How do you young earthers know

[Dr. Walter]

It is pretty telling that facts just don't line up with a literal genesis account.

What "facts" are you talking about? You have not presented even one fact yet? You have presented silence. You have presented obvious interpretational error which has been thoroughly exposed. What "facts" are you speaking about?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why should they be everywhere?

Because if the fossil record was able to form within a 6,000 - 10,000 year period, then there should be fossilized human remains in the fossil record. Because there aren't any, then this puts a chronological timeline in serious doubt.

WM

 

[matt wade]

Because if the fossil record was able to form within a 6,000 - 10,000 year period, then there should be fossilized human remains in the fossil record. Because there aren't any, then this puts a chronological timeline in serious doubt.

So you assert that there are no human remains in the fossil record?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.

But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?

First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.

Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.

Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)

But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.

Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.

For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.

Hmmm.... what about all of those people who lived prior to the flood?

On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question[/B].

Again... Evolution isn't part of my argument. The Earth could have been in existence for millennia before God created man. Further, I'm not arguing that the Earth is billions of years old. I am simply stating that a literal interpretation of Genesis isn't supportable by the text or by any physical evidence. I've presented you with inconsistencies between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 indicating as much and you come back with biblical arguments that are based upon nothing more than your own interpretation. Toward that point, I’ve also shown you where the early church had similar issues with a literal 6 day – 24 hour creation account in Genesis. Hmmm….

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What "facts" are you talking about? You have not presented even one fact yet? You have presented silence. You have presented obvious interpretational error which has been thoroughly exposed. What "facts" are you speaking about?

I haven't present any facts on this thread. However, there have been many threads previously to this one on the same topic and there I have given full explanations and facts regarding the age of the earth, literary methods used at the time of Genesis, inconsistencies of geological and scientific and a young earth proposal. The fact that we can display human writing 12,000 years ago when the earth is only according to genesis 7,000 years old. I've gone over Jewish thought and word structure to show how genesis could not be taken literally on this level and will do so again if questioned. The genesis account is not meant to be taken as scientific book but rather a method of communicating certain important aspects of Who God is. Man's relationship to him. Man's fall and need of redemption. And God's establishment of a sabbath. This is what God wants to communicate. Not give us a frame by frame biography of creation.

 

[WestminsterMan]

So you assert that there are no human remains in the fossil record?

No - I assert that there are no fossilzed remains in the fossil record.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because if the fossil record was able to form within a 6,000 - 10,000 year period, then there should be fossilized human remains in the fossil record. Because there aren't any, then this puts a chronological timeline in serious doubt.

WM

Did you Dr. John Morris's note? If man has been around for millions of years there should be all kinds of human fossil remains. On the other hand, the purpose behind the flood was to destroy humans. The fossil record is 95% sea life, and the vast majority of the remaining 5% is plantation. Land animals make up less than a percent. Hence, the almost complete absence of human fossils is consistent with the flood but the almost complete absence of human fossils is not consistent with millions of years old earth theory.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hmmm.... what about all of those people who lived prior to the flood?



Again... Evolution isn't part of my argument. The Earth could have been in existence for millennia before God created man. Further, I'm not arguing that the Earth is billions of years old. I am simply stating that a literal interpretation of Genesis isn't supportable by the text or by any physical evidence. I've presented you with inconsistencies between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 indicating as much and you come back with biblical arguments that are based upon nothing more than your own interpretation. Toward that point, I’ve also shown you where the early church had similar issues with a literal 6 day – 24 hour creation account in Genesis. Hmmm….

WM

I see! Anything that provides a plausable and reasonable argument for the Biblical position is simply dismissed while any kind of response that scantily justifies DEATH previous to the fall is regarded as a factual response to be seriously considered.

Morris answered your agument but you simply refused to acknowledge his answer. Why? Not because it was unreasonable, but because it just does not fit your own agenda.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Did you Dr. John Morris's note? If man has been around for millions of years there should be all kinds of human fossil remains. On the other hand, the purpose behind the flood was to destroy humans. The fossil record is 95% sea life, and the vast majority of the remaining 5% is plantation. Land animals make up less than a percent. Hence, the almost complete absence of human fossils is consistent with the flood but the almost complete absence of human fossils is not consistent with millions of years old earth theory.

Oh come on doc - you know good and well that even evolutionists don't think that modern man has been around for very long. The entire piece is based upon a fallacy.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

I've presented you with inconsistencies between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 indicating as much and you come back with biblical arguments that are based upon nothing more than your own interpretation. Toward that point, I’ve also shown you where the early church had similar issues with a literal 6 day – 24 hour creation account in Genesis. Hmmm….

WM

You have presented no such evidence at all. The only thing you have presented is your own inability to rightly interpret the scriptures. Your argument denying that Adam literally died is based upon pure eisgeis while ignoring the overall Biblical definition of death.

Your denial that the fourth day was merely the creation of the light bearers - sun, moon, stars is based upon nothing but pure fiction. You fictionalize the whole Genesis account of creation. You fictionalize the appearance of green herbs on day three by making the days symbolic of ages.

So, where did the light on day one come from? Where did it go? What happened to it? It is very reasonable that God created "light" without light bearers on day one and therefore it is just as logical that day four was the creation of the light bearers.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You have presented no such evidence at all. The only thing you have presented is your own inability to rightly interpret the scriptures. Your argument denying that Adam literally died is based upon pure eisgeis while ignoring the overall Biblical definition of death.

Your denial that the fourth day was merely the creation of the light bearers - sun, moon, stars is based upon nothing but pure fiction. You fictionalize the whole Genesis account of creation. You fictionalize the appearance of green herbs on day three by making the days symbolic of ages.

