Creation questions

Craig, you have swalloed the evolutionist line hook line and sinker. I can, and if you wish i will, address every one of these points. A feasibility study has been done (not by me!) and it works. Two preliminary points though:

1. Noah was not commanded to take fish into the ark, only land animals

2. The requirement is only that KINDS are taken onto the ark - not SPECIES. You need to go at least up to genus level and perhaps even up to family level. Speciation is not in dispute by creation scientists, addition of genetic material is what is disputed. We can see speciation occurring today.

Now, are you brave enough to tackle these issues one by one? I do not claim to be a scientist (my degree is in science and music) but I do at least understand the issues and I do have some reference material here. Do you want to discuss this at length? if so, where shall we start?

Liz

 

It HAS to be a worldwide flood. If it was just to be a local disaster, why were Noah and his family not just told to migrate? That would have taken a lot less time than building the ark!

Then of course there is the little detail that Jesus clearly thought it was worldwide and literally true ....

Liz

 

This remark is so asinine it deserves no further comment.

Just explain to me why any Christian would want to use pagan writings as a benchmark for the Revelation of God to mankind.

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Revelation of God to mankind; do you?

 

Well there is a saying that you learn something every day. I had thought that Methuselah was lived longer than any other man but it appears that Craigbythesea beat him by several thousand years. He has incontrovertible proof [that is scientific proof by the way which must be based on observations] that the Genesis story of the flood is mythological.

It is quite obvious that he is correct since he didn't drown and the Genesis account does not include him as one of the residents of the Ark. Of course there are other options. Some evolutionists believe that all life came out of the sea.

Gracious! How quickly we unlearned forget; that flood was mythological!

 

Oldreg,

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Revelation of God to mankind; do you?

Yes of course I do.

But I believe it was written not just for Americans in the 21th century but also for the ancient Hebrews of 3000 and 4000 years ago - the ones who actually heard Moses speak these words!

If you asked the average middle easterner of 1500 BC how the earth came about he would likely recite some sort of religious epic to you. He would not talk about rock layers or speciation.

So when creation was described (FOR the ancient Hebrews and not just us) Moses used imagery that would make sense to them.

Genesis 1 is timeless - it tells us the God is greater than all and that He created the world.

You and many others here on the board seem to want to make a Christian "sacred cow" of a literal Genesis. As such you completely miss the whole message of the account.

 

The proof is voluminous and much too complicated for the lay person to understand because it involves advanced studies in genetics, ecology, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology, and other related disciplines. However, here is a highly simplified summary of some of the basic proofs that lay persons are capable of understanding.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any rational man or woman with basic human intelligence can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the NATURAL means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

Genesis 12 is not in direct conflict with known facts.

</font>[/QUOTE]Craig, it is ridiculous to assume that one has to be qualified in the intense study of genteics, botany, and the like in order to draw an accurate conclusion of whether or not God's word is trustworthy.
Further, your own supposed study into these matters reflect a lack of knowledge also. Perhaps you should further your case by stating that only those with the HIGHEST amount of study in such fields should be able to have a say in the matter.

Your comments are misguiding to those who have not studied such. It is highly unethical to use your knowledge in such a manner, omitting relevant information to make your position appear more reliable.

You haven't taken into account the likely state of hibernation of the animal pairs that would lessen their need for massive amounts of food.

You haven't mentioned the provisions for life and food that floating islands of vegetation provide.

You've attempted to mock those who believe with Santa Clause comparisons when you questioned how Noah gathered animals from all over, when the Bible has God telling Noah that the animals would be brought to him for safe keeping.
GEN 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, TWF EVERY SORT SHALL COME UNTO THEE, to keep them alive.

I can't help but feel as if you've used a degree of deception, and that worries me.
Please tell me that you made an honest mistake and will look further into what may be a more accurate way to present your unbelief in a literal creation account.

 

Mareese,

Craig, it is ridiculous to assume that one has to be qualified in the intense study of genteics, botany, and the like in order to draw an accurate conclusion of whether or not God's word is trustworthy.

No one here is asserting that God's word is not trustworthy.

Rather some of us assert that through study we may be able to better discern what God's word is telling us.

Traditional western Christianity has decided that Genesis 1-11 is literal. In depth study of theology and science both suggest that this was not the intention of the passage.

It has nothing to do with God's word being untrustworthy.

