And there was evening and there was morning?

This really bothers me a bit, though off subject. Evidently Noah’s grandkids were told to go make whoopee with each other assuming no other people. And this time, incest can’t be said to be OK because of the perfect genome, since that boat had sailed. Just another thing that is problematic.

2 Likes

First of all, not to the point that was being addressed. The assertion was that a canyon with walls could not have been formed in the months and years after the flood–the walls would just slump down, not that it was a big canyon. But it is up to 150 feet deep, and there are other canyons formed during the time of the eruption that are deeper and were cut through hard rock by mud flows.

What we saw at Mt. St. Helens was that a rather small scale geological catastrophe demonstrated that layers could be laid down in hours and days, and that significant geological work could be done in short periods of time–that the time that deep time advocates insist is needed can be substituted for with intensity. We also see this in the Lake Missoula Flood, a larger geological impact event which carved out hard rock in the matter of a few days or weeks.

The Missoula flood indeed shows what happens with a lot of water in a short time. And looks nothing like the Grand Canyon. What solid rock was present in the walls of the shallow canyons of Mt. St. Helens appears to be fractured rubble deposited by the explosive landslide, not consolidated sedimentary rock. As to the point addressed, I don’t think a 50 foot dirt bluff is representative of a mile deep canyon, so I guess you are correct that it really does not apply. . The pictures in that article of the gullies at Mt. St Helen also show a lot of rubble at the base of the walls even though less than 100 ft. I suspect as time goes on, the gullies will widen and the slopes soften to where the walls become hillsides.

1 Like

Well, first you have already decided there was no worldwide flood. Then you imagine all sorts of problems that probably didn’t exist. Yet you have no problem believing that life came from non-life in a completely sterile world, and that more complex life arose from less complex life by completely naturalistic means, and that the instructions for life can arise from matter in motion. So you have hyper skepticism where none is warranted, and extreme credulity when none is also warranted.

Yeah, of that I am quite aware. For several years we did small scale organic farming, building up the soil for maximum nutrition. One of the items we used was biochar to help with the colonization of bacteria. But I am also quite aware that we grew a lot of stuff even under less than ideal conditions.

I don’t know that I can answer all your questions, but here are some:

  • The fresh water comes from the same sources it does today–rainwater in rivers and lakes.
  • For scavengers, there was likely plenty of food floating on the waters. And even meat eaters can survive on mostly vegetarian diets (wow, watch the denials of this one.) “Little Tyke, the lion - - Her body stretched 10 feet 4 inches long and could run 40 miles per hour. Her skull, highly adapted to killing and eating prey, possessed short powerful jaws. Normally, African lions eat gnus, zebras, gazelles, impalas, and giraffes. This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian !”
    Here’s an article you might read: After devastation ... the recovery - creation.com

 
And for all the good science, YECs have to concoct more and more unsupported and bizarre explanations.

 
No, you did not and still haven’t:

Time cannot be substituted with intensity when you are trying to deposit thick layers of clay-y marine sediment, fine-grained biogenic limestones, ash layers, and endemic index fossils. Also not when there are highly variable unconformities, induration (turning to limestone) of parts of some layers, but not the ones directly above them (induration requires percolating fresh groundwater). And what about tiny, fragile shells? how are those deposited alongside far larger ones? And how are multiple layers, with partial induration indicating that they were above sea level for a time, on top of each other, each one containing species that lived for 50+ years?

2 Likes

Neither do you. One would have to believe in an eternally existent universe (that had always had life in it - no beginnings!) in order to get around that. Almost nobody believes that any more.

You believe that God brought life into being from non-life materials, just like any believers around here do.

2 Likes

The problems would most certainly exist. Why don’t you just argue that God would perform any number of miracles to solve them?

And I did.

No it can’t. Problem being is the area around Mt St Helens was teeming with plant and animal life. All it had to do was to move back in. And anyone who has had a garden knowns how fast the weeds can return. Where did the life come from after a year long flood?

And for the idea that the meat eaters would live off the dead how much of the dead would still be around after floating around in the water for a year?

3 Likes

Makes farming on Mars seem easy in comparison.

And most animals would get sick from feeding off putrid corpses. And what a disgusting scenario that is, especially after the Ark’s cruise from hell! You don’t see that illustrated in children’s Bibles.

