Page 4 of 8

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:56 am
by ROBE
Could horse, donkey and zebra have all come from the same kind? Yes they can breed you know, species are usually created by a loss or mutation of genetic information. Likewise the panda may well be the father of all the other bears.
The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.
Encyclopedia Americana
The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson

Where do I get my information, the internet where else?

Old Earthers are obcessed with making things older than they are while young earthers have to make everything younger than they are. One extreme or the other :shakehead:

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:28 am
by zoegirl
ROBE, thi is hardly a uneasonable request. I want details. DO you agree with that diagram provided? INstead of vaguely stating that species are not always species, I want a model that actually proposes what happened.

What SPECIFIC references are you using that provided you with the number 45 kinds of mammals and 75 knds of birds? Also, considering that ALL events would require mutations, what rate are we talking about? When do you think the flood occurred?

IN any case, we go back to the premise that all of the ideas presented here then support evolutionary pathways and mechanisms.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:47 am
by Gman
ROBE wrote:Where do I get my information, the internet where else?
How about this internet source?

"Robert D. Barnes lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp. 12, 85-88). Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.

In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown.

All of those creatures were known at one time, for Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19-20), and, since they exist today, they must have been on the ark. But we shall be extremely generous to the YEC creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure of 1,177,920—thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with which Noah had to contend.

Of course, we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only unclean animals come in single pairs, male and female; the clean animals and birds come in seven pairs, male and female. That means fourteen of each clean animal and each bird. But since figures for the number of clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off the hook and ignore them. Birds are another story. There are 8,590 species of birds. Since they have already been calculated into our figure of 1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the ark, we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it come out to seven pairs. That brings our count up to a grand total of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark—two of each species, except birds which number fourteen each."

Source: http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:17 pm
by ageofknowledge
For the sake of clarity (lest anyone see this as anything less than the strawman it is), you mean your grand total. The animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility when you actually read what the text says in it's original language rather than going on about your misconceptions of other's misinterpretations to prove a false point.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:29 am
by ROBE
If you break all these species down into groups than can interbreed then there are fewer creatures. According to a biology book I have, there are only 42 Reptile families, 154 bird families and 122 mammal families. These figures also include water dwelling families, which did not need to be taken into the Ark. If it was only a local flood wouldn't it have been more logical for Noah and his family to simply move away from the effected area like Lot and his family? What was the point in building such a massive wooden box, far bigger than any wooden ship built even 100 years ago? God promised that the earth and everything living on it would never again be destroyed by a flood again, if it was only a local flood then he hasn't kept the promise?

Today the Earth is mostly covered with water, if it wasn't for the uneven crust then it would be completely covered with water. The Earth also started out completely covered in water after the creation of the universe for Lord knows how many billions of years. We have a water planet. If the pre flood Earth of Noah's day had shallow oceans and a relatively flat land mass with large underground water deposits, it could have been easily flooded if the Earth's crust was torn apart by comets or meteorite hits. The weight of the water would then force dry land up and the oceans with their finner crusts down, forming the world we know today. The "asteroid" that wiped out the Dinosaurs, the various Ice Ages and the Flood are all the same event.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:21 am
by Gman
ROBE wrote:If you break all these species down into groups than can interbreed then there are fewer creatures. According to a biology book I have, there are only 42 Reptile families, 154 bird families and 122 mammal families. These figures also include water dwelling families, which did not need to be taken into the Ark.
Source? Well let's not forget that there were fourteen of each clean animal and each bird which would have brought up the total considerably (Genesis 7:2-3). This source has it as 9,956 species of birds. Also young earth creationists are claiming that the dinosaurs were also on the ark. And what about the extinct species of animals? These estimates are only the current ones. As for the water dwelling families, the fresh water fish would have been killed by the salt water.
ROBE wrote:If it was only a local flood wouldn't it have been more logical for Noah and his family to simply move away from the effected area like Lot and his family? What was the point in building such a massive wooden box, far bigger than any wooden ship built even 100 years ago? God promised that the earth and everything living on it would never again be destroyed by a flood again, if it was only a local flood then he hasn't kept the promise?
I could copy and paste the answer but it's all answered here.. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
ROBE wrote:Today the Earth is mostly covered with water, if it wasn't for the uneven crust then it would be completely covered with water. The Earth also started out completely covered in water after the creation of the universe for Lord knows how many billions of years. We have a water planet. If the pre flood Earth of Noah's day had shallow oceans and a relatively flat land mass with large underground water deposits, it could have been easily flooded if the Earth's crust was torn apart by comets or meteorite hits. The weight of the water would then force dry land up and the oceans with their finner crusts down, forming the world we know today. The "asteroid" that wiped out the Dinosaurs, the various Ice Ages and the Flood are all the same event.
Ah, not really.. Bible speaks of great mountains like Mt. Ararat itself before the flood. How much water did it take to cover the mountains?

Image

The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers http://www.space.com, USGS.gov

Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius

Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers

Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers

The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.

Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level
= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3

Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest
= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3

The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3

Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth.