 

Perhaps God wished to provide a "type" that Jesus could later fulfill as the anti-type.

Which verse are you referring to?

I really have no dogmatic view on either side of this argument. I lean toward what Hugh Ross teaches, but I am no scientist. However I do not believe the traditional view of Genesis is as concrete as I was led to believe growing up. I believe advances in science will point us to God and the validity of the Bible, not away from it. Therefore I don't fear scientific discoveries or advancements. Provided of course they are sound.

Global or Local flood? http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml

 

Grasshopper,

I was referring to Jesus' references to the days of Noah in Matthew 24 and Luke 17. on re-reading Luke 17, I am prepared to accept that we cannot say from these passages that Christ believed te flood was worldwide, only that it was historically true. The question remains of why Noah did not just migrate rather than build the ark, if the flood was only local.

Hebrews 11.7 talks about Noah building the ark to save his family. He COULD, if the flood was jjst loca, have saved them another way, yet Hebrews 11.7 does not use the argument that he built the ark to obey God, only to escape the flood.

I also think a local flood causes insoluble problems with Peter's epistles: is Baptism only for those who happen to live in a certain Geographical area (1 Peter 3.20-21)? Is God only going to condemn SOME of the godless (2 Peter 2.5)? It just doesn't, excuse the pun, hold water.

Liz

 

Charles, why do you assume you know the motivations of those who believe in a literal Gen. 1-11? You also make it sound like most people who do so are doing so out of fear change or "giving in to liberalism." Why cannot you not accept that people believe it because it is presented as an historical account, just like other parts of historical accounts in the OT.

I don't know anyone who believes Gen. 1-11 as literal who are fearful of change or whatever. Many of them have examined pro and con arguments of this issue and still believe it is literal.

I detect a condescension toward the "undeducated." Well, God wrote for the "uneducated" too. And if God writes it as a literal account, it makes sense to take it so.

 

Marcia,

I detect a condescension toward the "undeducated." Well, God wrote for the "uneducated" too. And if God writes it as a literal account, it makes sense to take it so.

I have no problem with those who are not educated.

I also have no problem with those who believe a literal Genesis 1-11.

Let me ask you this:

If it could be shown to you (hypothetically), in terms of ANE studies and natural science, that Genesis 1-11 was not likely designed to be literal, would you ever consider changing your view?

If the answer is no - then I would assert that you have chosen your position without doing the research.

I believe that Genesis 1-11 is not literal and that the earth is old.

I would be more than happy to change my opinion if it could be shown that this is less likely.

You are certainly NOT in the uneducated category. But you and I both know that there are many here who don't know the first thing about theology or natural science yet they quote the "water canopy" theory (or something like that) with authority - denouncing CBTS, me, and anyone else who is honestly trying to be true to the original intentions of God's word. They make a literal Genesis 1-11 a sine qua non of Christianity and thus make a stumbling block for those wrestling with these issues. They insist that Christianity and science are on opposite sides.

I AM disdainful and contemptuous of this.

 

So is it symbolic? Allegorical? Was Noah real? Were Adam and Eve real? Was Enoch real? What parts are real and which not, and how do you decide?

What about sections like this from Gen. 11?

Is it made up? False? Literally true? Symbolic?

 

The problem is that I cannot answer because there is no scientifically objective way to prove Gen. 1-11 as literal or as not literal. We do not know exactly how old the earth is exactly what it was like when it was created or exactly what the conditions were. Whatever we know now and whatever is extrapolated back remains in the realm of theory, speculation and supposition. The only objective evidence or measure of what happened that we have right now is God's word. Since it is given as a literal account, and in fact, as I posted on an earlier page of this thread, what I think to be a brilliant account, I am going with that.

That God went to the trouble of giving us a blow-by-blow account shows how important God thought it was for us to know this. He did not just say "God created the universe and everything in it" and leave it at that, though he could have said that.

For some reason, he lays out each part of creation. I find that very significant. Being a former Lit major and a writer, I notice how things are written. It is clear that God thinks we should have the creation account as He saw fit to give it to us. Just the fact he created light before creating the sun and that he created the "lights" on the 4th day says volumes, as I posted earlier. This is intentional account giving, not a fairy tale.

 

Has anyone on this thread indicated that the Bible was written only for people of the 21st Century? If not your above statenent is condesending. Actually everything posted by you and Craigbythe sea is condescending. Neither of you know the background or education of the people on this Forum yet you both indicate verbally that you are of superior intelligence and education.

