Genesis 1:2-12 and the Hydrologic Cycle

[DanielPech]

.

When I read Genesis 1:2-10, I see the creation of the geophysical portion of Earth's Hydrological Cycle. I assume that the Hydrologic Cycle is Irreducibly Complex (ID), just as is said of living organisms by my fellow YEC’s.

If the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then what is the number and kinds of most basic parts of the Hydrologic Cycle? I think there are five parts which the physical Earth itself contributes to the Hydrologic Cycle: the Day-night cycle making two parts, the air making a third part, and the land and seas making the fourth and fifth parts.

If these five are the most basic geophysical parts of the Hydrologic Cycle, and if the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then these five correspond, in a most profoundly way, to the five instances in Genesis 1 that report on the fact that God's names things (v. 5, v. 8, and v. 10).

I am YEC (Young Earth-and-Cosmos). My presumption is that not only is the Hydrologic Cycle irreducibly complex, but that the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself indefinitely without all these five geophysical parts. I go further. I propose that the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself indefinitely without at least plant life.

And since I am YEC, I like to think that any one geophysical part of the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself for very long at all. In other words, I like to think that, minus even one of these five geophysical parts, such an *incomplete* Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself for more than a day.

Thus, I like to think that even the complete geophysical Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself to *full capacity* for more than a day without abundant plant life.

But, if all of the above ideas are true, then, given merely these ideas, there is no prima facie reason to think that the Hydrologic Cycle can maintain itself for long without animal life. In other words, if all the above ideas are true, then it is only natural to allow that the Hydrologic Cycle depends not merely on the geophysical features and abundant plant life, but on abundant animal life.

Here is the single central issue for me: Is God concerned for a useless abundance? Is the abundance of both water and life and Earth insignificant to the fact that any life can abide here at all? My answer is no. Abundance of water and life are necessary for life to survive. This reflects the abundance of the quantity of different cosmological constants in the way of their being fine-tuned to allow life in the universe. Abundance. Generosity. Openness.

Of course, these three allow that any evil in the mix has an abundance of resources and avenues by which to be maintained and to spread. But that’s just borrowing or stealing what does not belong to it.

But I digress.

My point is that I find reason, perhaps despite my ignorance, to think that God really did create (at least Earth’s biosphere) in six literal days.


.

[B. W.]

There is one proverbial monkey wrench that has not honestly been considered by literalist YEC that concerns the 6'th day in which man and woman were created. If the sixth day was a literal 24 hour modern day based, then, these questions need answered:

Man Created on day six

God had Adam name all the animals on that same day

Earlier on the sixth day as well as on day five indicates that a very large number of animals had already been created before man was created.

Question: How long would it take from Gen 1:24,25 to Gen 1:26 and word translated 'then' to have transpired in a 24 hour day?

Next:

God created more animals on day six (Gen 1:24-25) before man came on the scene and add these to the others created listed from Gen 1:20,21,22,23. That is a lot of animals to name. Therefore, how long would it take to name all these land animals? How many hours did it take for Adam to complete this task proclaimed in Gen 2:20 ?

Next, add in that God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam during that same 24 hour day as mentioned in Gen 2:21 and fashioned Eve. How long did Adam sleep?

Then add in Adam seeing Eve for the first time and let you mind wander on this

That was one LONG 24 hours then wasn't it?

Consider naming all the animals, then going into a deep sleep, and then seeing Eve for the first time. How in the world is that physically possible to do all this in less than a 24 hour period considering that Gen 1:24,25 came before Adam was made?

Even if God made these sixth day animals in one second and Adam the next second - how could Adam name all the these beasts within the next twenty four hours, made to fall into a very deep sleep, see Eve in a mere 24 hour period?

One can pass it off as God can do anything and dismiss these objections with the wave of the hand. However, test the theory of a literal 24 hour day yourself. I suggest you spend the next 24 hours and simply name all the land animals on earth right now and see how long it takes, then meet your spouse for the first time... both you naked too...