Source: http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_ ... l_or_local

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:02 pm
by erawdrah
Of course this is assuming that the seas created by God were salt water seas at the beginning. I have no proof one way or the other.

I don't see why dinosaurs could not have been on the ark. I do believe the fossil record does show a flood and dinosaurs are part of the record.

What's the bottom layer, it's marine life and marine plants. Of course, geological time scale says this layer is 1.5 bya. Then there's a gap, a missing period that's estimated at 1 bya. Then you have next "visible" layer that's full of dinosaurs and other animals. Thus evolutionists cannot explain why we see simple marine life then all at once we see complex animals. So they invented a 1 billion year gap to allow for these simple organisms to "evolve" in to more complex animals. If we just look at the evidence without preconceived ideas, one would not say that there was 1 billion year missing from the fossil record but the next layer is exactly that the next layer. This missing time is world wide not just seen the in the Grand Canyon. Link So what science is telling us is that there was a time that no strata was formed, and it wasn't formed for 1 billion years. So how do they know 1 billion years is missing? I thought we had accurate dating methods. Don't we? Link We also know that the Grand Canyon was cut by a extreme flooding. Of course, the expert won't admit that it could have been Noah's flood, but they now understand that the Grand Canyon wasn't made by erosion over millions of years. They have even stated that the dating of the Grand Canyon was incorrect. It's only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, and that only 165,000 yrs ago it carved most of the Grand Canyon in the blink of an eye. Link The point is the fossil record is a recording of a catastrophic flood, trapping the slow moving or non moving in the water first. Because they were already there to be trapped in the sediment. As you go "up" the layers, the creatures become more mobile or more intelligent to the most mobile or most intelligent, birds and man.

I haven't found any mountains mentioned in the Bible pre-flood. Please link reference so I may read it. Thanks

To your last link:
1. Egyptian dates are not known. They are supposed because Egyptians used no single system of dating, or consistent system of regnal years. Link And the great pyramid could have been built in 1270 BC. That date coincides with entrance pointing to Alpha Draconis (North Star) and the top pointing to Alcyone, the central star of the Pleiades.
2. The Bible says in Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
3. Noah's flood dates to 2400 BC which is older than Gilgamesh
4. Who knows if the seas were salty or not. I'm sure that sea life did die, just look at the fossil record.
5. I do believe the mountains were formed very fast because of the flood. That's where they go up by the mountains and down in the valleys. Psalm 104:8 I still haven't seen anything about mountains before the flood.

The person who wrote this article is just repeating what he has heard. I have done that once and it wasn't pretty.

Lastly, Zoegirl, please using parallax method, show me how you can measure a star that's 5.7 light years away. I don't need to reference any article. Just try to do the math. Your base is 186,000,000 miles and assume it's 35,400,000,000 miles away. Now find the angles.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:34 pm
by Gman
erawdrah wrote:Of course this is assuming that the seas created by God were salt water seas at the beginning. I have no proof one way or the other.
Well then the salt water would have killed the fresh water fish. Also, what would have they drank on the ark? Salt water?
erawdrah wrote:I don't see why dinosaurs could not have been on the ark. I do believe the fossil record does show a flood and dinosaurs are part of the record.
I don't see how carnivorous dinosaurs could ever have lived on the ark.. You have more faith than me. The latest record I heard was around 700 to 900 dinosaur genera. And what about all the extinct numbers of animals and dinosaurs? Also there are not millions upon millions of dead dinos found buried.. More like only a few thousand fossils..
erawdrah wrote:What's the bottom layer, it's marine life and marine plants. Of course, geological time scale says this layer is 1.5 bya. Then there's a gap, a missing period that's estimated at 1 bya. Then you have next "visible" layer that's full of dinosaurs and other animals. Thus evolutionists cannot explain why we see simple marine life then all at once we see complex animals. So they invented a 1 billion year gap to allow for these simple organisms to "evolve" in to more complex animals. If we just look at the evidence without preconceived ideas, one would not say that there was 1 billion year missing from the fossil record but the next layer is exactly that the next layer. This missing time is world wide not just seen the in the Grand Canyon. Link So what science is telling us is that there was a time that no strata was formed, and it wasn't formed for 1 billion years. So how do they know 1 billion years is missing? I thought we had accurate dating methods. Don't we? Link We also know that the Grand Canyon was cut by a extreme flooding. Of course, the expert won't admit that it could have been Noah's flood, but they now understand that the Grand Canyon wasn't made by erosion over millions of years. They have even stated that the dating of the Grand Canyon was incorrect. It's only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, and that only 165,000 yrs ago it carved most of the Grand Canyon in the blink of an eye. Link The point is the fossil record is a recording of a catastrophic flood, trapping the slow moving or non moving in the water first. Because they were already there to be trapped in the sediment. As you go "up" the layers, the creatures become more mobile or more intelligent to the most mobile or most intelligent, birds and man.
I'm sorry, there are only a few scientists (who are YEC) that back this story up..

