Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:09 pm**

Erawdrah - sure, send the post to whomever you wish. This is about as public as it gets, huh...

To the one who called the thoughts of those who stand up for a simple, literal interpretation of Genesis one "drivel": I'd ask for a heart check. Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Donald Chittick, Larry Vardiman, and a host of others who are fully qualified scientists, have made diligent effort to investigate nature, and have provided much sound scientific data that points to the young earth. There are a number of them who started out as completely secular (like Stephen Austin) and saw that the evidence points the other way. It is hardly drivel. You may not agree with every point. For example, I am very firmly convinced that the division in the days of Peleg is the tectonic plate movement that split Pangea into our current continents, and that the geological evidence far better supports that, than the scenario whereby all the stata, both sedimentary and volcanic, were deposited by the Flood. And I strongly disagree with Hugh Ross and others like him. However, "drivel" is not accurate--either as to the quality of the evidence, nor to the sincere efforts of the men involved. Repent. "Though I know all mysteries, and have all knowledge...and have not love, it profits me nothing". Personally, I entirely disagree with the main premises of this website, pertaining to why you are not in favor of the young earth viewpoint. But I would not call it "drivel", although I do think it rests upon faulty logic in a number of points. You are trying to sincerely serve the Creator, it seems. Perhaps, if the whole thing seems like "drivel", you should retire from this battle with your brothers for a while and get some perspective. And maybe you should go talk to someone like Stephen Austin face-to-face. I've met a number of these scientist. Knowledgeable. Sincere. Love to talk about scientific evidence for the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Maybe you already have, and are still unconvinced. I don't have time to go point-by-point at this time, since I'm looking for work and have to get on with that. But, though I disagree with you and think that your viewpoint is flawed in a number of points, may you be blessed by God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. May his grace, mercy, and peace be with you.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:38 pm**

Henry Morris? Sorry, bu yes, I *would* call his concusions wrong and personally I do consider it drivel. Certainly no disrespect....I just don't think their science is intellectually honest.

Unfortunately YEC has a history of manipulating data, leaving out important basic variables in their calculations, not to mention being stubborn about admitting when they are in the wrong.

Moon dust, Paluxy river footprints...it took them over 20-30 years to admit that these were bad examples.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html (probably the best collection)

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

http://www.answersincreation.org/

http://www.answersincreation.org/woodmo ... wspeak.htm

http://www.answersincreation.org/onehour.htm

http://www.answersincreation.org/biblic ... ionism.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookre ... r_eden.htm (for specific review of Morris)

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:10 pm**

Byblos wrote:
ndvasey wrote: 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.

I agree. Romans 1:20.

Byblos wrote: So to say we should not consider anything external is not scriptural.

I agree. I didn't say we shouldn't consider anything external, rather I stated that the context of Scripture doesn't change with the changes external to the Bible.

Byblos wrote: 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.

I agree that the interpretation that you and I have is open to change (and thus our lively discussion). I would not lump the translators and scribes who faithfully put God's Word to print into that same category.

Byblos wrote: Science can only be in harmony with scripture, it cannot contradict it (Richard Dawkins and company notwithstanding).

That is very good. I think I might use it (with your permission of course).

Byblos wrote: 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.

I appreciate the consiceness with which you state the counter argument. I've been looking for it put this way. I do have some counter thoughts.

I gave you specific scriptures with specific meanings given in the context that constrain the meaning of the words used. You have provided a counter argument that there "could" be different meanings assigned to those words. Show me the scriptures where those different meanings are used and we will discuss whether that meaning has any bearing on the meanings assigned clearly in Gen 1 and Exodus 20.

As for the necessity of an earth to have "evening and morning", do you not think it was created on day 1? Even if it was created some other day, do you really think God needed it to say "evening and morning". Would God not know what an "evening and morning" was going to mean to us and that He knew what time had elapsed?

Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Show me the difference in context or words used in the above to allow me to infer the six days in verse 11 is different than the six days in verse 9 and that our current week is different than the week of creation. I disagree completely with your statement that it (Exodus 20:8-11) says nothing about their respective time periods. Are you suggesting the Israelites did not understand the meaning of six days in verse 9? Are you suggesting God didn't know what we would consider a week? Show me any other verse in scripture where 6 days does not mean 6 24hr periods.

Byblos wrote:
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).

So it is implausible just because you don't think so? Give me scriptures that show that it isn't plausible.

Byblos wrote: No one is telling you you are dead wrong, I already stated as much.

So we're in agreement that yom in Gen 1 means 24 hrs and that the week described in Exodus 20:11 is the same time frame we know and love as one week today?

Byblos wrote:
If OEC were to be proven wrong and YEC right it doesn't change my theology one bit. Can you say the same?

To espouse the viewpoint/theology/Scriptural meanings of OEC (at least to this point after reading many replies and arguments on this forum and others), I would need to re-translate and re-interpret a myriad of Scriptures. I am not at all comfortable with doing that. I also do not follow the logic of scriptural interpretation that OEC use and that is why I'm on this forum - to help me understand how OEC break Scripture down. So far, I'm not comfortable with it.

Bottom line:

I gave scriptural reasons why yom is 24hrs in Gen 1. Give me scriptural reasons why it is not.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:39 pm**

Tom Ed-ford wrote:Erawdrah - sure, send the post to whomever you wish. This is about as public as it gets, huh...

