Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

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..

Assuming you found dung prior to the flood. I think all of the dung pre-flood would have been washed away in the flood.

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...

This is not describing the circle of life. The animals and man ate vegetation.

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.

You really should read this source: http://www.answersincreation.org/grandcanyon.htm

You should really read my link before commenting. The link has to do with very inaccurate dating. I cannot change what they say I can only point out the errors in what they say. From 1.8 million years to 395,000 years on the same rock. That's a severe dating problem.

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

This says you're missing 1 billion years not 255 million. Who's right? Where did you get your dating on the strata? See above for dating problems.

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..

Rob Webb is not a creationist nor is National Geographic. They support the idea that volcano dams broke and flood waters from those dams carved out the canyon. Nearly two billion years of the Earth's geological history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted. The "canyon began in the west, followed by another that formed in the east. Eventually, the two broke through and met as a single majestic rent in the earth some six million years ago. Eventually, the great block of Colorado Plateau crust rose a kilometer higher than the Basin and Range. As the land rose, the streams responded by cutting ever deeper stream channels. The most well-known of these streams, the Colorado River, began to carve the Grand Canyon less than 6 million years ago in response to sagging caused by the opening of the Gulf of California to the southwest. The Laramide orogeny was a period of mountain building in western North America, which started in the Late Cretaceous, 70 to 80 million years ago, and ended 35 to 55 million years ago. So this means it took at best 29 million years before the river started to carve the Grand Canyon and the east and west met 6 million years ago?

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..

Just the marine life that couldn't run away.

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?

Because the lake was until recently, connected to the sea, it is home to many endemic species that have evolved and adapted to the desalination of the lake's waters.
Its most popular endemic species is the overharvested tawilis, the world's only freshwater sardine.
The lake has a freshwater-adapted population of trevally, Caranx ignobilis. These fish, also found in the Pansipit River, are locally called maliputo.
Taal Lake is also home to one of the world's rarest sea snakes, Hydrophis semperi. This particular species is only one of two "true" sea snake species that are known to live entirely in freshwater.
Bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, used to be part of the lake's once-diverse ecosystem. They were exterminated by the locals in the 1930s.

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.

God was in control. Where did 1000m come from? A guess or to make it sound impossible?
http://www.worldwideflood.com/flood/waves/waves.htm

zoegirl wrote: It is the YEC camps that ae declaring this as the means and methods, the onus is on *them* to defend their statements.

Let me back up and try to find some common ground.

Gen 7:22 "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."
Can we agree that this verse means all land-based nose breathers died?

I'm not sure how to respond to your "flexible interpretation" argument. Are you saying that OEC cannot be decieved - only YEC? And that YEC are deceived because we are using translations that are incorrect? Are you saying that the arguments of the evolutionist are not anti-God?

I grew up a non-Christian. Studied plant evolution under Dr. Bert Brehm at Reed College. Read Tahktejan, Bailey and Cronquist, G. Gaylord Simpson...

Then God sovereignly called me to himself. And my eyes were opened. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God". And I knew it was just the simple process of six days, simply because that is the obvious meaning of Genesis 1. The "gaps", the "long days", etc, etc, etc, are just compromises that come from trying to reconcile the world's unbelief with the Bible in a way that validates the worldly.

The appearance of age is not the appearance of age. All the major features, both earthly and terrestrial, harmonize well with a literal reading of Genesis 1-10. I say 10, because the division in the days of Peleg, about 100 years after the Flood, makes the various geological features of the earth make sense. Massive lava flows...seashell fossils on the tops of mountains...etc. This is one area I am saddened that most young earth creationists seem to downplay. Give the strata from the flood some years to solidify, then rapidly split the earth, and you would have...what you see today. I love going out into the world and seeing the massive upthrusts. Not to mention how, from the Badlands to the Columbia River Gorge and the Grand Coulee and Grand Canyon, you can see the whole continent uplifting, and massive amounts of water finding the first available exit...

As to the "no death before Adam's sin" making God a liar...wow. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The rebellion of Adam was no surprise. Did the lion eat grass? I guess. The problem comes when we insist on torquing the simple message of the Scripture by insisting on explanations that God has not given.