Actually Genesis specifically says, God FORMED Adam out of the DUST OF THE EARTH. That is not evolving from another species…it simply can’t be taken as meaning that!
I think theistic evolution is explaining away God in favour of science…it’s taking the wrong approach. As I have mentioned before, even secular evolution believe theism has no place in their world view…the two words are opposed…I think that is why the founder of this channel has change the name to biologos! Underneath, however, it’s the same thing and equally problematic.
An argument has been made that Adam didn’t die after he sinned…of course not. If Adam and Eve had been immediately struck down, then Lucifer wins! The plan of salvation God implemented could not be utilised if he simply struck down his creation…Adam and Eve had no offspring! (It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that)
Aside from this very obvious point, God said Adam and Eves sin corrupted the entire earth…their sin did not merely affect themselves. The “process”
of dying started immediately after this point in history!
I point to Revelation 21
‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain,for the former things have passed away.”

I struggle to find evolution in that text!
Are we evolving to this place are we …if you believe that, than why do you need God?
Again, theistic evolution is self defeating…there is no need for God if you accept death did not enter this world through sin!
This idea it’s only a spiritual death is a deeply deeply flawed argument.
Jesus did not “spiritually” die on the cross…he physically died!

Using his physical hands?

1 Like

Actually 1 Chronicles specifically says, “The world is firmly established. It shall NEVER BE MOVED.” That is, earth cannot be moving around the sun … it simply can’t be taken as meaning that!

(And lest you think that this just my gloss on a Bible verse, that thought above would pretty accurately echo the documented sentiments of no less than Cardinal Bellarmine himself, long long before there was any thought of evolution or ancient time scales on the scene. To them, it was patently obvious that this is just what the Bible clearly teaches. Just reading it simply.)

He is God…he can use anything he likes…recall what Jesus said in Luke 19

"But some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!”
“I tell you,” He answered, “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.”

Is God really bound by that?
In any case …
If you take a close look at the creation account given by Moses, you will note that God did not speak man into existence…he FORMED Adam.
That is a deeply personal event in the creation story.
That is crucial in the text. You need to re read the account for yourself!

Can he use his physical hands? (You avoided the question.) If so, we have a different understanding of who and what he is.

1 Like

I did not avoid the question…surelly you are familiar with Genesis chapter 2?

7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d

8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.

There is aboslutely no room in the above passage of scripture for an evolutionary view of creation…it is 100% incompatible with the bible…there is nothing spiritual about God (the Almighty God) bending down close to the ground, moulding man from the dust of the earth, then placing his own mouth on Adams Nostrils and breathing the breath of life into them…and “man became a living being”!

I dont know about your comprehension of written language, however, I am certain that in any survey you choose to run, the overwhelming majority will view Genesis chapter 2 in exactly the same way i have interpreted above. The reason why the majority would agree with that view is because it is exactly how the writer intended it to be interpreted. The text is actually self revealing.

The only way you can discredit Genesis Chapter 2 is to simply pretend it doesnt exist! You currently do that by claiming some kind of spiritual version of the creation story…i dont know how that is possible to support when this part of the bible is written as a narrative. It is a very descriptive account of exactly how Moses was inspired by God to explain to the people the origins of their existence!

I think its extremely problematic to claim a personal God (as you apparently also do), a God who set in motion a plan of salvation which your fundamentals also claim on the homepage of this website (which i quote below) using this evolutionary model.

“3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.”

I again spell out what salvation is…it is the redemption of mankind back to a sinless existence in harmony with our creator. It is fully explained here:

Romans 6: 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

and here:

Revelation 21: 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,

and He will dwell with them.

They will be His people,

and God Himself will be with them as their God.b

4 ‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c

and there will be no more death

or mourning or crying or pain,

for the former things have passed away.”

5 And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”

There is simply no way to sensibly explain away this truth…its all through the entire bible…you cannot claim it is merely a spiritual occurrence…that theory is easily disproven in Acts 1:11:

10They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

What i have seen coming out of some individuals on this forum is the idea that God is learning. Honestly, that is complete nonesense. How can an onmipotent, everlasting, all powerful creator be learning? He created the very science you apparently follow (albeit you follow it in error but that is beside the point)!

But there is in this one:

Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so.

Gen 1:24

Perhaps none in your literal view, but we are all formed of the dust of the earth according to the Bible, even though we are formed of flesh in our mothers womb through a biological process.

2 Likes

Did God use his literal hands to do the forming and his literal nose or mouth to do the breathing?
 
According to you, apparently yes:

 
Jesus disagrees with you:

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

God is not corporeal.

1 Like

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.