The average middle easterner of 1500 BC did not have access to the Hebrew Revelation of God.

This is pure supposition based on arrogance!

Your assumptions about what other people on this Forum believe are as erroneous as your assumptions regarding Genesis. You may talk about "sacred cows" if you choose, I prefer to talk about the inerrant Word of God!

 

Liz Ward wrote,

Please don’t falsely accuse me of doing things. Those on this message board who know me KNOW FOR A FACT that I HAVE NOT “swallowed the evolutionist line hook line and sinker” and that I believe that man was created as man by God without any evolutionary links.

I have seen the so called feasibility studies and none of them were done by biologists or any one else with even a very basic knowledge of the biological sciences.

1. This is absolutely irrelevant to the facts. I wrote,

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

The very simply and most elementary fact is that we have today many thousands of genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) that we would NOT have had Noah not taken them aboard the ark and kept them alive. Anyone, anyone at all, with even the most basic knowledge of water chemistry and ichthyology KNOWS THIS FOR AN ABSOLUTE, INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT!

2. The “kinds” argument put forth by creationists is a deliberate lie from hell itself! Anyone who has studied biology knows that when you cross a horse and donkey you get a sterile mule. Horses and donkeys each represent a genetically discrete population of animals. Representatives of both of these genetically discrete populations of animals would have necessarily been aboard the ark for us to have them with us today. Nearly three million different genetically discrete populations of animals exist today and would have necessarily been aboard the ark for us to have them with us today. And tens of thousands of genetically discrete populations of animals that we do not have with us today were with us at a time in the past AFTER Noah died, and would have necessarily been aboard the ark for them to exist after the Noah died.

All of the so-called scientists who are creationists know these things for a fact, but they deliberately deceive the ignorant public by babbling that “kinds does not equal species,” knowing full well themselves that the meaning of “kinds” in Genesis is absolutely irrelevant. Both horses and donkeys would have perished in the flood and we would not have them with us today had they not BOTH been aboard the ark. And this is incontrovertibly true for 2,000,000+ other genetically discrete populations.

The speciation argument is another deliberate lie from hell. Everyone with even the most basic knowledge of genetics, mutations, and natural selections knows for an absolute fact that the speciation that a few cracked pot creationists claim occurred is an absolute impossibility. Yes, speciation is an on-going process, but we know from cytogenetics that the vast majority of the genetically discrete populations of animals that we have with us today have been present for tens of thousands of years. Again, this is elementary biology that every creation scientist is very much aware of, and yet they lie to the public.

It is my very firm conviction that Christians have the responsibility to tell the truth whether they like the truth or not. Creation “scientists” have a VERY DIFFERENT conviction and they are out numbered by 10,000+ to 1. For that fact I give thanks to God.

 

Liz Ward wrote,

Creationist arguments for the literal interpretation of Gen. 6-8 are so very ignorant, so very foolish, that any bright high school student can make intellectually challenged baboons out of the so-called “creation scientists.”

Before my career change some years ago, I was a research biologist at a prestigious university. I have a very large personal library and ready access to hundreds of thousands of volumes pertinent to this issue in university libraries around the world.

The place to start is for creationists to be honest with themselves, the Bible, and science. And since you apparently live in the United Kingdom, you have at least some access to some very fine university libraries. I suggest that you take advantage of their resources. I also suggest that you do some background checks of the creation “scientists” who are putting out the creationist garbage. If you will look into their backgrounds, and compare the facts that you learn with the representation made of them by other creationists, you will find out for yourself that the creationists have greatly exaggerated the backgrounds and qualifications of these people. And that is outright dishonesty! I have posted in another thread examples of this dishonesty, but if you do the digging yourself, perhaps you will be more inclined to believe what you learn.

For those of you who believe that I am arrogant, let me remind you that I am not exalting myself above tens of thousands of scientists, but humbly agreeing with their research and their findings. You however, are arguing that you know the truth and that the tens of thousands of scientists do not. And I am giving God the glory for the scientists who have, by His grace, enabled us to have a more accurate understanding of God, His creation, and His word. You, on the other hand, ....

 

Marcia wrote,

We will never know the answers to these questions unless we honestly pursue the answers. If we arrogantly say that we know that it is literal because God is not a deceiver, we are only deceiving ourselves.


A note regarding 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Pet. 1:19-21.