Many--and I mean many--fully qualified scientists take the Bible at face value in this matter. I think of one who worked on the Manhattan Project, who wrote a book which combined his testimony of conversion along with evidence for a young earth. Duane Gish. Donald Chittick. The list goes on.

Perhaps I have not explored this site enough to find it, but I really do not see a fair dealing with the many evidences from fully qualified scientists who are 6-day creationists such as myself--such as ICR's recent RATE study.

Finally, I would like to submit something for your consideration. I think the main problem is well expressed by a famous theologian, John Stott. He said that we must take on the world's intellectuals and beat them intellectually. HOW WRONG! The word of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 makes it very plain that the foolishness of the simple gospel is what God has chosen to confound the wise. The "problem" is that we Western Christians are hyperallergic to persecution. We avoid it like the plague. The "seeker-friendly" movement. "Friendship evangelism". "The social gospel". Yes, and I think these half-breed theories of origins are the same...trying to make us look good to the world by harmonizing their theories which are born and bred in unbelief with the truth of the Lord. Like Aquinas did, taking Aristotle and trying to meld the lost philosopher's reasoning with the revelation of God.

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seas and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh."

Finally, what I find so saddening is the division in the Body of Christ that is caused--just as we were told in the Scripture--by strifes over words and "science falsely so called". Seems down through history, somebody just has to bring something questionable in--be it Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Strauss, Bultmann, or Hugh Ross. Then those who just want to stick to the simple, plain meaning of the Scripture are made to look divisive when they stand up and object, calling the Body back to a simple trust in the Word as written. So sad. But God's word will triumph. They called Babylon and Ninevah a fantasy--and, lo! the spade of the archeologist blows the 19th century critics away like the chaff in the wind. So it will be in this issue. God's simple, plain word will be demonstrated to be true. I choose to join the "fools", such as those who said that Moses could write, because God word says he did, even when the "scholars" were sure writing hadn't been accomplished by that time. etc.

How I wish that we, the Body of Christ, would quit wasting our energy trying to placate the ungodly--be they the intellectuals, or the good old boys--and then arguing over speculative assertions, and rather focus on preaching the gospel, risking our necks by just telling people that the judgment is coming, and that they must repent and beleive or perish. We'll be openly hated. Maybe persecuted. But we'll be walking in the power of the Spirit, and we might just see the power of God like its being seen in India and China at this very moment. I cringe to think of this kind of teaching getting over there. I hope it never does.

Grace and peace, and love with faith, be to all the faithful brethren, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom

The "problem" is that we Western Christians are hyperallergic to persecution.

Amen.

Often we end up with is a bunch of Christians chasing science to reconcile their intellect to the world, while the bible warns us that the preaching of the cross is to them that persih, foolishness. The result is that evangelism has become some sort of intellectual assent.

Please, the fact that we are OEC hardly removes us frm persecution, no is it fear of persecution that drives us. Francis Collins is not only OEC but a theistic evoluitionist and he stil recieves criticism from the scientific community. I am still berated for my beliefs, despite beingday-age.

Despite assertions to the contrary, we don't believe OEC because of some sense of pandering to the world. MOst of us are driven by the wonder of His creation, and the belief that His creation is a second testimony to His works and His character.

In my perspective, God calls us to "recapture the truth" and all truth is God's truth.

This goes back to the tired old arguemnts that us OEC'ers are simply compromising scripture and trying to be with the world. Will write more...

Tom Ed-ford wrote:I grew up a non-Christian. Studied plant evolution under Dr. Bert Brehm at Reed College. Read Tahktejan, Bailey and Cronquist, G. Gaylord Simpson...

Then God sovereignly called me to himself. And my eyes were opened. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God". And I knew it was just the simple process of six days, simply because that is the obvious meaning of Genesis 1. The "gaps", the "long days", etc, etc, etc, are just compromises that come from trying to reconcile the world's unbelief with the Bible in a way that validates the worldly.