Also add in this: Do not forget, the the Hebrew idea of naming is not simply to name a mere name - like cat - but rather identifying character traits of whatever is named i.e. or assigning the characteristic by name. Example of OT naming is found in 1 Chronicles 4:9,10...

Now go out and name as well as add in naming all characteristics and assigning characteristics to all the land animals in a 24 hour period then being interrupted by a deep sleep as well seeing your spouse for the first time? - could you do it?

I am sure YEC point of view will die defending a literal 24 hour day posed by suspension in time or that all land beast were not named or by supernatural ability but the word of God does not specify any of these assumed theorems having literally occurred.

Therefore, to be true to literalism of a 24 hour day creation day, then that 24 hour day time could never be altered, stopped, suspended in any shape of the imagination in order for literalsim young earth to be true to its self.

Likewise, any supernatural act involved in naming all - every animal - likewise is not literally mentioned either. So to be true the literalist stance of the young earth creationism how can Adam have named all land beast of the earth in 24 hour earth day?

Just this alone points out that God's time and ways are not according to our time nor according to our ways proving these verses from the word of God true: Isaiah 55:8,Psalms 90:4, and 2 Peter 3:8

OEC and, yes, even some variations Gap remain true to honor these verses by letting God create and do things in his own time however he chose to do them. God created period, no problem. Have a nice day
-
-
-

P.S.

Please let us heed these verses when discussing this topic: Proverbs 15:18, Proverbs 28:25, 1 Co 3:3, Titus 3:9, James 3:16,17

[DanielPech]

.
First, the special context of Adam's naming the animals is clear: it is in relation to finding a suitable companion-mate. If no special context was clear in the passage, then your argument would be valid.

Second, you are assuming that all the kinds of (land) animals that God created were the relatively 'endless' varieties that we have today.

Third, this last assumption overlooks the fact that the issue is not varieties within a kind, but the kind itself.
So, (A) There is no warrant in the text of Genesis 1 thru 2 for assuming either that God paraded every variety of a given kind of land animal before Adam; and (B) there is warrant in biology for assuming that the number of the variety within a kind, in that original state of the world, was so many as there is now.

Therefore, what you commit is not a straight-forward reading of the text. Rather, you commit a dissociative reading. And, then, on top of that, you take for granted, without justification, that what then existed was in every way the same as now. You may as well insist that the text is metaphorical, or some such. That way, you can deny that a child would read it to be the story of the origin of humanity in one man and on woman.

I presume that you believe in a literal Adam. But, if you deny a literal Adam, then there is not much, in the way of mere logic, that you and I can discuss regarding Genesis 1 and 2.

The poetry of this binary account is another matter. But, I have not read any of your other posts. So, I would make a guess that you prefer to treat this binary as a purely 'scientific' and 'logical' account---as if it were composed in order to serve as a dry text book written a proverbially droning, dryly 'intellectual' kind of biology teacher.

.

[abelcainsbrother]

.

When I read Genesis 1:2-10, I see the creation of the geophysical portion of Earth's Hydrological Cycle. I assume that the Hydrologic Cycle is Irreducibly Complex (ID), just as is said of living organisms by my fellow YEC’s.

If the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then what is the number and kinds of most basic parts of the Hydrologic Cycle? I think there are five parts which the physical Earth itself contributes to the Hydrologic Cycle: the Day-night cycle making two parts, the air making a third part, and the land and seas making the fourth and fifth parts.

If these five are the most basic geophysical parts of the Hydrologic Cycle, and if the Hydrologic Cycle is ID, then these five correspond, in a most profoundly way, to the five instances in Genesis 1 that report on the fact that God's names things (v. 5, v. 8, and v. 10).

I am YEC (Young Earth-and-Cosmos). My presumption is that not only is the Hydrologic Cycle irreducibly complex, but that the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself indefinitely without all these five geophysical parts. I go further. I propose that the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself indefinitely without at least plant life.

And since I am YEC, I like to think that any one geophysical part of the Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself for very long at all. In other words, I like to think that, minus even one of these five geophysical parts, such an *incomplete* Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself for more than a day.

Thus, I like to think that even the complete geophysical Hydrologic Cycle cannot maintain itself to *full capacity* for more than a day without abundant plant life.