To the one who called the thoughts of those who stand up for a simple, literal interpretation of Genesis one "drivel": I'd ask for a heart check. Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Donald Chittick, Larry Vardiman, and a host of others who are fully qualified scientists, have made diligent effort to investigate nature, and have provided much sound scientific data that points to the young earth. There are a number of them who started out as completely secular (like Stephen Austin) and saw that the evidence points the other way. It is hardly drivel. You may not agree with every point. For example, I am very firmly convinced that the division in the days of Peleg is the tectonic plate movement that split Pangea into our current continents, and that the geological evidence far better supports that, than the scenario whereby all the stata, both sedimentary and volcanic, were deposited by the Flood. And I strongly disagree with Hugh Ross and others like him. However, "drivel" is not accurate--either as to the quality of the evidence, nor to the sincere efforts of the men involved. Repent. "Though I know all mysteries, and have all knowledge...and have not love, it profits me nothing". Personally, I entirely disagree with the main premises of this website, pertaining to why you are not in favor of the young earth viewpoint. But I would not call it "drivel", although I do think it rests upon faulty logic in a number of points. You are trying to sincerely serve the Creator, it seems. Perhaps, if the whole thing seems like "drivel", you should retire from this battle with your brothers for a while and get some perspective. And maybe you should go talk to someone like Stephen Austin face-to-face. I've met a number of these scientist. Knowledgeable. Sincere. Love to talk about scientific evidence for the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Maybe you already have, and are still unconvinced. I don't have time to go point-by-point at this time, since I'm looking for work and have to get on with that. But, though I disagree with you and think that your viewpoint is flawed in a number of points, may you be blessed by God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. May his grace, mercy, and peace be with you.

Yet again, I need to explain myself as to what I meant. This, of course, is my fault and no one else's. I most emphatically am not calling YEC arguments or evidence drivel (although as Zoegirl indicated some of it may qualify). I sincerely respect the YEC viewpoint and fully acknowledge that I may be wrong in supporting OEC. Nor did I at any time accuse YEcers of undermining God or His method of creation or His timing. What I most definitely call drivel and will make no apologies for is when I am not afforded the return respect from YEcers. The fact that we are constantly accused of not trusting God at his word if we do not see yom as a 24-hour period. That and only that I refer to as drivel. I hope this is clear now.

ndvasey, I will get your latest post tomorrow.

Blessings.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:50 pm**

I most certainly agree Byblos and will be quick to clarfy my use of the word as well. Absolutely if someone wants to support YEC models they can. My only contention is when they mangle data to do so (see web links)

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:06 pm**

So alot of ink or I guess pixels nowadays, goes to "context" and "meanings within context" and "grammar," and all seem to be in agreement that context is important and indeed necessary for a "proper" interpretation. But, perhaps my context is different from another's and theirs yet different from another's. So if our launchpad is context maybe we should start from the shallow end and work our way into the deep end.

As this discussion is about creation days, what is the context that you are using? Or, what are the boundaries or framework of this passage? At what point are we no longer on this topic or the author has moved on? Once you have framed the passage, you then have to categorize the work, determine the genre, then technique. I know this may all sound very contrived, but if we're not in agreement as to the context, we'll never agree on a word meaning, if that is what we're after.

Also, I think the assumption can be made that the close reading form of literary criticism in a general form is what we are using, but again, if our critical techniques differ, I doubt any concession will be had.

So what do you think, what is the context?

PS: As a critical rule, you cannot use a seperate passage to impact how you define the context of another passage. If you do, you then cease to define "within context."

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:15 pm**

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

Actually it's assuming that there was even dinosaurs during Adam's time.. The evidence clearly shows there wasn't..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs

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

That would be your assumption then..

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.

Again if you are saying the grand canyon is only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, then how does this fit into your 6 thousand year idea? I'm arguing that the grand canyon is old not you...

erawdrah wrote: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.

They maybe possible errors, but it is not reflected in the mainline scientific consensus, and certainly not influenced by a river guide post. Longstanding scientific consensus has been that the canyon was created by the Colorado River over a six million year period. And again 395,000 years is not 6 thousand years.

erawdrah wrote: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.

Where does it say it's missing 1 billion years?

erawdrah wrote: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?

Again, how does this all fit into 6 thousand years? I don't get what you are saying...

erawdrah wrote:Just the marine life that couldn't run away.

Run away from what? The salt water?

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?

erawdrah wrote: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.

Ah, no... You are claiming that the flood happened very rapidly... The fish would not have enough time to adapt that rapidly. Sorry..

erawdrah wrote:God was in control. Where did 1000m come from? A guess or to make it sound impossible?

Shutting a door is not the same thing as God saying that prevented gigantic tsunami waves from crushing the wooden ship.. I'm sorry I just don't believe that.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:53 pm**

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

Actually it's assuming that there was even dinosaurs during Adam's time.. The evidence clearly shows there wasn't..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs

The only thing this link shows against man and dinosaurs co-existing is dating of fossils. I have already proven in my last post the different dates on the same rocks. 1.8 million years to 395,000 years. If they can't get that right, then how can you consider any of it right? We have nothing that's stamped "made 100 million years ago", so we really don't know if we're even close to the correct age. If dating can fluctuate over 1 million years in age from dating type to dating type, then there is something wrong with the dating method. This is not 1% or 2% off. You can't believe any of it, none, it's wrong.

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

That would be your assumption then..

The scriptures simply say they ate vegetation for meat.

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.

Again if you are saying the grand canyon is only 600,000 - 700,000 yrs old, then how does this fit into your 6 thousand year idea? I'm arguing that the grand canyon is old not you...

I'm proving to you that science can't agree with itself. There's a huge difference between 17 million and 600,000. I believe one day science will say they now believe the canyon is only 100,000 years old. Some of them are already at 165,000 years. Yes the dates are old, but as I have already proven their dating method is in error. This is also shown by the changing dates for the formation of the canyon. No one can really decide when it was made.

erawdrah wrote: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.