The appearance of age is not the appearance of age. All the major features, both earthly and terrestrial, harmonize well with a literal reading of Genesis 1-10. I say 10, because the division in the days of Peleg, about 100 years after the Flood, makes the various geological features of the earth make sense. Massive lava flows...seashell fossils on the tops of mountains...etc. This is one area I am saddened that most young earth creationists seem to downplay. Give the strata from the flood some years to solidify, then rapidly split the earth, and you would have...what you see today. I love going out into the world and seeing the massive upthrusts. Not to mention how, from the Badlands to the Columbia River Gorge and the Grand Coulee and Grand Canyon, you can see the whole continent uplifting, and massive amounts of water finding the first available exit...

As to the "no death before Adam's sin" making God a liar...wow. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The rebellion of Adam was no surprise. Did the lion eat grass? I guess. The problem comes when we insist on torquing the simple message of the Scripture by insisting on explanations that God has not given.

Many--and I mean many--fully qualified scientists take the Bible at face value in this matter. I think of one who worked on the Manhattan Project, who wrote a book which combined his testimony of conversion along with evidence for a young earth. Duane Gish. Donald Chittick. The list goes on.

Perhaps I have not explored this site enough to find it, but I really do not see a fair dealing with the many evidences from fully qualified scientists who are 6-day creationists such as myself--such as ICR's recent RATE study.

Finally, I would like to submit something for your consideration. I think the main problem is well expressed by a famous theologian, John Stott. He said that we must take on the world's intellectuals and beat them intellectually. HOW WRONG! The word of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 makes it very plain that the foolishness of the simple gospel is what God has chosen to confound the wise. The "problem" is that we Western Christians are hyperallergic to persecution. We avoid it like the plague. The "seeker-friendly" movement. "Friendship evangelism". "The social gospel". Yes, and I think these half-breed theories of origins are the same...trying to make us look good to the world by harmonizing their theories which are born and bred in unbelief with the truth of the Lord. Like Aquinas did, taking Aristotle and trying to meld the lost philosopher's reasoning with the revelation of God.

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seas and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh."

Finally, what I find so saddening is the division in the Body of Christ that is caused--just as we were told in the Scripture--by strifes over words and "science falsely so called". Seems down through history, somebody just has to bring something questionable in--be it Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Strauss, Bultmann, or Hugh Ross. Then those who just want to stick to the simple, plain meaning of the Scripture are made to look divisive when they stand up and object, calling the Body back to a simple trust in the Word as written. So sad. But God's word will triumph. They called Babylon and Ninevah a fantasy--and, lo! the spade of the archeologist blows the 19th century critics away like the chaff in the wind. So it will be in this issue. God's simple, plain word will be demonstrated to be true. I choose to join the "fools", such as those who said that Moses could write, because God word says he did, even when the "scholars" were sure writing hadn't been accomplished by that time. etc.

How I wish that we, the Body of Christ, would quit wasting our energy trying to placate the ungodly--be they the intellectuals, or the good old boys--and then arguing over speculative assertions, and rather focus on preaching the gospel, risking our necks by just telling people that the judgment is coming, and that they must repent and beleive or perish. We'll be openly hated. Maybe persecuted. But we'll be walking in the power of the Spirit, and we might just see the power of God like its being seen in India and China at this very moment. I cringe to think of this kind of teaching getting over there. I hope it never does.

Grace and peace, and love with faith, be to all the faithful brethren, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom

Welcome to the board Tom.

Nice speech. But I can't help but find in it the typical YEC drivel that unless one reads a literal 24-hour day in yom then one is not believing in the word of God. We simply reject that assertion and you haven't offered anything new in exchange, sorry.

Byblos wrote:Nice speech. But I can't help but find in it the typical YEC drivel that unless one reads a literal 24-hour day in yom then one is not believing in the word of God. We simply reject that assertion and you haven't offered anything new in exchange, sorry.