Consider this source. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/grandcanyon.htm
Steve Austin presents an argument for the age of the earth in his 1994 book "Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe" on pages 87-89. Starting with an observed sediments carried by the Colorado River of 168 million tons per year, he shows, (correctly) that this represents the erosion .015 cubic miles per year. He then correctly notes that the volume eroded out of the Grand Canyon is approximately 1000 cubic miles. Dividing the two numbers he incorrectly obtains an age of 67,000 years for the time it would take to erode the Grand Canyon. Beyond the fact that this is ten times too old to fit into his young-earth scenario, Austin argues that the evolutionists are wrong to believe in millions of years for the canyon to form.

Where does Steve go wrong? Well, it is in assuming that ALL the sediment carried by the Colorado River comes from the Canyon itself. Without his reader's knowing it, Steve is saying that absolutely no erosion is occurring in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, which, of course, is a bizarre claim to make if one were to make it explicitly. But by not mentioning this implicit assumption in his calculation, those unfamiliar with the geologic facts will be fooled into thinking Steve has proven a short erosion time for the Grand Canyon.

The Colorado River extends 1450 miles from the mouth to the source in Colorado. Only 500 miles of this length are to be found in the Grand Canyon. The drainage area of the Colorado River is 640,000 square kilometers but the Canyon has an area of only 13,000 square kilometers. Scott Mclennan (reference below) reports that the Colorado River, prior to the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, carried 121 million tons of sediment each year. This is slightly less than the study cited by Austin so we will use his larger value of 168 million tons per year so that no one can claim we are shopping for values favorable to us.

The drainage area of the Colorado is 640,000 sq. km. and the area of the canyon is only 13,000 sq km. 800 km x 16 km wide = 12,800 sq. km. Thus, on a linear weighting, one can expect that only 2 percent of the sediment actually comes from the canyon, the rest comes from the rest of the area. But let's be fair to Steve and say that 30 percent of the sediment comes from the canyon. That means that 168,000,000*.3 =50,400,000 tons per year are moved by the river OUT OF THE CANYON AREA with the rest coming from the rest of the drainage basin. To a first approximation there are 1000 kg/ton which means that 50.4 billion kg of material is moved down the river, or given a density of 2500 kg/m, we have 20.1 million cubic meters moving down the river each year. Dividing by the area of the Canyon ( which is 13,000,000,000 square meters) we have a lowering of the Canyon surface by 20.1 x 10^6/1.3 x 10^10= 1.5 x 10^-3 m per year--hardly indicating a young earth. This is about 1.5 mm per year of excavation out of the Canyon.

So how long will it take the canyon to be excavated at this rate?

20.1 million cubic meters sediment per year = .0048 cubic mile sediment/year

1000 cubic miles/ .0048 cubic mile sediment/year = 207,000 years

Only 207,000 years? Yes, but remember, we have favored Steve greatly by allowing 30% of all erosion to occur in 2% of the area and there is NO evidence that this is the case. If one scales the determines the canyon erosion by its proportional area it would take three million years to erode the canyon, a value much more aligned with the geologic evidence.

But one question arises here. Why do young-earth creationists think that a 67,000 year age (or a 207,000 year age) for the Grand Canyon indicate a young earth? I have been on this earth less than 100 years. Does my age indicate that the earth is really only 100 years old? Does the silting up of the Colorado River behind the Glen Canyon Dam (a process which has been going on since the dam was close less than 100 years ago) indicate that the earth is only 100 years old or less? Of course, this is a silly line of logic and would be roundly condemned if stated explicitly. But that is what Steve is doing with his calculation. He is claiming that something which began long after the earth was formed, limits the age of the earth.

And what he doesn't tell people is that there are conclusive evidence of long ages prior to the Canyon's erosion in the sediments of the canyon. This evidence consists of burrows in the sediment (http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/nacofm.html http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm, footprints on sedimentary layer after layer (Lockley and Hunt,1995, p. 57), and cave erosion and collapse all occurring prior to the beginning of the canyon erosion. This last evidence is particularly interesting.

The Red-wall limestone contains collapsed caves which collapsed at a time when the entire Grand Canyon area was covered with an additional couple of hundred feet of sediment. When the cave collapsed the sediment above it fell into the cave void, filling it. This is what happens in Florida with a sink hole--a cave below the surface collapsed and whatever was above the collapse falls into the hole. At the Grand Canyon Wenrich and Huntoon (1989, p. 212) write of these pipes which occur at a rate of 6 per square mile:

"The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation."

The Chinle is a Triassic bed which lies above the Moenkopi which in turn lies above the Triassic Shinarump. Just north of the Canyon the Shinarump and Moenkopi are 1900 feet thick. Thus it is possible that when the caves collapsed, the Grand Canyon was covered with as much as an additional 2000 feet of sediment which was nearly totally removed. There is a small remnant of it on the SE side of the Canyon at Cedar Mountain. Assuming that we removed this covering layer at the same rate as the Colorado River today removes sediment how long would it take? The Triassic strata has been removed over at least 20,000 square kilometers and was at least 2000 feet thick. This means that nearly 3000 cubic miles of sediment have been removed BEFORE THE CANYON EROSION BEGAN. Using the 2 percent rule we last used above, 3000/.0048 = at least 625,000 years of erosion. Of course, Steve never tells anyone about that erosional event.

