Evolution and the Biblical Flood

[ituttut]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
I am wondering how many theistic evolutionists here believe in a literal world flood as described in Genesis 7?

I believe the Bible to be clear on this matter of a literal world flood.

His Word tells us the earth that then was, was covered with water, and only those in the Ark survived; all other flesh was destroyed. It also tells us the water attained a height of approximately 22 feet above the mountains.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Another question:

Do those here that believe in theistic evolution and the Flood believe that the fossil record is a result of the Flood, or of millions of years of random deaths recorded in the rock layers?

It would seem fossil remains are of that “other” better world. Many changes took place as the world that then was ended leaving us with evidence of the dead. These fossils are for evidence of that other earth that was changed resulting in Our world, as we know it. They are “tombstones” left showing us results of the great deluge when all that breathed died, for all flesh was corrupt. ”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,” Geneses 6:13.

 

[Helen]

ituttut,

Even the fossil remains of animals eating other animals?

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Helen:
ituttut,

Even the fossil remains of animals eating other animals?

Good question Helen, of which I cannot prove or disprove.

The way I read it, which you may also, is Noah brought over every thing God told him to. All from that glorious world died, excepting what the Ark contained. So if what you allude to did happen in the other world, the corrupted animal was eating another animal.

All those brought in the Ark, the dinosaurs, giant birds, etc. could not and did not live as long or grow as large, just as we don’t, once the “canopy” was removed. Many of those died in the first few hundred years, and most likely much less, and fossilization would naturally set in, so you could be right. The remains are from this side of the flood.

 

[UTEOTW]

"...once the 'canopy' was removed..."

Canopy? What canopy? What was it? Where was it? How much it was there?

 

[Scott J]

UTE, Your double standards are incredible some times.

Abiogenesis? What abiogenesis? What imaginary conditions? Where were they? How much was there?

Genetic self-coding? What was it? How did it happen? Where did it happen?

For that matter just compare your skepticism here with your acceptance of artist conjectures based on a few bones... and where evolutionists say an animal should fit in the tree.

An evolutionist dreams up some scheme without proof and you accept it since it fits in the overall framework of evolution. But if a creationist accepts something without proof because it fits into the overall framework of what he supposes to be true, you cry foul.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"...once the 'canopy' was removed..."

Canopy? What canopy? What was it? Where was it? How much it was there?

Hello UTEOTW. You are asking some of the right questions. But there is more – Who, When, and Why are also needed for understanding His Word. This is no different than we demand of our everyday life as we endeavor to understand what happened, is happening, or may happen.

Will try to make this short, and can elaborate if necessary. It’s all in His Word.

What canopy? The Water Vapor.

Where was this canopy? Above the earth.

How much water was there? Approximately half of what was allowed for earth.

Who is the one responsible for this? Our triune God.

When was it put there? Our God of division did this on the second day of creation.

Why? For protection of that first world against what we now have, i.e. our weather system (Katrina, Rita), cancer from the Sun’s rays, shortened lives, and thousands of other shortcomings. God said everything He made was very good, which to us would be perfect.

We have no true idea of what was lost to us, and we have even less of an idea of what awaits we In Christ.

 

[Deacon]

Never let it be said I don't read YEC literature
...and even more rarely do I recommend reading it...

BUT some myths have to die...
CLICK HERE=.> Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (by Answers In Genesis)

"What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?"

Canopy theory. "This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists [still] suggest a partial canopy may have been present."

"The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth."

Rob

 

[Petrel]

[Here's] an interesting take on the canopy. Water is an excellent greenhouse gas, so it's hard to put that much into the atmosphere without baking everyone alive.

 

[Scott J]

It has also been hard for evolutionists to imagine an environment that could have created viable DNA from base elements... but they are sure that one existed somehow.

 

[Petrel]

Well then, you should hold yourself to a higher standard!

 

[JWI]

One thing that strikes me here that BOTH sides seem to forget is

GOD IS SUPERNATURAL

I mean, suppose we were debating Jesus walking on water. Then everyone would start debating about how much Jesus weighed, the density of water, the salt content of the water, etc....

God does not have to obey natural laws. Perhaps he could have opened the fountains of the deep without these extreme temperatures being disussed here, or the atmosphere becoming complete water vapor, etc...