It was a very thoughtful speech. This YEC "drivel" (bias has been used in other posts) is based on the work of countless translators who literally dedicate their entire lives to the faithful, thorough and accurate reproduction of the very Word of God. These dedicated followers of God have through the centuries examined, re-examined, prayed over, meditated on, agonized over and sweat and cried over, the Words they were writing. To dismiss out-of-hand all their work is not something YEC are willing to do without a series of debates.

ndvasey wrote:

Byblos wrote:Nice speech. But I can't help but find in it the typical YEC drivel that unless one reads a literal 24-hour day in yom then one is not believing in the word of God. We simply reject that assertion and you haven't offered anything new in exchange, sorry.

It was a very thoughtful speech. This YEC "drivel" (bias has been used in other posts) is based on the work of countless translators who literally dedicate their entire lives to the faithful, thorough and accurate reproduction of the very Word of God. These dedicated followers of God have through the centuries examined, re-examined, prayed over, meditated on, agonized over and sweat and cried over, the Words they were writing. To dismiss out-of-hand all their work is not something YEC are willing to do without a series of debates.

You seem to be accusing us of skirting or shying away from a debate when no debatable points have been offered. You also seem to put a whole lot of stock in translators. While I'm certain they have had the best of intentions, first they are by no means inspired as you asserted before, and second, their work is irrelevant to the issue when the Hebrew text itself is being examined.

Byblos wrote: You seem to be accusing us of skirting or shying away from a debate when no debatable points have been offered. You also seem to put a whole lot of stock in translators. While I'm certain they have had the best of intentions, first they are by no means inspired as you asserted before, and second, their work is irrelevant to the issue when the Hebrew text itself is being examined.

Are you suggesting that the Hebrew text you have access to is more authoritative than the ones used by the translators? Are you suggesting that if the translators were not inspired, you are? Are you suggesting that the cummulative years of Biblical scholarship on the part of the many translators pales in comparison to yours? Are you suggesting that the copies of the Holy Scriptures mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 were not inspired?
2 Timothy 3:15-17 "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

ndvasey wrote:

Byblos wrote: You seem to be accusing us of skirting or shying away from a debate when no debatable points have been offered. You also seem to put a whole lot of stock in translators. While I'm certain they have had the best of intentions, first they are by no means inspired as you asserted before, and second, their work is irrelevant to the issue when the Hebrew text itself is being examined.

Are you suggesting that the Hebrew text you have access to is more authoritative than the ones used by the translators? Are you suggesting that if the translators were not inspired, you are? Are you suggesting that the cummulative years of Biblical scholarship on the part of the many translators pales in comparison to yours? Are you suggesting that the copies of the Holy Scriptures mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 were not inspired?
2 Timothy 3:15-17 "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

What are you talking about? I have no clue why you're saying any of this. No one claimed or suggested any of the sort. The contention with YECers is almost always centered around the word 'yom' in the fact that it is translated as the word 'day' and that the word 'day' means a literal 24-hour period (wrt Genesis). What I am saying is that the Hebrew word 'yom', when examined in historical context, does not necessarily translate to the word 'day' and most definitely does not imply a 24-hour period exclusively. Hence the need for translators is irrelevant because the original Hebrew is under examination, not some translation thereof. And for that you quote 2 Timothy 3:15-17 at me? You can't be serious.

Tom Ed-ford wrote:I grew up a non-Christian. Studied plant evolution under Dr. Bert Brehm at Reed College. Read Tahktejan, Bailey and Cronquist, G. Gaylord Simpson...

Then God sovereignly called me to himself. And my eyes were opened. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God". And I knew it was just the simple process of six days, simply because that is the obvious meaning of Genesis 1. The "gaps", the "long days", etc, etc, etc, are just compromises that come from trying to reconcile the world's unbelief with the Bible in a way that validates the worldly.

The appearance of age is not the appearance of age. All the major features, both earthly and terrestrial, harmonize well with a literal reading of Genesis 1-10. I say 10, because the division in the days of Peleg, about 100 years after the Flood, makes the various geological features of the earth make sense. Massive lava flows...seashell fossils on the tops of mountains...etc. This is one area I am saddened that most young earth creationists seem to downplay. Give the strata from the flood some years to solidify, then rapidly split the earth, and you would have...what you see today. I love going out into the world and seeing the massive upthrusts. Not to mention how, from the Badlands to the Columbia River Gorge and the Grand Coulee and Grand Canyon, you can see the whole continent uplifting, and massive amounts of water finding the first available exit...