It takes time for the sediment to be deposited, burrows be dug, more sediment be deposited more burrows and animal tracks to be made and then for caves to erode in solid rock and then to collapse and then for the Triassic strata to be almost completely eroded from the Canyon area AND ONLY THEN does the Canyon erosion begin.

One general comment, if Steve admits that it takes several tens of thousands of years to dig out the canyon (by his own calculation) he must then allow for other buried canyons which are found on seismic data.

Thus the age of the entire canyon sequence must be older than the length of time it takes to erode the canyon. Of course, the young-earthers can't accept this evidence. It is a shame that Christian apologetics relies on such sloppy logic to support a young-earth.
erawdrah wrote:I haven't found any mountains mentioned in the Bible pre-flood. Please link reference so I may read it. Thanks
Please read Genesis 7:19, 20 and Psalm 104:6..
erawdrah wrote:4. Who knows if the seas were salty or not. I'm sure that sea life did die, just look at the fossil record.
If it was salt water, then it would have killed the fresh water fish and visa versa..
erawdrah wrote:5. I do believe the mountains were formed very fast because of the flood. That's where they go up by the mountains and down in the valleys. Psalm 104:8 I still haven't seen anything about mountains before the flood.
Read Genesis 7:19, 20 and Psalm 104:6. Also if they would have formed that fast it would have created giant tsunamis that would have crushed the boat into tiny pieces.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:56 pm
by erawdrah
Gman wrote:
erawdrah wrote:Of course this is assuming that the seas created by God were salt water seas at the beginning. I have no proof one way or the other.
Well then the salt water would have killed the fresh water fish. Also, what would have they drank on the ark? Salt water?
I don't believe the seas were salty. I have no proof one way or the other.
erawdrah wrote:I don't see why dinosaurs could not have been on the ark. I do believe the fossil record does show a flood and dinosaurs are part of the record.
I don't see how carnivorous dinosaurs could ever have lived on the ark.. You have more faith than me. The latest record I heard was around 700 to 900 dinosaur genera. And what about all the extinct numbers of animals and dinosaurs? Also there are not millions upon millions of dead dinos found buried.. More like only a few thousand fossils..
All animals were vegetarians pre flood.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

erawdrah wrote:What's the bottom layer, it's marine life and marine plants. Of course, geological time scale says this layer is 1.5 bya. Then there's a gap, a missing period that's estimated at 1 bya. Then you have next "visible" layer that's full of dinosaurs and other animals. Thus evolutionists cannot explain why we see simple marine life then all at once we see complex animals. So they invented a 1 billion year gap to allow for these simple organisms to "evolve" in to more complex animals. If we just look at the evidence without preconceived ideas, one would not say that there was 1 billion year missing from the fossil record but the next layer is exactly that the next layer. This missing time is world wide not just seen the in the Grand Canyon. Link So what science is telling us is that there was a time that no strata was formed, and it wasn't formed for 1 billion years. So how do they know 1 billion years is missing? I thought we had accurate dating methods. Don't we? Link We also know that the Grand Canyon was cut by a extreme flooding. Of course, the expert won't admit that it could have been Noah's flood, but they now understand that the Grand Canyon wasn't made by erosion over millions of years. They have even stated that the dating of the Grand Canyon was incorrect. It's only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, and that only 165,000 yrs ago it carved most of the Grand Canyon in the blink of an eye. Link The point is the fossil record is a recording of a catastrophic flood, trapping the slow moving or non moving in the water first. Because they were already there to be trapped in the sediment. As you go "up" the layers, the creatures become more mobile or more intelligent to the most mobile or most intelligent, birds and man.
I'm sorry, there are only a few scientists (who are YEC) that back this story up..

Consider this source. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/grandcanyon.htm
I didn't know that Rob Webb or NatGeo are YECs. And of course, the Colorado river had to run up hill to start the erosion. Which is very interesting to say the least, why did the Colorado river travel up hill at mile 65? It should have continued it's trek to the sea, downhill. I have even seen 2 different ideas which include the Colorado river flowing backwards and one claiming a lake at mile 65 that forced water both directions. It take more faith to believe that the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon then a flood formed it instantly.
erawdrah wrote:I haven't found any mountains mentioned in the Bible pre-flood. Please link reference so I may read it. Thanks
Please read Genesis 7:19, 20 and Psalm 104:6..
One verse says "high hills" and the others say "mountains", which still could have been formed during the flood. These verses all talk about the mountains during the flood. What about mountains mentioned prior to the flood? I guess it also depends on your definition of the word mountain. I lived in Oklahoma for a while where I lived by the mountains. The map even says they are mountains. Wichita Mountains are no where close to Mt. Everest, but they still are mountains. Let's say for arguement sake that Mt Everest did exist. We do find clams (in a closed position) on top of Everest. That would imply that water once covered that region and what ever killed the clams killed them quickly since normally when clams die they open up. How do you suppose they got there? Gen 7:19 claims global flood, which would explain how they got on top of the mountain.
erawdrah wrote:4. Who knows if the seas were salty or not. I'm sure that sea life did die, just look at the fossil record.
If it was salt water, then it would have killed the fresh water fish and visa versa..
That's assuming that there were salt water fish pre flood. All fish could have been fresh water. It's not uncommon for fresh water fish to adapt to salt water, especially when the salt is added slowly from erosion.
erawdrah wrote:5. I do believe the mountains were formed very fast because of the flood. That's where they go up by the mountains and down in the valleys. Psalm 104:8 I still haven't seen anything about mountains before the flood.
Read Genesis 7:19, 20 and Psalm 104:6. Also if they would have formed that fast it would have created giant tsunamis that would have crushed the boat into tiny pieces.
You almost got it. It was a powerful, very violent flood. The flood waters just didn't seep up through the ground nor could it rain enough caused the damage that we see or to cover the entire world. The ark was closed by God and God kept them safe.

Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
"Come thou and all they house into the ark;" That would imply that God was in the ark.

Genesis 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
The Lord shut him in. This implies that God closed the door not Noah. God was in control, not man or anything made by man.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:06 am
by ndvasey
Just want to throw my 2 cents in here.
Psalm 104:6-8 NASB wrote: 6You (K)covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7At Your (L)rebuke they fled,
At the (M)sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the (N)place which You established for them.
I read these verses as depicting what happened during the flood - this would cause the formation of our mountains and valleys and a method for the water drainage. There was a post regarding the lack of water to cover Everest at its present height. That statement assumes that Everest has always been at its current height. The aforementioned verses give us a picture that this assumption is not necessarily correct.

Another point: Gen 7:21, 22, 23 tells me that everything on land that had breath in its nostrils died. Would 40 days of rain and a local flood destroy all the land-based nose breathers? It is quite a leap of faith for me to believe that. Why would some animals not have lived elsewhere besides the Mesopotamian valley? Or at least travelled there when the water started rising? 40 days of rain, while highly unusual today, is not sufficient to destroy even local land-based nose breathers, let alone all of us world-wide.

Another point: Gen 6:15 tells me the ark was 45 feet high. Gen 7:20 tells me the depth of the water was 20 feet over the mountains. If it was a local flood and it only covered the ground for a depth of 20 feet, not necessarily mountains, how does the ark not bump into houses, trees or other structures over the course of the 5 months of free-floating if the draft of the boat is 15 feet (approx. 1/3 the height)? The clearance would be 5-10 feet maximum.

Another point: Is there a feature in the middle east that supports a localized flood? The contraints are such that land cannot be visible from the vantage point of a dove in flight, it can accomodate a depth of water of 20 feet for 5 months but more importantly provide a means of free-floating for 5 months' time for a vessel with a draft of 10-15 feet, all human life and land-based animals were living within this valley (or provide some other reasonable explanation for their demise).

Another point: For those arguing that a canine kind cannot branch out into all the modern canines we have today, consider this. Only 8 people were on the ark and only 6 produced children post-flood - today we have 6 billion. Those 6 must have been carrying a tremendous amount of information in their genes, much more so than we do today - why couldn't the animals? Also, if the people post flood were living to be 400-500 years old, dropping off to 120 by Abraham's day, the animals likewise could have lived much longer than they do today, giving opportunity for a more rapid speciation than is observed with the short life spans today.


Another point: The flood account in Genesis says outside of the ark, all land-based nose breathers died. Same as humans. Whether or not it was a global flood or a local flood, the fact is all land-based nose breathers died. All of them. The fact that science cannot explain how it is possible to arrive at all our different species today is a problem with science not having all the necessary data to explain it, not a problem with the account in Genesis or its translation or its interpretation.

Final point: When people bring up the point that "the original says something quite different...", inevitably doubt is placed upon the Scriptures. If God provided the original, did He not also have a hand in its translation and interpretation? Would He not have a vested interest in ensuring the correct information was passed on? If the translators (who have dedicated their entire lives to this end, availing themselves the best Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts) got something as simple as "day", "flood", "earth", "covered", "mountains" incorrect, what about the immeasurably more complex concepts of "grace", "forgiveness", "love", "mercy"? Why are we so quick to place the burden of proof on the translators of the Scriptures, who are undoubtedly inspired by God, but we do not question the motives, biases or techniques of scientists today, many of whom are rabidly anti-God?

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:30 pm
by zoegirl
]For those arguing that a canine kind cannot branch out into all the modern canines we have today, consider this. Only 8 people were on the ark and only 6 produced children post-flood - today we have 6 billion. Those 6 must have been carrying a tremendous amount of information in their genes, much more so than we do today - why couldn't the animals? Also, if the people post flood were living to be 400-500 years old, dropping off to 120 by Abraham's day, the animals likewise could have lived much longer than they do today, giving opportunity for a more rapid speciation than is observed with the short life spans today.
I am still working on the Parallax issue, btw

But to respond to this...

Nobody is questioning the dog variations...but the myriads ot dogs out there are *NOT* different species.

The question is whether the 45 kinds of mammal familes and 75 kinds of bird families mentioned by ROBE or toerh YEC proponents of rapid speication could experience the rapid speciation.