It is very interesting to try and explain the Flood through natural or scientific means, but that is not necessarily how the Flood happened. Perhaps all sorts of natural laws were broken as when Jesus walked on water.

I do not understand the miracles in the Bible, but I believe they happened just as God says.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Never let it be said I don't read YEC literature
...and even more rarely do I recommend reading it...

Hi Deacon. To tell you the truth, I don’t know if I’ve read any YEC literature. I stick with the Bible, and just a very few that have the mind of Christ (I Corinthians 2:16). And believe it or not, there are some Baptists, but they are few.

BUT some myths have to die...

Perhaps we can help some of them die

CLICK HERE=.> Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (by Answers In Genesis)

One thing you can say, whoever “we” are above are sure not “dogmatic” about what they suggest “creationists” should ditch.

"What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?"

God doesn’t argue. He is just, well, could we say in your vernacular, “dogmatic”?

Canopy theory. "This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists [still] suggest a partial canopy may have been present."

"The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth."

Rob

Way to go Rob. Hunt around for somebody that thinks like you, at least some of the time. You are spouting what man says, and is trying to duplicate what mighty man cannot duplicate. Things are not the same in this world, as they were in the first world. And things sure aren’t going to be the same in that third world that is most likely just around the corner.

That world was destroyed by water, and much of the dynamics that went with it. When this world is destroyed the new world will have the exact same foundation, but the physics applied sure won’t be the same as the first or second world.

To sum up, I’ll just say I don’t believe God was being “dogmatic”, but telling the truth, when He said, ”And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so” in Genesis 1:7? Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Petrel:
[Here's] an interesting take on the canopy. Water is an excellent greenhouse gas, so it's hard to put that much into the atmosphere without baking everyone alive.

Evidently it didn't bother any one, in those days. His Word says nothing of them having to even apply "Sun Tan Lotion".

 

[Deacon]

Ituttut, I didn't post what i did to be rude or proud, sorry if it came across as that.

I have examined the evidence available and have definite opinions on the matter.
I'm actually pleased that young-earth creationists can review their hypothesis and change. This is how real science works.
Unfortunately much of their old literature and ideas continue to circulate and are believed as truth when they were really only guesses that were wrong.

I strongly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
I also believe that God was telling the truth, when He said, ”And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so” in Genesis 1:7.

What we disagree on is what that verse means.
The "Canopy theory" just doesn't hold water.

Rob

 

[just-want-peace]

Water is an excellent greenhouse gas, so it's hard to put that much into the atmosphere without baking everyone alive.

I would be very careful in dogmatically stating what can or can't be regarding God's actions. This kind of freedom in limiting God leads to possible conclusions such as these:

1 Since death is final, Jesus has not risen

2 Since surgery would be required, Jesus did not heal the servant's ear whe Peter cut it off

3 Since it's medically impossible, Jesus did not heal the blind guy by spitting in the dirt and putting the residue on the guy's eyes

4 Since the difference in density of the human body and water is so different, Jesus did not walk on water

The list could go on for many, many more examples, but this should show the fallacy of limiting God.

 

[Petrel]

Those things were recorded in a way that we know they are literal and are stated to be miracles. The vapor canopy is one possible interpretation of a verse that isn't necessarily stating a miracle. My interpretation is that God put the clouds in the sky. Since everything else in creation (sun, moon, stars, animals) was set up to run according to natural laws, it would be inconsistent for God to suddenly throw in a long-term violation of natural laws.

 

[Me4Him]

For every "physical thing" in this world there is a "SPIRITUAL" counterpart, or it can be said the "SPIRITUAL" is manifested here in the "PHYSICAL' world.

And by understanding "ONE", the "OTHER" can be understood.

Take Noah's "PHYSICAL FLOOD", the water covered the earth as completly "AS THE WATERS COVER THE SEA".

But the earth is going to be covered by water "AGAIN".

However, the next time it will be that "WATER" Jesus gave the "Woman at the well" to drink, the "KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD".

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Noah's water was "Literal", Jesus's water will be "Spiritual", but both will "cover the earth".

You'll find this "literal/Spiritual" throughout scripture.