But, if all of the above ideas are true, then, given merely these ideas, there is no prima facie reason to think that the Hydrologic Cycle can maintain itself for long without animal life. In other words, if all the above ideas are true, then it is only natural to allow that the Hydrologic Cycle depends not merely on the geophysical features and abundant plant life, but on abundant animal life.

Here is the single central issue for me: Is God concerned for a useless abundance? Is the abundance of both water and life and Earth insignificant to the fact that any life can abide here at all? My answer is no. Abundance of water and life are necessary for life to survive. This reflects the abundance of the quantity of different cosmological constants in the way of their being fine-tuned to allow life in the universe. Abundance. Generosity. Openness.

Of course, these three allow that any evil in the mix has an abundance of resources and avenues by which to be maintained and to spread. But that’s just borrowing or stealing what does not belong to it.

But I digress.

My point is that I find reason, perhaps despite my ignorance, to think that God really did create (at least Earth’s biosphere) in six literal days.


.

The Hydrologic cycle only has to do with the first heaven. The bible tells us there are three heavens but YEC's make the mistake of only thinking earth and first heaven and they ignore the other two. The truth is in Genesis 1:2-12 God MADE not created all three heavens and he placed a dome over the second heaven which is the crystal sea above the 2nd heaven and it separates us from where God is in the third heaven,this is why God does not say it is good on the 2nd day.Job 37:10,1st Corinthians 13:12,Revelation 4:6. On one side below the third heaven this dome is dark or black,but on God's side above the 2nd heaven it is like crystal with God's light shimmering off of it.Genesis 1:7.This is overlooked by YEC's. It happens because of a lack of bible study and trying to make YEC creation science fit into the bible.

[B. W.]

...Second, you are assuming that all the kinds of (land) animals that God created were the relatively 'endless' varieties that we have today.

Third, this last assumption overlooks the fact that the issue is not varieties within a kind, but the kind itself.

So what I am hearing you say is that YEC theory absolutely supports Darwin's theory of evolution in order for your statement to be true.... correct - however all in about 6,000 years?

Did Adam name the dinosaurs too?

After all, if the dinosaurs died in the flood of Noah's day, then did he name them?
-
-
-

[B. W.]

First, the special context of Adam's naming the animals is clear: it is in relation to finding a suitable companion-mate. If no special context was clear in the passage, then your argument would be valid....

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. NASB

Regarding the Hebrew use of the word translated helper in Gen 1:18; The ancient Hebrew word - ‛ēzer has in its basic meaning this: Providing one who helps one come to recognize self i.e one's purpose, calling, limits, being, etc in life...

Naming the animals would provide aid in helping Adam recognize who God created him to be (see Genesis 1:26 for details on what this was about).

As for Eve in Genesis 2:20,21,22 the same principle applies in a different context. They both, together help and aid each other to recognize their purpose, calling, limits,etc beings in life.

Actually, God in his deep unfathomable wisdom was teaching Adam responsibility that his unique state of being, position, and his calling requires in verse 18 regarding the naming of the animals.

Your statement Dan makes it sound like God was seeking in some manner for land animals as man's procreating partners.... re-read your own post again.... please clarify - thank you
-
-
-

[DanielPech]

.

...Second, you are assuming that all the kinds of (land) animals that God created were the relatively 'endless' varieties that we have today.

Third, this last assumption overlooks the fact that the issue is not varieties within a kind, but the kind itself.

So what I am hearing you say is that YEC theory absolutely supports Darwin's theory of evolution in order for your statement to be true.... correct - however all in about 6,000 years?

You grossly conflate two or more things.

First, Darwin's theory is as to the origin of kinds, not variations within kinds. It is a type of naturalistic, or secularistic, view of how everything evolves from mere matter. Despite claims to the contrary, the essence of Darwin's view of biology (not necessarily any one of his formulated theories) is as to the naturalistic origin of all three of (1) plant and animal life as such, (2) less and more complex and adaptable kinds, and (3) each of the specialized kinds that make up non-human animals.