Second of all, NOBODY has provided remotely a actual model with specifics concerning what happened. The closest I have heard is ROBE's explanantion of his numbers.

*DO* people psoting here that argue for rapid post flood speciation actually have a model?!? The closest I found was that diagram I posted earlier concernng the divergence of the lae and small cats. But nobody ( unless i missed I post) seemed to voice any disagreement with this. That diagram shows that the divergence of tihs cat kind qould require rather large numebrs of mutations to develop the variations o all the cats.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:30 pm
by ndvasey
zoegirl wrote: Nobody is questioning the dog variations...but the myriads ot dogs out there are *NOT* different species.

The question is whether the 45 kinds of mammal familes and 75 kinds of bird families mentioned by ROBE or toerh YEC proponents of rapid speication could experience the rapid speciation.

Second of all, NOBODY has provided remotely a actual model with specifics concerning what happened. The closest I have heard is ROBE's explanantion of his numbers.

*DO* people psoting here that argue for rapid post flood speciation actually have a model?!? The closest I found was that diagram I posted earlier concernng the divergence of the lae and small cats. But nobody ( unless i missed I post) seemed to voice any disagreement with this. That diagram shows that the divergence of tihs cat kind qould require rather large numebrs of mutations to develop the variations o all the cats.
To build your model I will need the following information:
1. God used the term "kind". What term today does this mean? For the remainder of my bullet points I will use kind.
2. How many "kinds" do we have today?
3. What is the genetic information contained in each kind today?
4. What genetic information was contained in each kind on the ark?
5. What was the earth's gravitational field like in those days? This would affect genetic mutations.
6. What was the earth's atmosphere like in those days? This also would affect genetic mutations.
7. What was the lifespan of the "kinds" post-flood? Humans lived 400-500 years, decreasing to 120 years at Abraham.
8. What was the reproduction rate of each "kind"?

As you can see, there are quite a few variables that would be rather difficult to quantify. I do not have the time to undertake such a task so I will accept that it happened as God said it happened. Could I understand the passage incorrectly? Absolutely. However, you must certainly agree that currently held interpretations of physical data could contain errors as well.

Which of the following is more plausible:
1: Translators of the Holy Scriptures misinterpret (deliberately or otherwise) the promptings of the Holy Spirit while they read the ancient Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts. This with God's knowledge that it will breed confusion and discord among brethren in the 21st century. 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

2: The current popular interpretation of physical data could be influenced by views that are in direct opposition to the atoning work of Jesus Christ and seek to undermine the authority of the Bible. Do we have Biblical evidence for Satan, in his craftiness, introducing the questioning and/or misquoting of Scripture? Gen 3:1 "...He said to the woman, "Did God really say..."

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:09 pm
by zoegirl
ndvasey wrote:
zoegirl wrote: Nobody is questioning the dog variations...but the myriads ot dogs out there are *NOT* different species.

The question is whether the 45 kinds of mammal familes and 75 kinds of bird families mentioned by ROBE or toerh YEC proponents of rapid speication could experience the rapid speciation.

Second of all, NOBODY has provided remotely a actual model with specifics concerning what happened. The closest I have heard is ROBE's explanantion of his numbers.

*DO* people psoting here that argue for rapid post flood speciation actually have a model?!? The closest I found was that diagram I posted earlier concernng the divergence of the lae and small cats. But nobody ( unless i missed I post) seemed to voice any disagreement with this. That diagram shows that the divergence of tihs cat kind qould require rather large numebrs of mutations to develop the variations o all the cats.
To build your model I will need the following information:
1. God used the term "kind". What term today does this mean? For the remainder of my bullet points I will use kind.
2. How many "kinds" do we have today?
3. What is the genetic information contained in each kind today?
It is the YEC camps that ae declaring this as the means and methods, the onus is on *them* to defend their statements. I have tried searching for *any* evidence or model that attempts to explain this idea of rapid post speciation. So far I hve heard the following

1) The use of dog "variation" or human races, which are not, by any definition of the word species or kinds, separate species and certainly provide no foundation upon which to built an entire model of rapid speciation.

2) the use of the current number of families (45 families of mammals and 75 families of birds) to establish, erhaps, the number of kinds on the ark. This would entail quite a number of mutations, beyond the scope of simpel microevolution and involve reproductive isolation or multiple speciaiton events....evolution on a scale that most creationists are unwilling to accept.

Between the two I was hoping to find on any YEC website an explanatory model, describing what they are saying when the use the term "rapid post-flood speciation" . I finally found a coup[le of articles that seem to produce ssome semblance of a model of how such rapid speciation happened.

http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/10.pdf

http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf

Both of the articles are rife with bias and don't provide solid support. Whie they have found the speed and interruption of genes that they are looking for (bias) they run up against the lack of regualtory functon that they want. THey want these horizontal gene transfers to be conveniently active after the flood (within 200-300 years) producing highly organized speciation events that ar subject to selection, and then have these gene transfers to be suddenly absent, producing tremendously stable life forms.

and from the other side

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-st ... speciation

still searching but tired for now.
4. What genetic information was contained in each kind on the ark?
5. What was the earth's gravitational field like in those days? This would affect genetic mutations.
6. What was the earth's atmosphere like in those days? This also would affect genetic mutations.
7. What was the lifespan of the "kinds" post-flood? Humans lived 400-500 years, decreasing to 120 years at Abraham.
8. What was the reproduction rate of each "kind"?

