Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[Pumicestone]

Jack, I agree completely with the Old Earth reality ... but I would like to see you expand on this bit

" an old earth, no dino for dinner, and no global flood is not in conflict with the Bible "

 

[JackH]

Jack, I agree completely with the Old Earth reality ... but I would like to see you expand on this bit

" an old earth, no dino for dinner, and no global flood is not in conflict with the Bible "

Bowman has expended considerable energy on this thread establishing that the bible does not "prove" a 6,000-year-old earth.

I don't see where any of these YECs have effectively refuted his argument.

Likewise, it has been established by me and others that YECs got their "flood geology" from Seventh-Day Adventist nonsense. Ken Ham and Dr. Dino got their flood geology from the father of the modern cult movement, Henry Morris, who got his flood geology from Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price, and Price got his flood geology from Ellen White. Furthermore, some on this thread have established that a local flood is a valid interpretation of the bible as much as a global flood is.

Dinosaurs in the bible has not been discussed much, if at all.

But YECs should feel free to bring that nonsense on.

The bottom line is that there are competing interpretations of Scripture pertaining to the age of the earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, and a global flood.

But there is no competing interpretation of science.

The overwhelming body of credible science has established that the earth is billions of years old, dinosaurs did not coexist with humans, and there was no global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

When YECs try to "prove" the contrary via their pseudoscience, they FAIL miserably.

 

[kedge]

Dinosaurs in the bible has not been discussed much, if at all.

That's because the word dinosauria wasn't invented or the term coined by richard owen until in the 1600's, lol. Who knows what the first man adam called those land animals?


Somewhere in genesis 2,


He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

 

[JimmieD]

well I for one don't accept his premisses. He is just making assumptions on the basis of his own presuppositions and reading in what he has been brought up to believe. There are clear indications in Genesis 1 that the yom are not natural days and nights. The very description evening and morning is very strange, especially as in Gen 1 Yom 1 HAS NO EVENING. It commences with total darkness,

Besides evening and morning is NOT a 24 hour day. it leaves out night time and afternoon. It is therefore more natural to see it as indicating beginning (morning) and ending (evening), especially as in Genesis 1 'yom' is defined as indicating a period of light.

Furthermore 24 hour days could not naturally be seen as commencing before the fourth yom. So the natural interpretation is to see the yoms as 'days of God'.

Thus in my view the idea of a 6 24 hour day creation IS NOT the natural interpretation of the passage, especially as we note that the seventh yom has no evening and morning, and is not said to end. And this is especially so as it is clear that the account has been built up on a very careful pattern to show preparation and completion

this should at least indicate to us that if we take the literal Hebrew it is open to question precisely what the account is saying. There is no one view that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's. we should therefore beware of slanging those who disagree with us.

You might also find it interesting that those who insist that "yom" means "literally 24 hour period" will have trouble explaining Gen 2:4:

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Again, the word used is "yom." If "yom" has to mean a literal 24 hour period, then Gen 2:4 suggests that God created everything in 1 day, rather than 7. This would present a problem between Gen 1 and 2, with Gen 1 saying that God created everything over 7 days and Gen 2 saying he created everything in 1 day.

 

[JackH]

That's because the word dinosauria wasn't invented or the term coined by richard owen until in the 1600's, lol. Who knows what the first man adam called those land animals?


Somewhere in genesis 2,


He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

It was in 1841 that Richard Owen coined the term Dinosauria.

YEC view: Adam probably called T. rex "Sexy Rexy" before the Fall, when T. rex did not eat meat. After the Fall, T. rex called Adam "Lunch." But not to worry, Dr. Dino says just rip off the T. rex's little arm and let it bleed to death.

My view: Adam did not name T. rex because T. rex was extinct when Adam came on the scene.

 

[Pumicestone]

That's because the word dinosauria wasn't invented or the term coined by richard owen until in the 1600's, lol. Who knows what the first man adam called those land animals?

Somewhere in genesis 2,
He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

And that is supposed to be evidence that dinosaurs existed at the time of Adam ?

And presumably they were still around when Noah built his ark ?

That must have been some ark !
There were hundreds (if not more) of species of prehistoric animals - many pre-dinosaurs.
Heaps of them bigger than elephants ....

Keeping two (or seven ?) of each on board that ark - along with all the beasties still around - and all the food to keep them for the best part of a year ?????

Good trick.

 

[Tintin]

And that is supposed to be evidence that dinosaurs existed at the time of Adam ?

And presumably they were still around when Noah built his ark ?

That must have been some ark !
There were hundreds (if not more) of species of prehistoric animals - many pre-dinosaurs.
Heaps of them bigger than elephants ....

Keeping two (or seven ?) of each on board that ark - along with all the beasties still around - and all the food to keep them for the best part of a year ?????

Good trick.

We've already covered this. Natural selection and speciation are scientific truths. They're not evidence for evolution, but instead, they're evidence for a biblical creation. There were different animal kinds. What we know as species is very different to a 'kind'. Kind is far more broad a concept. Also, why would Noah take large dinosaurs on board the ark? He wouldn't. They would've been juveniles, ready to breed upon exciting the ark, post-Flood. The reality of the ark is no children's story book adventure, but it happened and it's very possible.

 

[flob]

The overwhelming body of credible scientific information indicates that...there was no global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

What post # here shares some of that particular "credible scientific information"?

 

[Cee]

For what it's worth macro evolution does not correlate with Scripture. Man caused death through sin, so man can not come from death.

 

[flob]

What we know as species is very different to a 'kind'. Kind is far more broad a concept.

Then, what's your exact understanding of species?
Of Genesis' 'kind'?