Humans top out in (2), and so are not within (3). Humans are the most generalized life form. Humans can't smell as well as a bear, don't have fur like cats, have no wings to fly, etc.. In other words, we humans have a balance between physical and mental capacities, unlike all other animals and all plants.

Second, a kind has two functions: One, given any morphological distance between, say, you and I, the number of possible varieties of human within that distance is so great as to at least seem to be infinite in number. This is a matter of adaptability to the variation that exists in the environment. Two, this entails not only that a more-or-less normal range with a kind is vast, but that the type of specialized variation within a kind due to fallen conditions greatly adds to that number. The fact is that, contrary to 'Darwinists', kinds are maintained: they do not originate from less complex kinds, nor from cross kinds (bovines into whales, much less dogs into dolphins).

Did Adam name the dinosaurs too? After all, if the dinosaurs died in the flood of Noah's day, then did he name them?

In the sixth day, possibly as late as the afternoon, Adam named whatever animals that God brought to him. One might suppose that Adam had not yet known all what land creatures that God had created. In any case, Adam, as a functional adult human being whose nature is to learn and explore, had by then followed out a collection of basic cosmological binaries in terms of general and special, beginning with the wider cosmos and Earth.

Adam had by then found that he, of all creatures, had no binary instantiation. He was the general instance, and now God brought to him at least the morphologically most human-like land kinds and some of the more unlike kinds such as birds. Adam named them, but did not expect any of them to be his kind. He knew that the special instance of human must come from himself, just as Earth was made specially from more general matter. There is no warrant for rejecting the idea that Adam named these animals only as the culmination of a process of observing and naming other things.

This goes to your latter reply post to me. Specifically, you say:

Your statement makes it sound like God was seeking in some manner for land animals as man's procreating partners

I don't mean that at all, but you can't have it both ways. The fact is that the account (Gen 2:20) says 'no suitable mate was found for Adam.' Your reply, at least in effect, presupposes that the account was written or dictated by God, and that this as record of the most cluelessly simplistic intentioned on God's part.

Given the context even only of the fact that Gen 2:20 ends with 'no suitable mate was found for Adam', Adam needn't have named every then-variety within each kind of land animal, nor even every kind of land animal. It also is not unlikely that Adam had already seen every kind of land animal by that point. And, if he had seen them all already, then he had just been busy conversing with God about more general matters first, beginning with the Great Wide Far Up There and the Great Wide Down Here.

.

[B. W.]

...Second, you are assuming that all the kinds of (land) animals that God created were the relatively 'endless' varieties that we have today.

Third, this last assumption overlooks the fact that the issue is not varieties within a kind, but the kind itself.

So what I am hearing you say is that YEC theory absolutely supports Darwin's theory of evolution in order for your statement to be true.... correct - however all in about 6,000 years?

You grossly conflate two or more things.

First, Darwin's theory is as to the origin of kinds, not variations within kinds. It is a type of naturalistic, or secularistic, view of how everything evolves from mere matter. Despite claims to the contrary, the essence of Darwin's view of biology (not necessarily any one of his formulated theories) is as to the naturalistic origin of all three of (1) plant and animal life as such, (2) less and more complex and adaptable kinds, and (3) each of the specialized kinds that make up non-human animals.

Humans top out in (2), and so are not within (3). Humans are the most generalized life form. Humans can't smell as well as a bear, don't have fur like cats, have no wings to fly, etc.. In other words, we humans have a balance between physical and mental capacities, unlike all other animals and all plants.

Second, a kind has two functions: One, given any morphological distance between, say, you and I, the number of possible varieties of human within that distance is so great as to at least seem to be infinite in number. This is a matter of adaptability to the variation that exists in the environment. Two, this entails not only that a more-or-less normal range with a kind is vast, but that the type of specialized variation within a kind due to fallen conditions greatly adds to that number. The fact is that, contrary to 'Darwinists', kinds are maintained: they do not originate from less complex kinds, nor from cross kinds (bovines into whales, much less dogs into dolphins).