 

[UTEOTW]

"What canopy? The Water Vapor.

Where was this canopy? Above the earth.

How much water was there? Approximately half of what was allowed for earth."

That's whatI wanted to be put into the fray.

So let's see. You claim there was 1.5 x 10^21 lbs of water vapor above the earth.

This translates into a surface pressure of 2000 psig which is about 140 times normal atmospheric pressure.

Have you ever heard of the special mixes of gasses that divers must use when going to really deep depths? Let's just say that there would have been some very serious cases of nitrogen narcosis going around with that kind of partial pressure of nitrogen.

I also would not try and start any fires. Things burn real quickly in pure oxygen. But pure oxygen only has about 5 times that partial O2 pressure as air. This atmosphere would have been nearly 30 times more oxidizing than pure oxygen. I don't see how you would keep from burning everything up. Not to mention the destructive effects of such high pressure of oxygen. I question whether earthly biology would even function in such a situation.

Maybe the preflood atmosphere was 99% xenon or something.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
It has also been hard for evolutionists to imagine an environment that could have created viable DNA from base elements... but they are sure that one existed somehow.

Or maybe it has not been so hard. A few recent updates for you. (BTW, I am going over the top here. It is deliberate. You claim that they don't know how life started and that there are no good theories about how to get life started. Well here is an abundance of recent material. I understand that you may not be familar with it. I'm not very familar with it. But you should know that it is there. And unless you have a source that can refute the claims that are made by all these different sources I am providing, then you no longer have a basis for making this claim. YOu have been given the opportunity to learn. I tire of the common YE tactic of claiming that something is unknown for which there is abundant knowledge.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15556408&query_hl=1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12733
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/bkup_of_RNA.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15217990&query_hl=4

That will get you started. Next, you might want to go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Here are the results you get if you search with "origin of life". I got 153 hits. The second one was

Shelley D. Copley, Eric Smith, and Harold J. Morowitz, A mechanism for the association of amino acids with their codons and the origin of the genetic code, PNAS 2005 102: 4442-4447.

That one sounds intruiging. I am sure you can find other keywords to search under that will yield more information of how they think it all got started.

Once through with that, I have some more papers for you to look up and go through. I'll organize them by topic for you.

A) Composition of the early atmosphere

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical
aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans, Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss
Driven by Giant Impact Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma
oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

B) Formation of the first organic molecules

Amend, J. P. , E. L. Shock
1998 “Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems” Science
Volume 281, number 5383, Issue of 11 Sep , pp. 1659-1662.

Blank, J.G. Gregory H. Miller, Michael J. Ahrens, Randall E. Winans
2001 “Experimental shock chemistry of aqueous amino acid solutions and the cometary
delivery of prebiotic compounds” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
31(1-2):15-51, Feb-Apr

Chyba, Christopher F., Paul J. Thomas, Leigh Brookshaw, Carl Sagan
1990 "Cometary Delivery of Organic Molecules to the Early Earth" Science Vol.
249:366-373

Engel, Michael H., Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Matthews CN.
1992 Hydrogen cyanide polymerization: a preferred cosmochemical pathway. J. Br.
Interplanet Soc. 45(1):43-8

Schoonen, Martin A. A., Yong Xu
2001 “Nitrogen Reduction Under Hydrothrmal Vent Conditions: Implications for the
Prebiotic Synthesis of C-H-O-N Compounds” Astrobiology 1:133-142

Miller, Stanley L.,
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science
vol. 117:528-529

Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey
1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370:
254-251

Weber AL.
1997 Prebiotic amino acid thioester synthesis: thiol-dependent amino acid synthesis from
formose substrates (formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde) and ammonia. Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 259-270.