 

[Tintin]

Then, what's your exact understanding of species?
Of Genesis' 'kind'?

Kind is like 'family' eg. the wolf-kind led to various species of dogs, the cat-kind led to various species of cats. Most species of domestic dogs we have these days weren't even around 500 years ago. Same goes for the domesticated cats.

 

[flob]

So ............. you call cockerspaniels and occiecats etc, 'species'?
Is that what Evolutionists also do?
(If they're cognizant of what they do)

 

[Pumicestone]

We've already covered this. Natural selection and speciation are scientific truths.
They're not evidence for evolution, but instead, they're evidence for a biblical creation. (?)
There were different animal kinds. What we know as species is very different to a 'kind'. Kind is far more broad a concept.

Also, why would Noah take large dinosaurs on board the ark? He wouldn't.
They would've been juveniles, ready to breed upon exciting the ark, post-Flood. (Says who ?)
The reality of the ark is no children's story book adventure, but it happened and it's very possible.

" The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family,because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female ...... "

Yes, I know this has been 'covered' many times - and it never becomes more believable.
This "kinds" business is the best and only squirm that Creationists can come up with because they know full well that all the species would never fit - with their food etc.
Neither would the so-called "kinds".
Actually, it is the best argument possible for evolution.

Anything which is deemed 'unclean" (how silly is that ?) is in huge trouble.

Cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers etc etc etc are all 'unclean' - so every cat from the persian to the tiger, every dog from the
tiny terrier to the great dane to the dingo , every bear from the Panda to the Polar bear all "evolved" from a breeding stock of two less than 6000 years ago.

C'mon !

 

[Tintin]

So ............. you call cockerspaniels and occiecats etc, 'species'?
Is that what Evolutionists also do?
(If they're cognizant of what they do)

Botheration. Sorry about that. Let me explain. Kind is most commonly determined at the Family or Order level. Sometimes it's at the Genus or Species level, but that's rather rare. Plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. A good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It's more complicated than that, but that's a start in determining kind.

 

[flob]

Right. Genesis (and the entire Bible)'s theme is Life.......and Reproduction.
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....
Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it brings forth many grains.

But back to Genesis 1: it's kinds of life (kindiazation) is based on reproduction (and nonreproduction).
It's really simple, true, observable, testable, normal, real.
Darwin's Myth is based on mythological reproduction. It's sheer myth..

To call (intelligently-designed) breeds 'species,' sounds like Evolution Theory (not your!) deceit.
It's similar to both past Southern textbooks on Evolution (like those at issue in the Scopes trial, lol), and to Nazism,
which subdivided humanity into superior and inferior races and try to naturally- or moronically-select them into deeper subdivision

 

[kedge]

man can not come from death.

But did the first man adam have the potential of death before sin?. If adam was created an immortal then technically he could never die he could only be destroyed by that which created him, also, what exactly is the tree of life and what was its purpose?

 

[JackH]

We've already covered this. Natural selection and speciation are scientific truths. They're not evidence for evolution, but instead, they're evidence for a biblical creation. There were different animal kinds. What we know as species is very different to a 'kind'. Kind is far more broad a concept. Also, why would Noah take large dinosaurs on board the ark? He wouldn't. They would've been juveniles, ready to breed upon exciting the ark, post-Flood. The reality of the ark is no children's story book adventure, but it happened and it's very possible.

Your story sounds like a children's fairy tale to me.

Did Noah take a juvenile T. rex and a juvenile Apatosaurus on the ark?

Are they different kinds?

Did they interbreed?

How old were these juveniles?

How do you know they were ready to breed upon exiting the ark?

You said "exciting" but I think you meant "exiting."

Although maybe you meant "exciting" and that they were breeding on the ark?

Or maybe it was "exciting" because T. rex was having Apatosaurus for dinner.

And how exactly did all those Apatosaurus fossils found in the Morrison Formation in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Utah get there? And when?

And how exactly did all those dinosaur fossils, T. rex, and many others, found in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana and the Dakotas get there? And when?

What does the geological record in and around the Hell Creek Formation tell us?

 

[GaryA]

And how exactly did all those Apatosaurus fossils found in the Morrison Formation in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Utah get there? And when?

And how exactly did all those dinosaur fossils, T. rex, and many others, found in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana and the Dakotas get there? And when?

They got there during a world-wide flood ~4500 years ago.

What does the geological record in and around the Hell Creek Formation tell us?

It tells us that all of the layers formed at the same time - not over millions and billions of years...

 

[popeye]

" The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family,because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female ...... "

Yes, I know this has been 'covered' many times - and it never becomes more believable.
This "kinds" business is the best and only squirm that Creationists can come up with because they know full well that all the species would never fit - with their food etc.
Neither would the so-called "kinds".
Actually, it is the best argument possible for evolution.

Anything which is deemed 'unclean" (how silly is that ?) is in huge trouble.

Cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers etc etc etc are all 'unclean' - so every cat from the persian to the tiger, every dog from the
tiny terrier to the great dane to the dingo , every bear from the Panda to the Polar bear all "evolved" from a breeding stock of two less than 6000 years ago.

C'mon !

Apply that "absurdity" in your mind, to evolution, and Poooof! ,we have the beginnig of understanding.

 

[JackH]

They got there during a world-wide flood ~4500 years ago.

It tells us that all of the layers formed at the same time - not over millions and billions of years...

And you said we never went to the moon, right?

It was all a hoax, right?

I'm going to need more than your word, scientifically speaking, that the geological record in Montana and the Dakotas was all created by a worldwide flood around 4500 years ago.