They maybe possible errors, but it is not reflected in the mainline scientific consensus, and certainly not influenced by a river guide post. Longstanding scientific consensus has been that the canyon was created by the Colorado River over a six million year period. And again 395,000 years is not 6 thousand years.

Here's one, and here that says 6 million is wrong, it's 17 million. Here's one that says 17 million at the start and 3.7 million in the late stages. The point is science does not know how old it is, nor can they date anything correctly as proven above. This does not prove 6,000 year old earth but it really doesn't prove an earth older than 6,000 years either. They don't know!

erawdrah wrote: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.

Where does it say it's missing 1 billion years?

Third paragraph under Geology. "Interestingly, there is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. That indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition." That's nice, 1 billion years just eroded away. Since dating doesn't work correctly, maybe there isn't 1 billion years missing?!?

erawdrah wrote: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?

Again, how does this all fit into 6 thousand years? I don't get what you are saying...

I have just proven that the idea the canyon was made 6 million years ago by the Laramide orogeny is incorrect. None of the dates given by the "experts" support it. I disagree with the dating, as I'm sure you know by now. If not read above.

erawdrah wrote:Just the marine life that couldn't run away.

Run away from what? The salt water?

From the deluge on water during Noah's flood.

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?

erawdrah wrote: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.

Ah, no... You are claiming that the flood happened very rapidly... The fish would not have enough time to adapt that rapidly. Sorry..

This too was done rapidly by a volcano. "However, after a series of major eruptions in the 16th century, the lake was closed off from the sea by newly-formed land bridges."

erawdrah wrote:God was in control. Where did 1000m come from? A guess or to make it sound impossible?

Shutting a door is not the same thing as God saying that prevented gigantic tsunami waves from crushing the wooden ship.. I'm sorry I just don't believe that.

http://www.worldwideflood.com/flood/waves/waves.htm

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:19 pm**

erawdrah wrote: The only thing this link shows against man and dinosaurs co-existing is dating of fossils. I have already proven in my last post the different dates on the same rocks. 1.8 million years to 395,000 years. If they can't get that right, then how can you consider any of it right? We have nothing that's stamped "made 100 million years ago", so we really don't know if we're even close to the correct age. If dating can fluctuate over 1 million years in age from dating type to dating type, then there is something wrong with the dating method. This is not 1% or 2% off. You can't believe any of it, none, it's wrong.

No... What you are referring to is called unconformity. This happens when the layers fold, fault, and erode over time on top of each other.. So of course, when scientists date the rock, they are not always going the same time stamp. Please read the following explanations..

"Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282)."

The ordering of events which resulted in Figure 1 must be:

1. The blue layers are deposited.
2. The blue layers are tilted and eroded.
3. The green layers are deposited.
4. The canyon is cut into the green and blue layers.
5. The lava flows occur.

"There are a number of lava flows on the plateau that the canyon is cut into (yellow in Figure 1, above). These lava flows are Cenozoic in age, and some of them spill into the canyon. The walls of the canyon are mostly cut into horizontal rock layers of Paleozoic age (green in Figure 1, above). There is an angular unconformity at the bottom of the Paleozoic layers. An angular unconformity is the result of tilting and eroding of the lower layers before the upper ones are deposited. These tilted and eroded layers are Precambrian in age (blue in Figure 1, above).

The geological relationships of the various formations are quite clear. The lava flows which spill into the canyon must be younger than the canyon. The canyon must be younger than the rock layers that it cuts into. The sediments above the angular unconformity must be younger than the sediments below it."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

erawdrah wrote:The scriptures simply say they ate vegetation for meat.

No.. Genesis 1:29 does NOT say that vegetables was the only source of food for man... Vegetables are on top of the food chain for all species. This is what it is implying. You are simply twisting scripture to make it say what you want. Actually there is more evidence that God created carnivores on day six.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html

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 see your following quotes had to deal with K-Ar dating.. A lot of this can cleared up using 40Ar/39Ar dating. Please read..

"1. Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

In the case of the claim about recent lava yielding dates that are millions to billions of years old, H. M. Morris (1974) misstated the facts concerning these "anomalous" dates as published in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968). The main misstatements of fact by Morris are as follows:

* It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.

* Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon. (Funkhouser and Naughton [1968, 4603], stated that the matrix rock "can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.") This is consistent with the recent age of lavas and the state of the art of K-Ar dating at that time. The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for the lava containing them.

Morris cited other examples of anomalous dates produced by excess argon and falsely claimed that it is a universal problem for K-Ar dating. The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

2. Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique. This change also solved other problems that Morris complained about in his discussion of the K-Ar dating technique. These complaints were as follows:

1. Claim: K-Ar dating techniques must be calibrated by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating.

Response: Some calibrations between U-Pb and K-Ar were done in the 1940s and early 1950s, but the decay rates of all the different radioisotopes involved are now known to within 1 percent, making the different dating techniques independent.

With 40Ar/39Ar dating, it is possible to calibrate this dating method by using volcanic deposits created in historic volcanic eruptions -- for example, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 C.E. (Renne et al. 1997). In addition, 40Ar/39Ar dating can be compared not only with U-Pb dating techniques but also with other absolute dating techniques -- for example, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Sm-Nd dating techniques -- which all provide dates consistent with each other and with associated 40Ar/39Ar dates. This has been demonstrated by the dating of chondrite meteorites (Dalrymple 1991) and tektites and other ejecta and deposits created by the giant meteorite impact at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula (Dalrymple et al. 1993).