2 Tim.3:16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB, 1995)

2 Pet. 1:19. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21. for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NASB, 1995)

Both of these passages from the Bible may be no more than the personal and imperfect perception of two men. I believe that the Bible is of such importance that it behooves Christians to approach it humbly and honestly with an open mind, and not pass judgment on a book of more than 31,000 verses on the basis of only 5 of them!

 

Craig,

Your description of creation scientists as not only liars but as those who propagate "lies from hell" is disturbing in the extreme. Your claim that all these creation scientists are in fact minimally qualified is bizarre and disturbing. I am wondering what exactly you are afraid of here.

What exactly is your PhD in? What specific field? Is it anything connected with this debate at all? What about your Masters, assuming you did a Masters?

I would expect evolutionists to outnumber creationists by a huge margin simply because the cost of believing in creation is very high, not just in terms of employment in academia, getting papers published, and so on, but in terms of having to acknowledge that there is a real God and (much more of a problem) a Bible that actually means what it says.

Liz

 

So what exactly do you believe then?

Yes and when you cross a domestic cat with an Asian Leopard cat, or a Scottish wildcat, you get fertile offspring. When you cross a dog with a wolf you get fertile offspring. When you cross a Campbell's hamster with a Winter White hamster (two separate species) you get fertile offspring. When you cross the galapagos finches you get fertile offspring, etc etc etc.

WHY, Craig? What possible motivation would they have? Wouldn't their careers be far better served by being evolutionists?

Liz

 

I am convinced that if anyone starts to question the Biblical acounts on any subject, whether it is history, geography, or science, then we are directly questioning the ultimate authority of the Holy Bible. I notice that there are some here, who are openly questioning the Biblical account as recorded in Genesis chapters 1-6, and assuming that they know better than God. There is not one shred of evidence that says that even suggests that what is recorded in Genesis, is anything but historical. To question, for example the Creation account, or the fall of man, or the world-wide flood, is, in my opinion, arrogant. The Bible has given us accounts of various accounts, and as God the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible, we can conclude that EVERYTHING recorded therein is 100% accurate and reliable. How dare does anyone question what Scripture says, and assume that they know better to challenge what is recorded on any issue. It will NEVER be disproven that the days of Genesis chapter one were literal 24 hour day. Nor can it ever be proven that that fall did not take place. Nor can it be proven that the account of Noah's Ark as recorded in the Bible, was not literal, or that it did not do what Scripture says that it did. Nor can it be proven that the Genesis flood was not literally world-wide. However, we have the sure testimony of the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God that is 100% accurate in ALL that it records. For anyone to question the accounts of the Bible, is to question the integrity of God, and the Infallibility of the Holy Bible. To argue against the accounts of the Bible, as some are doing here, can only be done from supposition, and not based on facts. How can anyone have their own "facts" that contradict what the Word of God says on anything? We are not here to try to make the Bible agree with what "science falsly so called" (1 Timothy 6:60 KJV) says on any given subject. There are some very good books, especially by Dr Henry Morris and Dr John Whitcombe, like the Genesis Flood, and The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, who have destroyed the myths of those who write against what Scripture says.

What is under attack here, is the authority of the Word of God. There are some who hide behind so-called difficulties that they find in Scripture, and use these to attack the credability of Scripture. It appears to me that Craigbythesea, and others here are bent on trying to show that the Holy Bible does contain errors, and will go from thread to thread to try to promote their "doctrines of demons". For ANYONE to question any aspect of Scripture, where they suppose that they know better, is, in my opinion, nothing but a direct attack on the Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible. I have debated with Craig elsewhere on the Authority of Scriptute, and have no doubt that his schemes are designed to undermine the Truth of Scripture, and cause as many as he possibly can, to doubt the Infallable Word of Almighty God. Our faith is NOT based on what Science tells us, but on the Holy Word of God, which has to be be Infallable and Inerrant in everything that it says, since it is the Word of God and not man.

No one has ever, nor will ever succeed in proving anything that Scripture says to be incorrect. This is an impossibility. As I have said before, we have it on the highest Authority, the Lord Jesus Himself, where he assures us that "every jot and tittle" (Mat 5:18), in the original autographs of Scripture, is equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, and can be completely trusted as being the Truth. There is NO error in the entire Holy Bible, and for anyone to suggest otherwise, is doing the work of the devil himself.