As to the "no death before Adam's sin" making God a liar...wow. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The rebellion of Adam was no surprise. Did the lion eat grass? I guess. The problem comes when we insist on torquing the simple message of the Scripture by insisting on explanations that God has not given.

Many--and I mean many--fully qualified scientists take the Bible at face value in this matter. I think of one who worked on the Manhattan Project, who wrote a book which combined his testimony of conversion along with evidence for a young earth. Duane Gish. Donald Chittick. The list goes on.

Perhaps I have not explored this site enough to find it, but I really do not see a fair dealing with the many evidences from fully qualified scientists who are 6-day creationists such as myself--such as ICR's recent RATE study.

Finally, I would like to submit something for your consideration. I think the main problem is well expressed by a famous theologian, John Stott. He said that we must take on the world's intellectuals and beat them intellectually. HOW WRONG! The word of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 makes it very plain that the foolishness of the simple gospel is what God has chosen to confound the wise. The "problem" is that we Western Christians are hyperallergic to persecution. We avoid it like the plague. The "seeker-friendly" movement. "Friendship evangelism". "The social gospel". Yes, and I think these half-breed theories of origins are the same...trying to make us look good to the world by harmonizing their theories which are born and bred in unbelief with the truth of the Lord. Like Aquinas did, taking Aristotle and trying to meld the lost philosopher's reasoning with the revelation of God.

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seas and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh."

Finally, what I find so saddening is the division in the Body of Christ that is caused--just as we were told in the Scripture--by strifes over words and "science falsely so called". Seems down through history, somebody just has to bring something questionable in--be it Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Strauss, Bultmann, or Hugh Ross. Then those who just want to stick to the simple, plain meaning of the Scripture are made to look divisive when they stand up and object, calling the Body back to a simple trust in the Word as written. So sad. But God's word will triumph. They called Babylon and Ninevah a fantasy--and, lo! the spade of the archeologist blows the 19th century critics away like the chaff in the wind. So it will be in this issue. God's simple, plain word will be demonstrated to be true. I choose to join the "fools", such as those who said that Moses could write, because God word says he did, even when the "scholars" were sure writing hadn't been accomplished by that time. etc.

How I wish that we, the Body of Christ, would quit wasting our energy trying to placate the ungodly--be they the intellectuals, or the good old boys--and then arguing over speculative assertions, and rather focus on preaching the gospel, risking our necks by just telling people that the judgment is coming, and that they must repent and beleive or perish. We'll be openly hated. Maybe persecuted. But we'll be walking in the power of the Spirit, and we might just see the power of God like its being seen in India and China at this very moment. I cringe to think of this kind of teaching getting over there. I hope it never does.

Grace and peace, and love with faith, be to all the faithful brethren, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom

Byblos wrote: What are you talking about? I have no clue why you're saying any of this. No one claimed or suggested any of the sort.

Thus the usage of "Are you suggesting" - to ask you to clarify your point vs. what I thought you might be suggesting. You seemed quick to cast aspersion on the translators by stating they were not inspired, just well-intentioned. When I challenged your assertion, you seem to not know what I'm talking about.
Let me clarify what I am asking. If the translators are not inspired, how do you know the Hebrew text you are using is inspired?

Byblos wrote: The contention with YECers is almost always centered around the word 'yom' in the fact that it is translated as the word 'day' and that the word 'day' means a literal 24-hour period (wrt Genesis). What I am saying is that the Hebrew word 'yom', when examined in historical context, does not necessarily translate to the word 'day' and most definitely does not imply a 24-hour period exclusively.

I doubt any serious student of scripture, YEC or otherwise, would insist that Yom means 24hrs exclusively. What is under debate is exactly what Yom means in Gen 1, but some claim that because it has a myriad of uses, we cannot know exactly what it means in Gen 1.

Byblos wrote: Hence the need for translators is irrelevant because the original Hebrew is under examination, not some translation thereof.