2. Claim: The potassium-argon is an open system.

Response: The papers cited by Morris fail to probe this point. The first paper simply demonstrates that rock altered by weathering cannot be dated. This is a common-sense conclusion understood by geologists literate in the basics of their profession; it is irrelevant to the unaltered minerals that are typically dated using K-Ar, 40Ar/39Ar, and other techniques. The final paper claims potassium is quite mobile because potassium can be extracted from iron meteorites by using distilled water. However, K-Ar dating commonly uses potassium silicate minerals, which are very insoluble in water and resist weathering. Potassium cannot be significantly leached from the minerals used in K-Ar dating, or, conversely, the minerals from which significant potassium can be leached are not the minerals used in K-Ar dating.

3. Claim: The decay rate of potassium is subject to change.

Response: This is simply not true.

4. Claim: Argon maybe incorporated with potassium at time of formation.

Response: See first point (a) above.

5. Claim: K-Ar ages are extremely variable.

Response: As previously noted, K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating both provide extremely consistent dates when the methods are used properly (Dalrymple 1991; 2000). The single paper (Engels 1971) cited by Morris clearly stated that variability resulted from presence of unwanted impurities in the specific mineral being dated. If the sample dated consisted of an absolutely pure mineral, there would not be any variability in the K-Ar dates obtained from them.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html"

erawdrah wrote:I'm proving to you that science can't agree with itself. There's a huge difference between 17 million and 600,000. I believe one day science will say they now believe the canyon is only 100,000 years old. Some of them are already at 165,000 years. Yes the dates are old, but as I have already proven their dating method is in error. This is also shown by the changing dates for the formation of the canyon. No one can really decide when it was made.

As I have already explained it depends on what dating method you use.. Regardless, nothing will ever comply within your 6 thousand time frame. Sorry. Even your sources confirm that...

erawdrah wrote:Here's one, and here that says 6 million is wrong, it's 17 million. Here's one that says 17 million at the start and 3.7 million in the late stages. The point is science does not know how old it is, nor can they date anything correctly as proven above. This does not prove 6,000 year old earth but it really doesn't prove an earth older than 6,000 years either. They don't know!

erawdrah wrote: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.

Again it all depends on what rock they were dating, where it was deposited, and what dating method they used..

Third paragraph under Geology. "Interestingly, there is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. That indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition." That's nice, 1 billion years just eroded away. Since dating doesn't work correctly, maybe there isn't 1 billion years missing?!?

It's called unconformity... Scientists are well aware of it and it's nothing new.

erawdrah wrote:I have just proven that the idea the canyon was made 6 million years ago by the Laramide orogeny is incorrect. None of the dates given by the "experts" support it. I disagree with the dating, as I'm sure you know by now. If not read above.

I have read above and I disagree with what you are saying..

erawdrah wrote:From the deluge on water during Noah's flood.

How could they run away from Noah's flood if it were global?

erawdrah wrote:This too was done rapidly by a volcano. "However, after a series of major eruptions in the 16th century, the lake was closed off from the sea by newly-formed land bridges."

Well if it was a global flood nothing would have been closed off. All the water would have been exposed to the water which would probably have killed off both the salt water and fresh water fish.

erawdrah wrote:God was in control. Where did 1000m come from? A guess or to make it sound impossible?

Gman wrote:Shutting a door is not the same thing as God saying that prevented gigantic tsunami waves from crushing the wooden ship.. I'm sorry I just don't believe that.

erawdrah wrote:http://www.worldwideflood.com/flood/waves/waves.htm

Please let's not twist scripture.. Genesis 6:16 says that there was an 18 inch gap between the roof and the ark. This gap would be large enough for waves to come in and sink the boat. If you are saying that the ark was totally encapsulated from the water, then all the inhabitants of the ark would have suffocated to death or died from the immense heat..

Posted: **Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:29 pm**

erawdrah wrote:I'm proving to you that science can't agree with itself. There's a huge difference between 17 million and 600,000. I believe one day science will say they now believe the canyon is only 100,000 years old. Some of them are already at 165,000 years. Yes the dates are old, but as I have already proven their dating method is in error. This is also shown by the changing dates for the formation of the canyon. No one can really decide when it was made.

Gman wrote:As I have already explained it depends on what dating method you use.. Regardless, nothing will ever comply within your 6 thousand time frame. Sorry. Even your sources confirm that...

So you agree that it depends on what dating method you use? Doesn't this make radiometric dating inaccurate? So how do you know which dating method to use? Or more to the point, which date is the correct date for that sample? It doesn't matter what dating method you use, you don't know the date of the sample. This does not disprove a young earth, it merely shows that dating is inaccurate. If the dating methods are inaccurate, then their information cannot be used as fact or even a guideline. You can't use false information to support your idea that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

If I take this equation, 2x2=4, x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 4,300,000,000
Now let's and put an incorrect assumption in it. The first function is incorrect the rest are correct.
2x2=40, x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 43,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Just with one (1) incorrect function the whole equation is absurdly off. This is the same logic that is being used in the dating game and being taught and touted as fact. Talkorigins will never accept anything but an old earth. They need an old earth in order to make macro-evolution a "possibility". Everything on talkorigins is dedicated to the exclusion of God.

erawdrah wrote: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.

Gman wrote:Again it all depends on what rock they were dating, where it was deposited, and what dating method they used..

Wow, this speaks volumes. Look at what you said. It depends on "what dating method they used.." So how do you know they used the correct dating method any where? Now let's look at the one billion years of sediment missing from the geological record. This link states the the "unconformity" is a global problem. It may not be a new problem but it is a huge problem. Where do you suppose this 1 billion years of deposit went? Maybe the dating is completely off on the geological time scale? You and I have already agreed that the methods do not agree. Have you ever wondered how they measured 1.248 billion years of decay in a 50 years span? Just a question that I have been pondering.

erawdrah wrote:This too was done rapidly by a volcano. "However, after a series of major eruptions in the 16th century, the lake was closed off from the sea by newly-formed land bridges."