Did Adam name the dinosaurs too? After all, if the dinosaurs died in the flood of Noah's day, then did he name them?

In the sixth day, possibly as late as the afternoon, Adam named whatever animals that God brought to him. One might suppose that Adam had not yet known all what land creatures that God had created. In any case, Adam, as a functional adult human being whose nature is to learn and explore, had by then followed out a collection of basic cosmological binaries in terms of general and special, beginning with the wider cosmos and Earth.

Adam had by then found that he, of all creatures, had no binary instantiation. He was the general instance, and now God brought to him at least the morphologically most human-like land kinds and some of the more unlike kinds such as birds. Adam named them, but did not expect any of them to be his kind. He knew that the special instance of human must come from himself, just as Earth was made specially from more general matter. There is no warrant for rejecting the idea that Adam named these animals only as the culmination of a process of observing and naming other things.

How long ago was the great flood in Noah's day?

Let me state that clearly my position is of a world wide flood and not local; however, a local flood maybe possible and I do not discount either with smug hubris. I died to such selfishness long ago.

Back to topic: For you to be correct then how long ago was Noah's flood?

From this you would have to say all species branched out within say around 4000 years ago.

Question, mathematically, how many animal variations per year would have needed to develop to reach current animal species and how come we do not see that current rate today?

Say a wolf to a chihuahua in about 4000 years... A Lion into a house cat...?

The bible mentions from the ancient Hebrew grammar the word translated as all כּל kōl is spelled לכל after Adam and spelled ולכל after the word beast is used. The spelling, grammar, along with context indicate all, every kind of a specific land and flying beast, and not a limited number according to a limited geo-graphic area. God brought forth all these animals to him, not a few, all.

This would take time and add in the meaning of the Hebrew concept of a name meaning assigning character according to its nature - even more time would be involved. That includes if the animals were limited to a certain Geographic location as well too. Not enough time in the 24 hour solar earth day either.

A mere 24 hour solar day is too short for all this to have happened adding in the deep sleep.

God ways are not our ways. His day is not like our day. The bible is clear on this.

To declare that God had to only use a 24 hour solar earth day when he created and to teach that those Christians who disbelieve in a 24 hour solar earth day creation of the entire universe as falling into some sort of heresy deserving of damnation is merely using God for the purposes of merely feeling superior and favored above ones fellow Christian followers of Christ.

God creations days are his own and according to his own time. The majority OEC and GAP folks do not accuse fellow Christians who ascribe to basing a creation day to a 24 solar earth day of heresy and damnation, nor do we stir up strife and contention to bash and shame people to believe as we do. People have a right to believe what they will regarding that length of a creation day but not to use whatever position one has as a form of oneupmanship and favor before God over others who disagree.

Fact is, God is God and as God and his concept of a day is not ours, nor our his ways our ways. The main point of salvation is the cross of Christ, not if one believes God's sense of time is our sense of time regarding creation days.

Do you understand what I am saying?

This goes to your latter reply post to me. Specifically, you say:

Your statement makes it sound like God was seeking in some manner for land animals as man's procreating partners

I don't mean that at all, but you can't have it both ways. The fact is that the account (Gen 2:20) says 'no suitable mate was found for Adam.' Your reply, at least in effect, presupposes that the account was written or dictated by God, and that this as record of the most cluelessly simplistic intentioned on God's part.

Given the context even only of the fact that Gen 2:20 ends with 'no suitable mate was found for Adam', Adam needn't have named every then-variety within each kind of land animal, nor even every kind of land animal. It also is not unlikely that Adam had already seen every kind of land animal by that point. And, if he had seen them all already, then he had just been busy conversing with God about more general matters first, beginning with the Great Wide Far Up There and the Great Wide Down Here.

Again you state that you did not mean that at all and then next say can't have it both ways...

That is a logical contradiction. Are you aware of that or did you mean something else as I know that writing on an open forum one's meaning can be hard to express at times.

Again the concept of the Hebrew use of the word translated help-mate, helper, etc denotes the means for one to discover and develop his or her purpose, calling, direction, authority, limits, gifts, talents - to help meet that need.