Are you certain you are working from the exact Hebrew text Moses wrote? Or a copy thereof. Made by man. I don't read Hebrew (or Greek), nor do I understand it. I rely on the work of translators of both the Hebrew and Greek texts. If they were not guided (inspired) by God, what use is reading/studying Scripture? It becomes a random collection of feel good stories. Perhaps if we all became Hebrew and Greek scholars, obtained for ourselves the exact texts that Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul etc. wrote, then we could believe what the Bible says and not concern ourselves with whether or not God had a hand in inspiring the translators.

Byblos wrote: And for that you quote 2 Timothy 3:15-17 at me? You can't be serious.

It was not intented to be used "at you". I'm sorry if it came across that way as that was not my intent.
My intent was to show you that Timothy studied the Holy Scriptures (as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11). They obviously did not hesitate to put their complete faith on the ability of men to copy and translate the scriptures (even though they were removed from the originals by thousands of years). My intent was also to show you that God does not distinguish between all scripture being useful for teaching etc, and just the part the translators happened to get correct.

The conclusion I am attempting to reach:
That, if the Holy Scriptures used by those in the New Testament church were held up as the Word of God, and those were copied through the millenia since Moses wrote them (among other authors), perhaps we can accept that the modern Bibles we use today, based on Greek and Hebrew texts that the translators used, is also the completely inspired Word of God.

ndvasey wrote:The conclusion I am attempting to reach:
That, if the Holy Scriptures used by those in the New Testament church were held up as the Word of God, and those were copied through the millenia since Moses wrote them (among other authors), perhaps we can accept that the modern Bibles we use today, based on Greek and Hebrew texts that the translators used, is also the completely inspired Word of God.

I very much like what you state here and completely agree with it so I will only address the point below. By the way, I never meant to imply in any way shape or form that the 'translated' text is not inspired, otherwise we'd all better be Hebrew and Greek scholars.

ndvasey wrote:I doubt any serious student of scripture, YEC or otherwise, would insist that Yom means 24hrs exclusively. What is under debate is exactly what Yom means in Gen 1, but some claim that because it has a myriad of uses, we cannot know exactly what it means in Gen 1.

This is basically what it comes down to. In every YEC/OEC debate I have ever been a part of (and there have been quite a few), the entire YEC argument rests on the premise that if 'yom' or 'day' in Genesis is not taken to be a 24-hour period, then one is not trusting the word of God. There simply is no wiggle room; take it to mean a 24-hour day or you're a God-doubting heretic. If you (or Tom) are saying otherwise, please state how.

Byblos wrote: I very much like what you state here and completely agree with it so I will only address the point below. By the way, I never meant to imply in any way shape or form that the 'translated' text is not inspired, otherwise we'd all better be Hebrew and Greek scholars.

Cool - I'm glad we clarified that point.

Byblos wrote: This is basically what it comes down to. In every YEC/OEC debate I have ever been a part of (and there have been quite a few), the entire YEC argument rests on the premise that if 'yom' or 'day' in Genesis is not taken to be a 24-hour period, then one is not trusting the word of God. There simply is no wiggle room; take it to mean a 24-hour day or you're a God-doubting heretic. If you (or Tom) are saying otherwise, please state how.

I cannot speak for Tom, but I can clarify my beliefs regarding yom.

I believe:
Yom has many meanings (from Strong's concordance etc). The meaning assigned to it therefore must be observed from the context within which it is used. The context in Gen 1 does not change because of things external to the Bible - things like various interpretations of the physical data we observe in the earth or the universe. If there is a discrepency, rather than attack the ability of God to direct and inspire the translators, I believe we should attack the ability of the assumptions behind the interpretations of physical data.
The contex surrounding the usage of yom in Gen 1 during the creation week has very specific constraints. Constraints such as "one day", "day two", "day three" etc. as well as "evening and morning". Furthermore, the fact that it is a 24hr period (it should be more precisely defined as one rotation of the earth about its axis, but that gets quite tedious to write so I stick with 24hrs) is confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11.