Gman wrote:Well if it was a global flood nothing would have been closed off. All the water would have been exposed to the water which would probably have killed off both the salt water and fresh water fish.

So it happened in this lake. Kind of cool, huh? It was rapid and the fish adapted. You are assuming that some of the seas preflood were salty and some were fresh. You don't know and neither do I. The fish argument is tired and old. Find something you can prove, because you cannot prove this idea. This is another story that talkorigins spout to disprove God. If you truly believe in God, which I truly believe you do and are a Christian, then stop using an anti-God website for your information. That's like reading the Book of Mormon to glean information about Jesus.

What does the Scripture say?
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
So is being reserved unto fire against the day of judgment a partial judgment too?
Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The flood took them all away.
2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Isaiah 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days
Genesis 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: (Your 18" Window in the top of the ark)
Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Genesis 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Genesis 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

These Scriptures just scream global flood.

Posted: **Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:28 pm**

erawdrah wrote:So you agree that it depends on what dating method you use? Doesn't this make radiometric dating inaccurate? So how do you know which dating method to use? Or more to the point, which date is the correct date for that sample? It doesn't matter what dating method you use, you don't know the date of the sample. This does not disprove a young earth, it merely shows that dating is inaccurate. If the dating methods are inaccurate, then their information cannot be used as fact or even a guideline. You can't use false information to support your idea that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

As I have already explained, different rocks require different dating techniques... There are also over forty different radiometric dating methods in use. Please read the explanation below..

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

erawdrah wrote:If I take this equation, 2x2=4, x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 4,300,000,000
Now let's and put an incorrect assumption in it. The first function is incorrect the rest are correct.
2x2=40, x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 43,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Hey, wow look at all those numbers.. You are exaggerating (an assumption) something that doesn't exist..

erawdrah wrote:Just with one (1) incorrect function the whole equation is absurdly off. This is the same logic that is being used in the dating game and being taught and touted as fact. Talkorigins will never accept anything but an old earth. They need an old earth in order to make macro-evolution a "possibility". Everything on talkorigins is dedicated to the exclusion of God.

There are numerous old earth creationists that use talkorigins as a source... While I disagree with them about macro-evolution, I still don't throw the baby out with the bath water.. They also speak of micro-evolution which YEC'rs totally agrees with..

If you really want to know what I think about Darwinian evolution, just search my posts... I'm probably against it more than you. Young earth creationism thinks that all the dog families derived from a single source in less than six thousand years.. I disagree with that and would never give the evolutionists fuel for their fire..

erawdrah wrote:Wow, this speaks volumes. Look at what you said. It depends on "what dating method they used.." So how do you know they used the correct dating method any where? Now let's look at the one billion years of sediment missing from the geological record. This link states the the "unconformity" is a global problem. It may not be a new problem but it is a huge problem. Where do you suppose this 1 billion years of deposit went? Maybe the dating is completely off on the geological time scale? You and I have already agreed that the methods do not agree. Have you ever wondered how they measured 1.248 billion years of decay in a 50 years span? Just a question that I have been pondering.

Unconformity is not a problem for geologists.. There are explanations for it (please see the link).. Again, as I have already explained before we have shifting layers that mix with the other layers. One layer is laid down which slowly erodes away and is simply replaced by a younger layer..

http://geology.about.com/od/geoprocesse ... mities.htm

erawdrah wrote:So it happened in this lake. Kind of cool, huh? It was rapid and the fish adapted. You are assuming that some of the seas preflood were salty and some were fresh. You don't know and neither do I. The fish argument is tired and old. Find something you can prove, because you cannot prove this idea.

No... Again you are advocating that the flood happened rapidly. On top of that you are saying that the entire world was flooded. If it were, then all the fresh water fish would have died.. There are no pools of water... No lakes.. No time to adapt. Period.

erawdrah wrote:This is another story that talkorigins spout to disprove God. If you truly believe in God, which I truly believe you do and are a Christian, then stop using an anti-God website for your information. That's like reading the Book of Mormon to glean information about Jesus.

Hey erawdrah.. Are you attacking my Christianity? Maybe I can say that websites like AIG are anti-god too.. Consider this statement by Darwin..

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (parasitic wasp) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Charles Darwin —letter to Asa Gray.

You see, even Darwin himself thought God evil for creating a world where insects feed off of other insects or that cats would kill mice.. You too are in the same category. You too could be calling God evil for what he has created. I will not take this chance.. I will not take a chance on something I may not fully understand. Be careful what you calls God's creation.. For you may be calling God evil for it.

erawdrah wrote:What does the Scripture say?
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

From another post..

"A New Testament example of "world" used to mean something less than the globe comes from Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome. He began by complimenting the Romans for their faith Romans 1:8. Their faith was so exemplary that it was "being reported all over the world." Did Paul mean in every region of the planet, or did he mean in the world defined by the boundaries of the Roman Empire? The latter represented "the whole world" for citizens of that empire, including Paul himself, though they were not ignorant of land and perhaps peoples beyond."

The apostle Peter made a specific comment on the extent of the Genesis Flood:

2 Peter 3:5-6:
"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the "world at that time was destroyed," being flooded with water."

The Greek word translated "world," kosmos, has these definitions:

1. the whole universe.
2. the whole planet Earth.
3. the whole of humanity, or a portion of Earth.