The context is clear from Genesis chapter two regarding God creating animals to help Adam meet the need to discover who he was, develop his purpose, calling, direction, authority, limits, gifts, talents, etc. In this context, the translation make perfect sense.

Also note that ancient Hebrew language used around 8000 words compared to our English language that has over 300,000 words. Just be aware of that and note context and continuity when investigating word usages.

When the bible says God brought all the land and flying animals to Adam to help him discover and develop his purpose to tend and keep and exercise dominion (context), I take that to mean all as in every beast mentioned as there is no indication that God did not mean all because he is the one who brought all these beast to Adam to develop Adams calling.

Lastly you state that my position is cluelessly simplistially intentioned regarding God's part...



I thought YEC's believed in the literalness of the creation account too...

For the record, I will let God be God and let him do things his ways - his ways and not mine. In that, I am content. If that is cluelessly simplistially intentioned regarding God, so be it.

Have a nice day
-
-
-

[Audie]

.

...Second, you are assuming that all the kinds of (land) animals that God created were the relatively 'endless' varieties that we have today.

Third, this last assumption overlooks the fact that the issue is not varieties within a kind, but the kind itself.

So what I am hearing you say is that YEC theory absolutely supports Darwin's theory of evolution in order for your statement to be true.... correct - however all in about 6,000 years?

You grossly conflate two or more things.

First, Darwin's theory is as to the origin of kinds, not variations within kinds. It is a type of naturalistic, or secularistic, view of how everything evolves from mere matter. Despite claims to the contrary, the essence of Darwin's view of biology (not necessarily any one of his formulated theories) is as to the naturalistic origin of all three of (1) plant and animal life as such, (2) less and more complex and adaptable kinds, and (3) each of the specialized kinds that make up non-human animals.

Humans top out in (2), and so are not within (3). Humans are the most generalized life form. Humans can't smell as well as a bear, don't have fur like cats, have no wings to fly, etc.. In other words, we humans have a balance between physical and mental capacities, unlike all other animals and all plants.

Second, a kind has two functions: One, given any morphological distance between, say, you and I, the number of possible varieties of human within that distance is so great as to at least seem to be infinite in number. This is a matter of adaptability to the variation that exists in the environment. Two, this entails not only that a more-or-less normal range with a kind is vast, but that the type of specialized variation within a kind due to fallen conditions greatly adds to that number. The fact is that, contrary to 'Darwinists', kinds are maintained: they do not originate from less complex kinds, nor from cross kinds (bovines into whales, much less dogs into dolphins).

Did Adam name the dinosaurs too? After all, if the dinosaurs died in the flood of Noah's day, then did he name them?

In the sixth day, possibly as late as the afternoon, Adam named whatever animals that God brought to him. One might suppose that Adam had not yet known all what land creatures that God had created. In any case, Adam, as a functional adult human being whose nature is to learn and explore, had by then followed out a collection of basic cosmological binaries in terms of general and special, beginning with the wider cosmos and Earth.

Adam had by then found that he, of all creatures, had no binary instantiation. He was the general instance, and now God brought to him at least the morphologically most human-like land kinds and some of the more unlike kinds such as birds. Adam named them, but did not expect any of them to be his kind. He knew that the special instance of human must come from himself, just as Earth was made specially from more general matter. There is no warrant for rejecting the idea that Adam named these animals only as the culmination of a process of observing and naming other things.

This goes to your latter reply post to me. Specifically, you say:

Your statement makes it sound like God was seeking in some manner for land animals as man's procreating partners

I don't mean that at all, but you can't have it both ways. The fact is that the account (Gen 2:20) says 'no suitable mate was found for Adam.' Your reply, at least in effect, presupposes that the account was written or dictated by God, and that this as record of the most cluelessly simplistic intentioned on God's part.

Given the context even only of the fact that Gen 2:20 ends with 'no suitable mate was found for Adam', Adam needn't have named every then-variety within each kind of land animal, nor even every kind of land animal. It also is not unlikely that Adam had already seen every kind of land animal by that point. And, if he had seen them all already, then he had just been busy conversing with God about more general matters first, beginning with the Great Wide Far Up There and the Great Wide Down Here.