This is what I believe it comes down to.
I see yom in Gen 1 and the constraints put upon it by the context and say, "it can have no other meaning but 24hrs". Current popular culture tells me I am dead wrong because their interpretation of data says so is a burden I am quite willing to bear. I debate those of the world with a different style than those that believe the Bible as most of the world doesn't believe in God, let alone His Word. When other Bible believing Christians tell me I am dead wrong because I am believing an out-dated idea posed by translators that didn't have a firm grasp on the scientific principle, I tend to debate them to determine if my understanding of the Scriptures is incomplete.

If my understanding is incomplete, I have gained much needed insight. If however, the other side of the argument is marred, then perhaps their understanding is increased. Either way, the goal is to spur each other on to a more complete understanding of Scripture, especially as we see the day approaching.

ndvasey wrote:

Byblos wrote: This is basically what it comes down to. In every YEC/OEC debate I have ever been a part of (and there have been quite a few), the entire YEC argument rests on the premise that if 'yom' or 'day' in Genesis is not taken to be a 24-hour period, then one is not trusting the word of God. There simply is no wiggle room; take it to mean a 24-hour day or you're a God-doubting heretic. If you (or Tom) are saying otherwise, please state how.

I cannot speak for Tom, but I can clarify my beliefs regarding yom.

I believe:
Yom has many meanings (from Strong's concordance etc). The meaning assigned to it therefore must be observed from the context within which it is used. The context in Gen 1 does not change because of things external to the Bible - things like various interpretations of the physical data we observe in the earth or the universe. If there is a discrepency, rather than attack the ability of God to direct and inspire the translators, I believe we should attack the ability of the assumptions behind the interpretations of physical data.

There are many things I disagree with here. First, scripture itself tells us one way to know God is through His creation as it testifies to his character. So to say we should not consider anything external is not scriptural. Second, while the context does not change, our interpretation of it certainly is open for change. If there is a discrepancy between scripture and nature, it is not the case that one or the other is in error, but that our view of either is somehow faulty. Science can only be in harmony with scripture, it cannot contradict it (Richard Dawkins and company notwithstanding).

ndvasey wrote:The contex surrounding the usage of yom in Gen 1 during the creation week has very specific constraints. Constraints such as "one day", "day two", "day three" etc. as well as "evening and morning". Furthermore, the fact that it is a 24hr period (it should be more precisely defined as one rotation of the earth about its axis, but that gets quite tedious to write so I stick with 24hrs) is confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11.

Again several points of disagreement. The constraints you mention are linguistic constraints due to dualistic meanings. "evening and morning" can very well be translated "end of one period and beginning of another" without compromising the Hebrew text or its context. Furthermore, if "evening and morning" is a constraint depicting earth's rotation around its own axis, where was this axis during the first "evenings" and "mornings" when the planet wasn't created yet? As for Exodus 20:8-11, it confirms a syllogism between man's "day" and God's "day". It says nothing of their respective time periods.

ndvasey wrote:This is what I believe it comes down to.
I see yom in Gen 1 and the constraints put upon it by the context and say, "it can have no other meaning but 24hrs".

And that is the typical YEC argument I was referring to earlier. I do not see that this is a plausible interpretation, although I do not deny its possibility (the contrary is something I've never seen a YECer acknowledge, ever).

ndvasey wrote:Current popular culture tells me I am dead wrong because their interpretation of data says so is a burden I am quite willing to bear. I debate those of the world with a different style than those that believe the Bible as most of the world doesn't believe in God, let alone His Word. When other Bible believing Christians tell me I am dead wrong because I am believing an out-dated idea posed by translators that didn't have a firm grasp on the scientific principle, I tend to debate them to determine if my understanding of the Scriptures is incomplete.

No one is telling you you are dead wrong, I already stated as much. If OEC were to be proven wrong and YEC right it doesn't change my theology one bit. Can you say the same?

ndvasey wrote:If my understanding is incomplete, I have gained much needed insight. If however, the other side of the argument is marred, then perhaps their understanding is increased. Either way, the goal is to spur each other on to a more complete understanding of Scripture, especially as we see the day approaching.

Agreed.