An indication that the last definition applies in this verse comes from the qualifying phrase "of that time."

Scripture contains many more references to the whole world that we recognize to mean "the known world" rather than the entire planet. No one can reasonably say that to interpret "world" in the writer's context makes a lie of the text..."

erawdrah wrote:So is being reserved unto fire against the day of judgment a partial judgment too?
Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The flood took them all away.
2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Again, man was in a central location. See Strong's 2889 for kosmos.

erawdrah wrote:Isaiah 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Nope.. Look a Strongs 776 for "earth". It's the exact same tranlation used in Genesis.

"The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."4 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

* The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
* And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet.5

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

erawdrah wrote:Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

See Strong's 2889 for kosmos. Same word again..

erawdrah wrote:1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days
Genesis 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: (Your 18" Window in the top of the ark)
Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Genesis 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Genesis 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

All explained here.. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

erawdrah wrote:These Scriptures just scream global flood.

Nope.. Take a look at the hebrew word for "erets" sometime..

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:19 pm**

Get your Bible and read Genesis chapter 1. Now I'll recount creation for you.

First Day: Creation of the heaven (singular) and earth. God said "Let there be light" (created light, see second day as reason for light not already existing but created by God); God then divided light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness night. "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
So we know that God created space, time and the earth, the earth was without form and void. Without form means not done, and void means nothing on it. The He created light and then divided it from the darkness. This was done between the evening (start of a Jewish day) and the morning (end of a Jewish day) on the first day.

Second Day: Creation of the firmament. God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," The firmament divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water above the firmament. God called the firmament heaven (First heaven). "And the evening and the morning were the second day."
So we know that God said, "Let there be" a firmament. Did this firmament already exist? No it didn't. The next verse states "And God made the firmament," In this article, Mr. Deem claims the the phrase "Let there be..." means it already existed and that this was not the time it was created. But he does not address this "Let there be.." in his article. What are the waters under the firmament and what are the waters above the firmament? Some think the waters above might have been a water canopy and some think it's beyond that. But this is not our subject.

Third Day: Waters were gathered into one place and the dry land appeared. Creation of vegetation. "And the evening and the morning were the thrid day"
So we know that the waters were gathered together so that dry land would appear. And again God says, "Let the earth..." Did vegetation exist before this verse? Or did God create the vegetation at this time? He created it. It doesn't say "created" or "made" but we know that's what "Let" means. It's God speaking creation into existence, "Let there be.."

Fourth Day: Creation of Sun, Stars, Moon, and Planets. God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. God set them in the firmament of the heaven(Second heaven) to give light upon the earth. "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day"
So we know that God created the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets at this time. Not in Genesis 1:1. Why did he create these things. Sun for light during the day, Moon and Stars for light during the night and Stars and Planets for signs and for seasons and for days and years. I see nothing in day 4 that says God caused the clouds or darkness or vapors to become translucent so we could now see them. Do you? It says "God set them in the firmament of the heaven" on day 4.

Fifth Day: Creation of sea life. Creation of birds. "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
So we know God created sea life and birds on the 5th day. Hummm...science says birds are after dinosaurs. And we are back to the "Let there be..." phrase again. Did the creatures exist before this day? Did the clouds move so we could see them?

Sixth Day: Creation of cattle, creeping thing and beast. Creation of man and woman. "And the evening and the morning were the sixth day"
So we know God created cattle, creeping things and beasts. And God created man and woman. And we are back to the "Let there be.." phrase again.

Now the reason I went thru this:
I believe the whole reason for day-age, gap theory, and other theories that include an old earth, only exist to try to mimic man made theory in science. Let's look at the world's evidence against God's creation days. Radiometric dating is hardly accurate. They can't even get the same dates on the same samples in the same lab. Then how do they know they are even close to the correct date. They don't know because we have nothing dated by history to prove their dating on things beyond 6-10 thousand years. We can't use Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale, because it's built on radiometric dating. We can't use Geological Time Scale because it's also built on radiometric dating and theory. Science claims 1 billion years of sediment is missing from the Geological Record because of the lack of dead life between molecular life and complex life. A billion years of sediment can't just wash away, or that means the earth was stagnant with nothing on it. Not even water or dirt or anything. We do find contradiction in dating. All of the bones we find in all of the different strata still contain helium and carbon. This should not be if they are billions or even millions of years old. Now science has come up with reasons that these elements are in the bones. Mostly through migration and other sources. Of course, they can use that method to prove or disprove what they want and then call it as impossible if we suggest that on their dating. I watched one show that told how a flood carved out canyons millions of years ago, but, according to science, a flood couldn't have carved out the Grand Canyon. They have yet to prove how trees were fossilized in the up right position with out rapid layering. Fossils themselves are made only by instant incasement in sediment. If the creature died on top of the land and was not covered then it would have rotted away or been eaten, not been preserved. The fossils we have today all died in some type of disaster. One disaster could have been Noah's flood, tar pit, local flood, frozen, but not on top of the earth's crust. I worked on a farm during the summers growing up and have had an opportunity to see what happens to animals that die on top of the ground. After 2 weeks all that's left are bones, then bones get carried off and eaten. Unless something is covered it will not produce a fossil. Scienctists know this and have tried to come up with everything they can other than a flood, they don't want to give any creedence that the Bible is true. The Bible is the absolute Word of God and is emperically true. The Bible explains science not science explains the Bible. Do not use man-made theories to change what the Bible says. Especially when those theories are made just to prove there is no God. This is man's attempt to reason that there will not be a judgment in the after life.