I never made a statement even remotely close to that!

So, where did the light on day one come from? Where did it go? What happened to it? It is very reasonable that God created "light" without light bearers on day one and therefore it is just as logical that day four was the creation of the light bearers.

But that's the point that keeps escaping you, there doc. I hold that the evidence shows that Genesis isn't chronologically accurate. Thus, the idea that God created the sun before light came along is perfectly reasonable - especially since He created the sun for that very reason to begin with.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh come on doc - you know good and well that even evolutionists don't think that modern man has been around for very long. The entire piece is based upon a fallacy.

WM

No it is not! The point is that you and evolutionist believe man has been around quatum times longer than 6-10,000 years - approximately by the new count - 2.3 to 2.4 million years.

Do you know the difference between a few thousand years versus two million years? Apparently not or you wouldn't respond "the entire peice is based upon a fallacy"! What is the fallacy? It certainly is not the comparison of time that he makes or that fact that it is a far greater problem to evolutionists. It certainly is not that it FITS with the Biblical record of the flood and God's design for the flood in regard to mankind. Just where is this fallacy?

 

[WestminsterMan]

No it is not! The point is that you and evolutionist believe man has been around quatum times longer than 6-10,000 years - approximately by the new count - 2.3 to 2.4 million years.

Do you know the difference between a few thousand years versus two million years? Apparently not or you wouldn't respond "the entire peice is based upon a fallacy"! What is the fallacy? It certainly is not the comparison of time that he makes or that fact that it is a far greater problem to evolutionists. It certainly is not that it FITS with the Biblical record of the flood and God's design for the flood in regard to mankind. Just where is this fallacy?

Notice I said MODERN MAN! That is the fallacy of the piece.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never made a statement even remotely close to that!

Soooo, you hold to literal historical days? You don't believe the days represent longer periods or periods at all? Where is your evidence they represent anything but literal historical days? Haven't seen anything presented yet that is reasonable or rational?

I hold that the evidence shows that Genesis isn't chronologically accurate. .

WM

Again, what evidences????? Your evidence about death is laughable. Your evidence that denies it was merely light bearers created on day four has never been presented? What is it? You cannot provide any reasonable evidence that what was created on day four were not light bearers as that is exactly what the sun and moon and stars do. You cannot provide any reasonable evidence that pure light was created on day one. Where is your evidence????? It seems to be all imaginative.

Where were you when mankind needed someone to rationally express the Genesis account in a proper chronological order so that they wouldn't be so confused by what God chose to write through Moses?????

 

[matt wade]

Notice I said MODERN MAN! That is the fallacy of the piece.

WM

Then you deny that God created man as a man and Eve as a woman?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Notice I said MODERN MAN! That is the fallacy of the piece.

WM

I don't recall Dr. Morris making that distinction? How can you arbritrarily read it into his article? He is responding to the common evolutionary beleif of "man" not "modern" man. What right do you have to read that distinction into his article and then conclude it is based upon a "fallacy" ?

Evolutionists do not make their argument based upon the argument of the origin of "modern man" but about the origin of what they definitively call "man."

What length will you go to defend the indefensible??? Apparently no end in sight.

 

[mandym]

then there should be fossilized human remains in the fossil record.

WM

Why?:type:

 

[WestminsterMan]

Soooo, you hold to literal historical days? You don't believe the days represent longer periods or periods at all? Where is your evidence they represent anything but literal historical days? Haven't seen anything presented yet that is reasonable or rational?

Again, what evidences????? Your evidence about death is laughable. Your evidence that denies it was merely light bearers created on day four has never been presented? What is it? You cannot provide any reasonable evidence that what was created on day four were not light bearers as that is exactly what the sun and moon and stars do. You cannot provide any reasonable evidence that pure light was created on day one. Where is your evidence????? It seems to be all imaginative.

Where were you when mankind needed someone to rationally express the Genesis account in a proper chronological order so that they wouldn't be so confused by what God chose to write through Moses?????

Well, I'll just turn that around on you there doc... Where is your evidence? I know - it's your own fallible and human interpretation of Genesis. Big deal! Look, the forenzic and the cosmological evidence just don't support your version of events. Fret all you wish - it's just not there and all of your protestations will not change that. The early church recognized this well before science even came on the scene. I wonder why that was - Hmmm...

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, I'll just turn that around on you there doc... Where is your evidence? I know - it's your own fallible and human interpretation of Genesis. Big deal! Look, the forenzic and the cosmological evidence just don't support your version of events. Fret all you wish - it's just not there and all of your protestations will not change that. The early church recognized this well before science even came on the scene. I wonder why that was - Hmmm...

WM

EVIDENCE - the expression "the evening and the morning" are never used in the Hebrew Old Testament for anything other than literal historical days.

EVIDENCE - God uses the seven days in Gensis 1 as the example or pattern to be followed by men in regard to literal historical days.

EVIDENCE - Jesus places the origin of man "at the beginning" rather than thousands or millions of years AFTER the beginning and every day provides a new beginning of a different thing and thus the whole week is properly "the beignning of creation."

EVIDENCE - Peter, David, the writer of Hebrews interpret the repeated daily phrase "And God said, let...." as the literal historical manner in which creation came into existence and all things therein.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why?:type:

Because if the fossil record could be put down in such a short period of time (6 - 10 k years) then reason has it that there should be fossilized human remains being found. Since they're not, that is a huge indicator that the Earth is much older than modern man. Hence, Genesis can't be considered a reliable chronological map of creation.

WM