.

Please note that Dan here has a most eccentric view of evolution, and is ONLY stating
a rather confused opinion.

[Jac3510]

There is one proverbial monkey wrench that has not honestly been considered by literalist YEC that concerns the 6'th day in which man and woman were created. If the sixth day was a literal 24 hour modern day based, then, these questions need answered:

Man Created on day six

God had Adam name all the animals on that same day

Earlier on the sixth day as well as on day five indicates that a very large number of animals had already been created before man was created.

Question: How long would it take from Gen 1:24,25 to Gen 1:26 and word translated 'then' to have transpired in a 24 hour day?

Next:

God created more animals on day six (Gen 1:24-25) before man came on the scene and add these to the others created listed from Gen 1:20,21,22,23. That is a lot of animals to name. Therefore, how long would it take to name all these land animals? How many hours did it take for Adam to complete this task proclaimed in Gen 2:20 ?

Next, add in that God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam during that same 24 hour day as mentioned in Gen 2:21 and fashioned Eve. How long did Adam sleep?

Then add in Adam seeing Eve for the first time and let you mind wander on this

That was one LONG 24 hours then wasn't it?

Wow. You're right. No YEC has has ever addressed that. I mean, no one. I hope somebody actually gets around to addressing this extremely common and plainly dumb objection! Cause if they don't, I'm totally persuaded to give up YEC. Thanks for raising a new issue that's never been considered before!

[B. W.]

[Wow. You're right. No YEC has has ever addressed that. I mean, no one. I hope somebody actually gets around to addressing this extremely common and plainly dumb objection! Cause if they don't, I'm totally persuaded to give up YEC. Thanks for raising a new issue that's never been considered before!

Rest my case for the militancy of many YEC's... Hope folks can see it and compare with the word of God...

Proverbs 17:19 NKJV

James 3:16-18, For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. NKJV

Proverbs 28:25 NKJV

Have a nice day and many blessings from the Lord, Jac...
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Ah, so because I post lots of cases where people have addressed an issue that you incorrectly claimed has never been addressed--facts that either necessarily mean you are uneducated on this topic or else being intentionally dishonest when discussing it--means that I am "militant."

Thinking I should file a formal complaint with the moderaters. I'm pretty sure we have rules here about the tone of discussions, and in saying YECs haven't "honestly" considered a very common objection, and calling YECs "militant" when one points out how you are correct could well be interpreted as violating those rules. Besides, such language strikes me as hypocritical and divisive. There might be a Scripture about that somewhere we could apply here. If only I could remember which one.

Ah well, I'll trust my Christian readers will be able to find it and will be able to see for themselves whether or not certain OECs on this claim are slandering their brothers in Christ or not.

And I'll continue to have a nice day, many thanks. May you be a more honest person today, BW.

[RickD]

B. W. wrote:
There is one proverbial monkey wrench that has not honestly been considered by literalist YEC that concerns the 6'th day in which man and woman were created. If the sixth day was a literal 24 hour modern day based, then, these questions need answered:

Since I point this out constantly when acb does this, and certain yecs as well, I'd be remiss if I didn't point it out here as well. Whether or not we agree with their conclusions, it's simply not true that yecs haven't honestly considered things that happened on the 6th creation day.

I hope that we all can see that just because we disagree with our creation stances, that doesn't necessarily mean we don't consider the arguments of those who disagree with us.

[SoCalExile]

A third contender emerges:

http://www.slideshare.net/SarahSalviand ... s-63120073

[RickD]

A third contender emerges:

http://www.slideshare.net/SarahSalviand ... s-63120073

After a quick read, it looks like Schroeder's Creation Perspective. Not quite an "emerging" third contender. If you'll excuse the comparison, it's more like a third fighter who is a "never was", and really had no chance in the creation boxing ring.

For whatever reason, Schroeder's beliefs never really gained any traction.

From what basic reading I've done about it, I understand it to be a kind of compromise between YEC and day age/progressive creation.