One of the passages that most Christian people quote to give weight to modern science is Psalms 104 and Job 38:8-11. They state that Psalm 104 is a total recount of creation and shows that God set boundries for the water's so they wouldn't flood the earth. This is to prove that Noah's flood was local because set boundries for the waters. This is not true.
Verse 2 Who coverest theyself with light as with a garment (is this the light created in Gen 1:2?): who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain (expanding universe?)
Verse 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind (water canaopy or even higher?)
Verse 4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire (creation of angels)
Verse 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth (creation of the earth)
Verse 6 Thou coveredst it(earth) with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. (Noah's global flood)
Verse 7 At they rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. (Flood still)
Verse 8 They go up by mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. (Flood, mountains rose up and water's retreated to the valley's where God made a place for them)
Verse 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth (God's promise to the earth not to be judged with a global flood again)

Job 38:8-11, for context we'll start in verse 4
Verse 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations fo the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. (creation)
Verse 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? (who know the measurements of the earth- creation still)
Verse 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone? (still about creation)
Verse 7 The angels shouted for joy for God's creation. (Creation is done because the angels shouted for joy)
Verse 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? (Noah's flood, water gushed out of the earth as water from a womb)
Verse 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, (Flood still rain/storm clouds)
Verse 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors (waters went to the places God had for them and set boundries that the earth should not be judged by global flood again)
Verse 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (boundries set after the flood)

These passages in no way speak of waters having a boundry prior to the flood. Genesis 1 doesn't speak of setting boundries but the waters were gather into one place. Once you reach verse 6 in Psalms God is speaking of the flood not creation and once you reach verse 8 in Job God is speaking of the flood not creation.

All of these ideas put science ahead of the Bible. Christians are trying to show how the Bible follows what man has "discovered". Christians try to match up creation with evolution.

Let's look at the real differences between "science" and creation.

Cause for creation
Creation- God was the Cause For every effect, there is a cause (observable)
Evolution - There was not cause — 15 billion years ago for no know reason, the universe exploded itself into existence. Time, chance, and natural process created all things. The creation of the universe is an effect with no cause (not observable).

Origin
Creation - The universe was spoken into existence by God's Word. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes (observable).
Evolution - Began with 'singularity', a tiny infinitely hot and dense point Matter was created by a natural process (not observable).

Energy
Creation - We are devolving Energy goes from a state of usable energy to less usable energy (observable).
Evolution - We are evolving Energy goes from a state of less usable energy to more usable energy (not observable).

Space
Creation - Earth created first (day 1) Stars came afterwards (day 4) with the sun and moon.
Evolution - Stars formed first Earth formed afterwards

Earth Covering
Creation - Water
Evolution - Fire

Time Constraints
Creation - 6 Days — The creation of the World was FINISHED in six day and is no longer taking place (observable).
Evolution - Infinite Time — 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved by natural processes. The world is in a continuous process of evolution (not observable).

Quality
Creation - Very Good
Evolution - Primitive, voilent

Planning of Life
Creation - By Design
Evolution - Accident

Origin of Life
Creation - God Life comes from life (observable), no known exceptions.
Evolution - Forces of Nature It is possible for life to come from non-life (not observable).

Time needed for life
Creation - 2 Days (Faith based) — all animal/human life was created on day 5 and 6.
Evolution - Millions of years (Faith based) — They don't know how it happened but given enough time they BELIEVE it will.

Species
Creation - Kind begets kind (observable).
Evolution - Kind begets some other kind (not observable).

Animal life
Creation - Birds first, then Reptiles
Evolution - Reptiles first, then Birds

Human life
Creation - Man was created on day six Man is made in the image of God.
Evolution - 3.5 billion years ago life evolved Humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Beginning of Death
Creation - After Adam sinned, not a process of creation — it is a product of man's sin.
Evolution - Always been present, part of the creation process — the means by which man evolves into a higher being.

Cause of Death
Creation - Sin, there was no death before Adam sinned
Evolution - Natural process, existed from the beginning of life

Spiritual Death
Creation - Both physical and spiritual, you will give an account of your life after you die.
Evolution - Physical only, no accountability after death.

Sediment Layers, Canyons
Creation - Form rapidly (liquefaction). Witnessed during Mt. St. Helen (observable).
Evolution - Form slowly. No evidence witnessed (not observable).

Fossil Creation
Creation - Catastrophic event, rapid burial in water, (observable).
Evolution - Buried by dust over long periods of time (not observable).

Marine fossils on mountains
Creation - Global flood, Genesis account Rapid 40 day/night event Springs of the deep broken up All creation perished All mountains covered by at least 20 ft. About 200 legends from cultures all over the world.
Evolution - Local floods, earth sinking into the ocean and rising again. No written record or legend

Trees through layers
Creation - Fossilized trees spanning many layers indicates rapid burial by water, observable with Mt. St. Helen. Can be created in one week (observable).
Evolution - Over many years plant life died, sank into the earth, and coal formed (not observable).

Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood
Creation - Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood, can all be made in a matter of weeks, (observable).
Evolution - Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood take millions of years to form (not observable).

Biblical Day
Creation - Recognize that the Biblical day means 24 hours and accept it as fact Hebrew word “Yom”, in all cases, means short period of time defined to be evening and morning days are distinguished between seasons and years (Genesis 1:14) God's own word (Exodus 10:11) writing style of Genesis is narrative, not poetic genealogy of human race given
Evolution - Some, recognize that the Biblical day means 24 hours but reject the account as a myth. Others, interpret the Biblical definition of day to mean millions of years.
Chart by Author: Joshua Turk

Now where's the baby you want save out of the bathwater.

Have a great weekend!

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:53 pm**

Out of curiosity, how would one of the largest salt mines on earth end up UNDER lake Huron (a fresh water lake)?

