Do you all realize that a world without physical death would make the planet unlivable? I suppose one could pass draconian laws against having children (what kind of life is that?) but animals would reproduce at will. One imaginative interlocutor suggested that we could ship our excess humans to other planets.
1 Like
If God has created a universe of deception then there is no use studying anything.
Science is by definition âsecularâ even for a Christian scientist. Ever hear a Christian meteorologist end a weather forecast with âGod willingâ even if it is his faith position that God is in control of the weather? TE is not a science position it is a faith position.
So what are the requirements to be saved?
- Believe with all of your heart that Jesus can save you.
- Confess your sins to Him.
- Ask Him for forgiveness.
Do you agree (I think this covers both Calvinist and Armenian positions)? If so then yes even a TE can be saved.
I really look forward to how you can explain this. Perhaps you should start a new post.
Just make your argument rather than calling people you disagree âdishonest.â Maybe you think that using inflammatory or high emotion language strengthens your argument. It doesnât.
Your understanding of the argument made in âIs Genesis Historyâ is faulty. It is stating that most of the sedimentary layers around the earth were laid down during or shortly after the worldwide flood, and the landscape that we see was formed during or shortly after the worldwide flood (which the theistic evolutionists deny happened), If that is true, then these sediments, like those at Mt. St. Helens, were not fully consolidated or hardened either. So canyons could form very rapidly.
Even when rock is fully hardened, the power of water to cut through it in relatively short time is still considerable. The Missoula Flood is a well documented case. (Or several floods, if you prefer. A single flood is good for only one doctoral thesis. Each time a researcher adds another flood, it is good for another thesis! Plus it is a more âevolutionaryâ or âuniformitarianâ explanationâless catastrophe, more time.)
Yes, canyons can form rapidly. Here is a good principle to remember: âIt either takes a little water and a long time, or a lot of water and a little time.â But then, weâve never seen a canyon form slowly with just a little water. Whenever actual real time observations are made, itâs a lot of water and a short time.
The people that made the video knew, or should know, the Grand Canyon is currently being cut through solid basement rock that has never been a soft layer of sediment. That is why I said âsolid rock.â So they are either being dishonest or are misinformed.
A rather large number of layers composed of distinct materials that were laid down in identical order world wide. Said layers containing indications they were not laid down quickly, such as nests containing unbroken eggs, animal tracks and burrows, and layers that can only be created in slow moving or still water. Sedimentary layers that were broken when solid by the intrusion of magma that takes 100âs of thousands of years to cool to form granite. Repeatedly I might add. Etc., etc., I could go on.
But we have. The current Grand Canyon erosion rate has been measured. Something like 0.3 meters per 200 years. And the river is currently cutting through non-sedimentary rock so you canât argue it is cutting through soft layers.
Another good principle to remember. Rapidly moving water cuts straight channels and slowly moving water cuts meandering channels. And the Grand Canyon is composed of, you guessed it, meandering channels.
You might be interested in this paper which uses YEC research to disprove the idea of a global flood.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf
3 Likes
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 7:6
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:7
And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sonsâ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Genesis 7:10
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
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;
a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ALL flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.
Not a partial flood if EVERYTHING under the Heaven and ALL flesh and EVERYTHING that is on the earth shall die.
1 Like
A counter example would be the references in Joshua 10 and 11 to âdestroying all that breathedâ. I donât think that includes all local wild animals. And there is still
The fact that there are plenty of plants with non-salt tolerant seeds makes a flood covering the entirety of the planet seem a bit unlikely.
3 Likes
How does one get dozens of layers with distinctive endemics and index fossils out of that?
3 Likes
You cite lots of Scripture. Would love to hear your thoughts about the earth not moving.
Okay Timothy, you believe it was a local flood.
God was speaking to ancient people, yes, but also to us. He knew we would learn a lot more about the universe, that we would learn about the stretching of time.
A simple narrative, but not necessarily a simple account. And the stretching of time may be hard to believe, but it is basically simple.
Seeing v2 as saying the earth was non-existent was a point of view held by Karlheinz Rabast, a well known Old Testament scholar from the 1950âs, quoted by Edward J. Young, a well respected Reform scholar in the Westminster Theological Journal.
We donât know Godâs âlocationâ when he created the universe, but one would think that he was not inside it, since he was not, at that time, creating himself.
âPlease tease this outâ? The account is about things God did with no human agency, no human observation. Why should he have told it in human terms, i.e., in terms of billions of years when so many of his readers wouldnât understand such numbers until much later.
How could Genesis 1 be prophesy?? Itâs history. The reason the original audience couldnât understand it is the same reason that an average small child would misunderstand if an adult told him that âAunt Annie got sick and lost the baby.â He may think that Aunt Annie was sick and lost track of where the baby was. When he learns more about where babies come from and what miscarriages are, he will understand what was meant.
I take a âconcordistâ reading of the text because it makes sense, especially when you stick close to the meaning of the words. I am not persuaded by âitâs just ANE myth;â or âthe ancients couldnât have understood all these things we can see in it.â We understand large parts of Isaiah as being written about Christ. The ancients didnât see that. And God would not be likely to begin his writings to us with an ANE myth. Heâs smarter than that. I think we need to let loose of some tired old hand-me-down interpretations of this most amazing text and see what it really says.
My main point was not to argue for YEC, but to note that we should not demonize those who come to differing conclusions. That does nothing to further a search for truth.
Yes, you are likely right that the Grand Canyon is currently eroding at a very slow rate. But it is fallacious to assume that it has always been so. It could have been otherwise. Also, it may be easy to refute the Breached Dam Theory (BDT). But refuting one weak argument does not refute YEC. There is another much harder to refute scenario at
Grand canyon origin flood.
If God told us through his word, the Bible, that the world is only about 6000 years old, how could he be deceptive about it? But more than that, there is a lot of evidence that the world is very old, about 6000 years old!
Of course, this argument can go on ad infinitum. The deep time advocates make a list that shows 100 evidence for an old universe; the âyoungâ earth advocates have a similar list of evidence for a young earth.
What it seems to come down to is this: what are your starting assumptions? That depends a great deal on your worldview, and will in turn determine how you interpret the evidence.
In the case of the theistic evolutionist, which also must embrace deep time, everything is interpreted in an evolutionary and deep time framework. But as this thread demonstrates, it also comes at the expense of making hash out of biblical theology.
Truth comes from reality â the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.
I ask because you and your YEC friends have set up a false dichotomy of the Bible versus science. So Iâm wondering what you think of all the verses that say that the earth doesnât move even though science says it does.
1 Like
This book, not available digitally (but I got my local public library to buy it) is beautiful as well as scientific. Of the eleven contributing authors, nine are evangelical Christians.
Donât forget the pillars.
1 Like
1 Like
Canyons with tall, vertical walls could not form from unconsolidated material. The walls of the canyon would slump before much of the riverbed was cut.
Features like those above are simply impossible with the scenario you describe. Also, the gooseneck meander is inconsistent with raging floodwaters that are described in most flood scenarios.
4 Likes