As you can see, there are quite a few variables that would be rather difficult to quantify. I do not have the time to undertake such a task so I will accept that it happened as God said it happened. Could I understand the passage incorrectly? Absolutely. However, you must certainly agree that currently held interpretations of physical data could contain errors as well.


Which of the following is more plausible:
1: Translators of the Holy Scriptures misinterpret (deliberately or otherwise) the promptings of the Holy Spirit while they read the ancient Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts. This with God's knowledge that it will breed confusion and discord among brethren in the 21st century. 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

2: The current popular interpretation of physical data could be influenced by views that are in direct opposition to the atoning work of Jesus Christ and seek to undermine the authority of the Bible. Do we have Biblical evidence for Satan, in his craftiness, introducing the questioning and/or misquoting of Scripture? Gen 3:1 "...He said to the woman, "Did God really say..."
Well, this really says mroe about *your* bias than about the validity of the two options you provide. THere is, amazingly enough, a third option...that Genesis has that flexibility in its meanings that allows the interpretation of old age nd local flood, that such an interpretation is not"deliberate" misinterpretation, and that these intrpretations (and writings ) can certainly be the result of the Holy Spirit. THe current popular intepratations of data are NOT the result of a grand conspiracy against CHristianity (gee, all of those neutral scientists and OEC christian scientists liek those at www.asa3.org and certainly Rich, the owner of this site, would certainly appreciate being the dupe of all of those "conspiracists"!) At the best, you have essentially labeled all of those OEC Christian scientists dupes and easily led and at the worst you connect them with those that "seek to undermine the autrhority of the Bible"....

to be continued...

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:27 pm
by Gman
erawdrah wrote:I don't believe the seas were salty. I have no proof one way or the other.
Whatever the proof was, if it was salty, the fresh fish would have died, if it were fresh water, the salt water fish would have died.. Sorry.
erawdrah wrote:All animals were vegetarians pre flood.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
We already know from dinosaur dung that they were carnivorous.. If you are saying that God created them differently after sin then God wasn't finished creating them on the 6th day. This is a contradiction of scripture..

Green herbs are technically on the top of the food chain, so Genesis 1:30 is correct. Plants do provide food for all the animals still today, it's just that some animals eat the ones that also eat the plants. But if the plants died, then the food chain stops...
erawdrah wrote:What's the bottom layer, it's marine life and marine plants. Of course, geological time scale says this layer is 1.5 bya. Then there's a gap, a missing period that's estimated at 1 bya. Then you have next "visible" layer that's full of dinosaurs and other animals. Thus evolutionists cannot explain why we see simple marine life then all at once we see complex animals. So they invented a 1 billion year gap to allow for these simple organisms to "evolve" in to more complex animals. If we just look at the evidence without preconceived ideas, one would not say that there was 1 billion year missing from the fossil record but the next layer is exactly that the next layer. This missing time is world wide not just seen the in the Grand Canyon. Link So what science is telling us is that there was a time that no strata was formed, and it wasn't formed for 1 billion years. So how do they know 1 billion years is missing? I thought we had accurate dating methods. Don't we? Link We also know that the Grand Canyon was cut by a extreme flooding. Of course, the expert won't admit that it could have been Noah's flood, but they now understand that the Grand Canyon wasn't made by erosion over millions of years. They have even stated that the dating of the Grand Canyon was incorrect. It's only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, and that only 165,000 yrs ago it carved most of the Grand Canyon in the blink of an eye. Link The point is the fossil record is a recording of a catastrophic flood, trapping the slow moving or non moving in the water first. Because they were already there to be trapped in the sediment. As you go "up" the layers, the creatures become more mobile or more intelligent to the most mobile or most intelligent, birds and man.
Only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old? How does this conform to your 6 thousand year old theory? You really should read this source: http://www.answersincreation.org/grandcanyon.htm
Thus ends the formations that make up the bedrock underneath the flat layers of the Grand Canyon. The layers above are tilted about 30 degrees due to the intrusion of the Zorgaster Granite.

Now begins the horizontal rock layers, which the young earth flood model must account for. They are, from bottom to top..

12.Not Shown — The Great Unconformity — at the bottom of these horizontal rock layers there is an unconformity, which lasts from 825 million years ago to 570 million years ago. We are missing 255 million years worth of geologic record.

13.Tapeats Sandstone — 250 to 300 foot thick layer composed of medium-grained and course-grained sandstone. Ripple marks are common in the upper portion. It contains fossil trilobites, brachiopods, and trilobite trails. Average age is 545 million years
14.

Bright Angel Shale — Composed primarily of mudstone shale, interbedded with sandstone and sandy limestone, thickness ranges from 325 to 400 feet. Average age is 530 million years. Fossils include trilobites and brachiopods.
15.