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.p ... ber=284246

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:17 pm**

Let's look at the real differences between "science" and creation.

Cause for creation
Creation- God was the Cause For every effect, there is a cause (observable)
Evolution - There was not cause — 15 billion years ago for no know reason, the universe exploded itself into existence. Time, chance, and natural process created all things. The creation of the universe is an effect with no cause (not observable).

How is God's creation of the universe "observable"?

Origin
Creation - The universe was spoken into existence by God's Word. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes (observable).
Evolution - Began with 'singularity', a tiny infinitely hot and dense point Matter was created by a natural process (not observable).

Conservation of matter (or energy) is observable. God's creation of the universe is not.

Energy
Creation - We are devolving Energy goes from a state of usable energy to less usable energy (observable).
Evolution - We are evolving Energy goes from a state of less usable energy to more usable energy (not observable).

I assume you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics(?) At any rate, what do you mean by "Evolution - We are evolving Energy goes from a state of less usable energy to more usable energy (not observable)"?

Space
Creation - Earth created first (day 1) Stars came afterwards (day 4) with the sun and moon.
Evolution - Stars formed first Earth formed afterwards

So?

Earth Covering
Creation - Water
Evolution - Fire

So?

Time Constraints
Creation - 6 Days — The creation of the World was FINISHED in six day and is no longer taking place (observable).
Evolution - Infinite Time — 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved by natural processes. The world is in a continuous process of evolution (not observable).

There are many observable events that indicate the universe and the earth are billions of years old and still changing. How far back in time we can "see" (stars and galaxies that are billions of light-years away), plate tectonics, the massive salt deposits under the Great Lakes, ... , ... , ...

Quality
Creation - Very Good
Evolution - Primitive, voilent

Your point?

Planning of Life
Creation - By Design
Evolution - Accident

So?

Origin of Life
Creation - God Life comes from life (observable), no known exceptions.
Evolution - Forces of Nature It is possible for life to come from non-life (not observable).

True life begets life. How does this prove God started life?

Time needed for life
Creation - 2 Days (Faith based) — all animal/human life was created on day 5 and 6.
Evolution - Millions of years (Faith based) — They don't know how it happened but given enough time they BELIEVE it will.

You don't think the fossil record proves that life didn't change over a very long time?

Species
Creation - Kind begets kind (observable).
Evolution - Kind begets some other kind (not observable).

So God had many separate creation events (one for single-celled creatures, another for the cambrian explosion, another for dinosaurs, another for modern animals, etc)?

Animal life
Creation - Birds first, then Reptiles
Evolution - Reptiles first, then Birds

So?

There are much fossil evidence to indicate reptiles predate birds.

Human life
Creation - Man was created on day six Man is made in the image of God.
Evolution - 3.5 billion years ago life evolved Humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

How come no human fossils are found in Cambrian layers?

Beginning of Death
Creation - After Adam sinned, not a process of creation — it is a product of man's sin.
Evolution - Always been present, part of the creation process — the means by which man evolves into a higher being.

Cause of Death
Creation - Sin, there was no death before Adam sinned
Evolution - Natural process, existed from the beginning of life

Spiritual Death
Creation - Both physical and spiritual, you will give an account of your life after you die.
Evolution - Physical only, no accountability after death.

Sediment Layers, Canyons
Creation - Form rapidly (liquefaction). Witnessed during Mt. St. Helen (observable).
Evolution - Form slowly. No evidence witnessed (not observable).

How did sedimentary layers dry out and harden rapidly? How did canyons form through very hard rock layers rapidly? How did a huge salt deposit get under the Great Lakes?

Fossil Creation
Creation - Catastrophic event, rapid burial in water, (observable).
Evolution - Buried by dust over long periods of time (not observable).

Why are there fossils of different species in different sedimentary layers?

Marine fossils on mountains
Creation - Global flood, Genesis account Rapid 40 day/night event Springs of the deep broken up All creation perished All mountains covered by at least 20 ft. About 200 legends from cultures all over the world.
Evolution - Local floods, earth sinking into the ocean and rising again. No written record or legend

What became of the water needed to cover the entire Earth? In other words, where did the water come from that raised the sea level by some 29,000 ft, and what happened to it afterwards?

Trees through layers
Creation - Fossilized trees spanning many layers indicates rapid burial by water, observable with Mt. St. Helen. Can be created in one week (observable).
Evolution - Over many years plant life died, sank into the earth, and coal formed (not observable).

The trees and vegetation buried by Mt St Helens has become petrified and/or formed coal?

Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood
Creation - Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood, can all be made in a matter of weeks, (observable).
Evolution - Coal, Oil, Petrified Wood take millions of years to form (not observable).

Where can we observe coal, oil, or petrified wood which was formed in a matter of weeks?

Biblical Day
Creation - Recognize that the Biblical day means 24 hours and accept it as fact Hebrew word “Yom”, in all cases, means short period of time defined to be evening and morning days are distinguished between seasons and years (Genesis 1:14) God's own word (Exodus 10:11) writing style of Genesis is narrative, not poetic genealogy of human race given
Evolution - Some, recognize that the Biblical day means 24 hours but reject the account as a myth. Others, interpret the Biblical definition of day to mean millions of years.
Chart by Author: Joshua Turk

So?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:01 pm**

How did sedimentary layers dry out and harden rapidly? Define rapidlyHow did canyons form through very hard rock layers rapidly? Massive water flow would be one. And perhaps the layers weren't all that hard then.How did a huge salt deposit get under the Great Lakes? You tell us.

Evidence for God from Science

Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days

Re: Questions on God's creation days