Cooper, George, Novelle Kimmich, Warren Belisle, Josh Sarinana, Katrina Brabham,
Laurence Garrel
2001 Carbonaceous meteorites as a source of sugar-related organic compounds for the
early Earth Nature 414, 879 - 883 (20 Dec 2001) Letters to Nature

Cody, George D., Nabil Z. Boctor, Timothy R. Filley, Robert M. Hazen, James H. Scott,
Anurag Sharma, Hatten S. Yoder Jr.
2000 “Primordial Carbonylated Iron-Sulfur Compounds and the Synthesis of Pyruvate”
Science v.289 : 1337-1340

Sephton, Mark A.
2001 Meteoritics: Life's sweet beginnings? Nature 414, 857 - 858 (20 Dec ) News and
Views

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World,
and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798

Nelson, K. E., M. Levy, S. L. Miller
2000 “Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule”
PNAS-USA v.97, 3868-3871

Fuller, W. D., Sanchez, R. A. & Orgel, L. E. Studies in prebiotic synthesis. VI. Synthesis
of purine nucleosides. J. Mol. Biol. 67, 25-33 (1972).

Robertson, MP, Miller SL.
1995 An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil. Nature 375, 772 - 774 ()

Nelson K.E., Robertson M.P., Levy M, Miller S.L.
2001 Concentration by evaporation and the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine. Orig Life
Evol Biosph Jun;31(3):221-229

Deamer, D. W., and Pashley, R. M.
1989. Amphiphilic components of carbonaceous meteorites. Orig. Life Evol. Biosphere
19:21-33.

Krishnamurthy, R., Pitsch, S. & Arrhenius, G. 1999 Mineral induced formation of
pentose-2,4-bisphosphates. Origins Life Evol. Biosph. 29, 139-152 ().

Dworkin, Jason P., David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola
2001 “Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated
interstellar/precometary ices” PNAS 98: 815-819

Pizzarello, Sandra, Yongsong Huang, Luann Becker, Robert J. Poreda, Ronald A.
Nieman, George Cooper, Michael Williams
2001 “The Organic Content of the Tagish Lake Meteorite” Science, Vol. 293, Issue 5538,
2236-2239, September 21, 2001

Segre' D., Ben-Eli D. Deamer D. and Lancet D.
2001 “The Lipid World” Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 31, 119-145.

C) More complex molecules / proto-life

Martin M. Hanczyc, Shelly M. Fujikawa, and Jack W. Szostak
2003 Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth,
and Division Science October 24; 302: 618-622. (in Reports)

D.W. Deamer
1997 "The First Living Systems - A Bioenergetic Perspective", ; Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2): 239; June

Chakrabarti, A.C., R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 ( December)

Khvorova A, Kwak YG, Tamkun M, Majerfeld I, Yarus M.
1999. RNAs that bind and change the permeability of phospholipid membranes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 96:10649-10654.

Yarus M.
1999. Boundaries for an RNA world. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 3:260-267.

Walter P, Keenan R, Scmitz U.
2000. SRP-Where the RNA and membrane worlds meet. Science 287:1212-1213.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S.,
1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances
in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF,
1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 François Ménard, J. H. Hough, Motohide
Tamura and Jeremy Bailey
2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart
Clark, François Ménard, and Motohide Tamura
1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular
Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F.
1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko
1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison
meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the
synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K,
Ghadiri MR,
2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator",
Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K,
2002 “Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives” J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J.
1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system.
Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend.
2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for
biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May
8):5487.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber
2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661:
1151, 20 February 2004

Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic
oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature, 381, 59-61.

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR.
1996 “A self-replicating peptide.” Nature Aug 8;382(6591):525-8

A.C. Chakrabarti, R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 (1994 December)

Smith, J.V.
Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of
dealuminated zeolites and feldspars Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 95(7): 3370-3375; March 31, 1998

Smith, J.V., Arnold, F.P., Parsons, I., Lee, M.R.
Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-
hemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(7): 3479-3485; March
30, 1999

Blochl, Elisabeth, Martin Keller, Gunter Wächtershäuser , Karl Otto Stetter
1992 “Reactions depending on iron sulfide and linking geochemistry with biochemistry”
PNAS-USA v.89: 8117-8120

Dyall, Sabrina D., Patricia J. Johnson
2000 “Origins of hydrogenosomes and mitochondria: evolution and organelle biogensis.”
Current Opinion in Microbiology 3:404-411

Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
1998 “Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces:
Implications for the Origin of Life” Science v.281: 670-672

Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K.
1999 “Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system“
Science 283(5403):831–833.

Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
1997 Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self- replication through a hypercyclic network.
Nature, 390: 591-4