Mauv Limestone — Composed of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. Averages 515 million years old, and varies from 250 to 375 feet thick. Contains some trilobites and brachiopods.
16.

Unconformity - No geologic layers present for the Ordivician and Silurian periods. A gap of about 165 million years
17.

Temple Butte Limestone — Composed of freshwater limestone (in the east) and dolomite (in the west). Much thicker towards the west, the west end contains numerous marine fossils, and the eastern end contains bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. From 250 to 375 feet thick, and about 350 million years old
18.

Redwall Limestone — Composed of marine limestones and dolomites. Many marine fossils, including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish, and trilobites. It is between 450 and 535 feet thick
19.

Surprise Canyon Formation - A sedimentary layer of purplish-red shale, which only exists in isolated lenses up to 40 feet thick.
20.

Watahomigi Formation - A slope-forming gray limestone with some red chert bands, sandstone, and purple siltstone. Between 90 and 175 feet thick.
21.

Manakacha Formation - Cliff and slope-forming pale red sandstone, between 200 and 275 feet thick.
22.

Wescogame Formation - Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 100 and 225 feet thick.
23.

Esplanade Sandstone - Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 225 and 300 feet thick. NOTE: Layers 19-22 are part of the Supai Group. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion , which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward.
24.

Unconformity - Missing rock layers
25.

Hermit Shale — Composed of soft, easily eroded shales. Fossils are ferns, conifers, and other plants, and fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians. Represents a swampy environment about 265 million years ago. It is from 160 to 175 feet thick
26.

Coconino Sandstone — Composed of pure quartz sand. No fossils, but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows. Represents a desert dune environment about 260 million years ago. Ranges from 375 to 650 feet thick. Contains raindrop impressions
27.

Toroweap Formation — A 200 to 250 foot thick layer of sandy limestone, containing brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, worms, and fish teeth. Averages 255 million years old
28.

Kaibab Limestone — The top layer at the Canyon, consisting of sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. Contains brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, worms, and fish teeth. Age is about 250 million years
erawdrah wrote:I didn't know that Rob Webb or NatGeo are YECs. And of course, the Colorado river had to run up hill to start the erosion. Which is very interesting to say the least, why did the Colorado river travel up hill at mile 65? It should have continued it's trek to the sea, downhill. I have even seen 2 different ideas which include the Colorado river flowing backwards and one claiming a lake at mile 65 that forced water both directions. It take more faith to believe that the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon then a flood formed it instantly.
No.. Everyone knows that the Grand Canyon plateau lifted up and then cracked. That is how the Colorado river was able to carve it.. Who are Rob Webb or NatGeo? The only people that support this view are YEC..
erawdrah wrote:One verse says "high hills" and the others say "mountains", which still could have been formed during the flood. These verses all talk about the mountains during the flood. What about mountains mentioned prior to the flood? I guess it also depends on your definition of the word mountain. I lived in Oklahoma for a while where I lived by the mountains. The map even says they are mountains. Wichita Mountains are no where close to Mt. Everest, but they still are mountains. Let's say for arguement sake that Mt Everest did exist. We do find clams (in a closed position) on top of Everest. That would imply that water once covered that region and what ever killed the clams killed them quickly since normally when clams die they open up. How do you suppose they got there? Gen 7:19 claims global flood, which would explain how they got on top of the mountain.
Gen 7:19 does not say that the mountains were created during the flood. Now you are reading into it.. Also Oklahoma doesn't have any mountains.. Just speed bumps. Come out west here sometime and we will show you what a mountain looks like.

Also not all marine life is found on all mountain tops..
erawdrah wrote:That's assuming that there were salt water fish pre flood. All fish could have been fresh water. It's not uncommon for fresh water fish to adapt to salt water, especially when the salt is added slowly from erosion.
Ok, so you think you can take an ocean dwelling tuna fish and put it in a fresh water lake with some morton salt and it will survive? Where is your evidence for this claim? Also this goes against your claim. You say that salt is added slowly from erosion, but under your theory it all happened rapidly.
erawdrah wrote:You almost got it. It was a powerful, very violent flood. The flood waters just didn't seep up through the ground nor could it rain enough caused the damage that we see or to cover the entire world. The ark was closed by God and God kept them safe.

Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
"Come thou and all they house into the ark;" That would imply that God was in the ark.

Genesis 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
The Lord shut him in. This implies that God closed the door not Noah. God was in control, not man or anything made by man.
You are reading into it.. Where does it say that God repelled these 1000 feet tsunami waves that would have crushed any wooden ship? Everyone knows a wooden ship couldn't survive that.. Not even our modern metal ships can survive a 50 foot rouge wave.

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:38 pm
by erawdrah
I am still working on the Parallax issue, btw

*DO* people psoting here that argue for rapid post flood speciation actually have a model?!? The closest I found was that diagram I posted earlier concernng the divergence of the lae and small cats. But nobody ( unless i missed I post) seemed to voice any disagreement with this. That diagram shows that the divergence of tihs cat kind qould require rather large numebrs of mutations to develop the variations o all the cats.
What is your definition of a specie? There are so many different ideas that a rapid post flood specification is possible to impossible depending on your definition.