transported, by water, then separated by density into layers making up their own almost pure deposits of certain minerals as observed in the worldwide geological strata!

Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call earth. A reporter showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a moment and said, "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."

Well-trained eyes (and minds) are characteristic of pseudoscientists. Shenton rejected the spherical earth as conflicting with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and he trained his eyes and his mind to reject evidence that contradicted his view. Scientific creationists must similarly train their minds to reject the overwhelming evidence from geology, biology, physics, and astronomy which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. In a public forum, the best way to demonstrate that creationism is pseudoscience is to show just how well-trained creationist minds are.

 

[AV1611VET]

okay if we go by the Bible specifically down to the number the universe is not older than seven or eight thousand years old at most. Here's the problem geology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Earth is at least several billion years old, astronomy has proven the universe is close to 13 or 14 billion years old. How do you explain that. It's really simple in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earthi says absolutely nothing on how long it took God to create the heavens and the Earth. The next several verses deal with the creation of humanity. Now I love my Bible but I also know it's a book that has been translated hundreds of times different passages have different meanings you also have to take into account it's been edited there are books missing. You take in human error, the superstitions of the people who lived back then,I mean back then diseases were not caused by germs and viruses it was caused by evil spirits. All things you can take into account. The the core of what the Bible is is how to have a relationship with God. So enough with the arguing God created the heavens and the Earth and maybe he did it with a big bang

Let's see.

You love your Bible, but you put It through a vegomatic to allow evolution to have center stage.

According to you, your beloved Bible:

1. has been translated hundreds of times
2. different passages have different meanings
3. has been edited
4. has books missing
5. contains superstition of the people who lived back then

Is there anything else wrong with the Bible?

This is a pet peeve of mine.

In order to allow for evolution to be a viable mindset, one has to reduce the Bible to a book full of errors and misconceptions.

I'm going to start a thread in this subforum about demons and epilepsy, and I invite you to participate.

Thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

In order to allow for evolution to be a viable mindset, one has to reduce the Bible to a book full of errors and misconceptions.

The "errors and misconceptions" only exist if you insist that the Bible cannot have figurative language anywhere. Which is an obvious mistake.

Evolution has nothing at all to do with there conceptual errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "errors and misconceptions" only exist if you insist that the Bible cannot have figurative language anywhere.

No argument there.

 

[SkyWriting]

okay if we go by the Bible specifically down to the number the universe is not older than seven or eight thousand years old at most.

Scripture describes a timeline starting with Adam. But consider if Adam was the first person to be "Saved" then a timeline can start there. That doesn't require that the universe was formed at the same time as Adam. So using the genealogy to date creation is a faulse use of the information given.

 

[The Barbarian]

If the date of creation or the date of Adam's creation was important or even useful to us as Christians, God would have given us an unequivocal date for each of those.

But it's not. And we delude ourselves if we suppose that we can be clever enough to recruit God's word to find those dates, when He didn't choose to give them to us.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the date of creation or the date of Adam's creation was important or even useful to us as Christians, God would have given us an unequivocal date for each of those.

Riiight.

If I offered to sell you a coin dated 4004 BC, would you buy it?

 

[The Barbarian]

If I offered to sell you a coin dated 4004 BC, would you buy it?

Depends on who dated it.

Since God declined to give us specific dates, it's futile, not to say disrespectful to try to use His word to get around that lack of information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on who dated it.

What do you mean by that?

Any coin with a BC date on it is fake.

 

[The Barbarian]

What do you mean by that?

If the person dating it is sufficiently knowledgeable to know, then I'd believe it. Otherwise, not.

Any coin with a BC date on it is fake.

Coins from those times didn't have "BC" on them. They have to be dated by other means.

 

[AV1611VET]

Coins from those times didn't have "BC" on them.

BINGO!

Yet, according to you:

If the date of creation or the date of Adam's creation was important or even useful to us as Christians, God would have given us an unequivocal date for each of those.

I can see it now:

Archaeologist: Hey, look! This tree has a carving on it that says: THIS TREE WAST CREATED BC 4004, DURING THE CREATION WEEK.
2nd Archaeologist: Right. Why wasn't it destroyed by the Flood?

If you won't accept a coin, you're not going to accept a tree.

 

[The Barbarian]

Coins from those times didn't have "BC" on them. They have to be dated by other means. I thought you knew.

BINGO!

Such coins can be dated by other means. This is why your scenario won't work:
Archaeologist: Hey, look! This tree has a carving on it that says: THIS TREE WAS CREATED BC 4004, DURING THE CREATION WEEK.

2nd Archaeologist: Right. Why wasn't it destroyed by the Flood?

Aside from the fact that the creation "week" wasn't even a period of time, you probably didn't know that AD and BC were used long after Christ was born. So your system won't work. Can we get a date on a tree? Sure. There are many reliable ways to do that. But your idea of using "BC" as a marker won't work.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your system won't work.

Then Post 27 doesn't make sense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then Post 27 doesn't make sense.

I'm merely pointing out that if God wanted us to know the precise date of creation, he would have given it to us in a clear and unequivocal manner. All the theological pilpul attempting to wrest it out of His word by cleverness, is doomed to failure.

Which doesn't mean that we can't find information on the age of the Earth by other means. It just means that you can't get it out of scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm merely pointing out that if God wanted us to know the precise date of creation, he would have given it to us in a clear and unequivocal manner.

God wants us to know a lot of things that He's given us in a clear and unequivocal manner.

What makes you think telling us plainly what year it was is any different?

Think about it.

Suppose Genesis 1:1 started out:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, in 4004 BC, God created the heaven and the earth.

Unbelievers ... and some believers alike ... academia ... would be all over that like ants on ice cream.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, in 4004 BC, God created the heaven and the earth.

Unbelievers ... and some believers alike ... academia ... would be all over that like ants on ice cream.

If God had said how long it was from creation to Abraham, that would have been an unequivocal statement. God never told us how old creation is. It wasn't important to the message. If it had been, He would have given us a clear answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God had said how long it was from creation to Abraham, that would have been an unequivocal statement.

Like He did when Daniel said how long it would be until the Messiah came?

How'd that work out in their academic circles when Jesus showed up at the appointed time?

God never told us how old creation is.

Earlier, in Post 27, you said ...

If the date of creation or the date of Adam's creation was important or even useful to us as Christians, God would have given us an unequivocal date for each of those.

Now you're Arab phoning it to "how old creation is"?

What's up with that?

What is it you're looking for now? the date of creation? or how old it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your problem is you want dates to have an absolute value. And they don't. They are always relative to something that happened at some time. God could have established something like that, if it was important.

But He didn't.

What is it you're looking for now? the date of creation? or how old it is?

What you don't get is that those are two ways of saying the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your problem is you want dates to have an absolute value. And they don't. They are always relative to something that happened at some time. God could have established something like that, if it was important.

Barbarian, let's simplify this conversation.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

Get a calculator and tell me how many years transpired from vs 1 to vs 8.

If you can do that, can you use that same calculator and tell me how many years transpired between Genesis 1:1 and the birth of Christ?

What you don't get is that those are two ways of saying the same thing.

No, they aren't.

Can God make a rock tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?