Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with Genesis Creation
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 129 of 173 (397103)
04-24-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 5:01 PM


Re: My top 20: 13 of 20
Wasn't this Fall before Cain and Abel were born?
Yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 5:01 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2007 12:12 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 133 of 173 (397112)
04-24-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 5:08 PM


Re: My top 20: 15 of 20
Are you just avoiding me?
No, I'm not avoiding you. I apologize if my responses are slow, but as you can see I'm virtually the only YEC in a room full of Evolutionists. This thread was started for me to respond to Nuggin's Top 20. Now that I've completed responding to those to be fair I'm answering messages in the order they were posted.
Does Bermuda grass run uphill faster than a pterodactyl flies?
I've never seen either one run uphill, but if I were to venture a guess I'd say pterodactyls move faster than Bermuda grass. Does that answer your rhetorical question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 5:08 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2007 1:20 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 136 of 173 (397121)
04-24-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
04-18-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Message 66: 1 of 5
Well let's see -
Great Flood water would have to:
1) Be both fresh and salty at the same time. If it's fresh, the sea animals die. If it's salt, the fresh water animals die.
That is unless water animals at that time were able to live in fresh and sea water. Salmon do that today:
Migratory fish are classified according to the following scheme:
I. Diadromous fish travel between salt and fresh water (Greek: 'Dia' is between)
A) Anadromous fish live in the sea mostly, breed in fresh water (Greek: 'Ana' is up)
B) Catadromous fish live in fresh water, breed in the sea (Greek: 'Cata' is down)
C) Amphidromous fish move between fresh and salt water during some part of life cycle, but not for breeding (Greek: 'Amphi' is both)
II. Potamodromous fish migrate within fresh water only (Greek: 'Potamos' is river)
III. Oceanodromous fish migrate within salt water only (Greek: 'Oceanos' is ocean)
The best-known anadromous fish are salmon, which hatch in small freshwater streams, go down to the sea and live there for several years, then return to the same streams where they were hatched, spawn, and die shortly thereafter.
Fish migration - Wikipedia
Your statement is based on the assumption that all marine life is either potamodromous or oceanodromous and living in the opposite environment would have been fatal several thousand years ago.
Since the time of the Flood adaptation and natural selection have caused several animals to only be suitable for fresh water or salt water. Please note that it was not Darwinian Evolution that caused some fresh water fish to LOSE their ability to survive in salt water or vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 04-18-2007 5:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 04-24-2007 3:15 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 140 of 173 (397286)
04-25-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
04-18-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Message 66: 2 of 5
2) [Great Flood water] would have to have variable density and a highly organized nature so as to sort out all the different kinds of animal and plant life (See post 9)
During the Flood plants and animals were transported and buried. Some would be transported further than others. This is what the evidence shows at the Morrison Formation for example.
Food requirements for the giant herbivores imply abundant vegetation, yet fossil evidence for localized swamps, or for in situ flourishing of plants, is scant to nonexistent. A large herbivore like Apatosaurus would need to eat more than a ton of green fodder each day in order to survive. Large numbers of dinosaurs imply enormous food reserves in the form of plants. However, paleontologists are baffled by the rarity of fossil plants: "Although the Morrison plain was an area of reasonably rapid accumulation of sediment, identifiable plant fossils are practically nonexistent."23 Transported logs occasionally occur in sandstone channels within the Morrison, but rooted soil zones with upright in situ stumps have not been reported, even though they are potentially the most fossilizable features in a volcanic terrain. Even fossil spores and pollen, the most durable traces of plants, are in very short supply.24 The enigma of the missing plant fossils might be answered by supposing that dinosaurs migrated routinely into a very arid plain where alkaline flats prevented plant growth. The bizarre notion of an "incomplete ecosystem" within a "Jurassic Desert" is a radical departure from the lush and balanced habitat of the elusive "Jurassic Park." Another explanation for the noteworthy deficiency of plant fossils, especially in the face of the sedimentary evidence at the Quarry Visitor Center, is that the flood transportation and deposition process selectively separated the dinosaurs from plants (i.e., sorting of "highly displaced" organisms).
Dinosaur National Monument: Jurassic Park Or Jurassic Jumble? | The Institute for Creation Research Fact 5
You don’t need a change in the density of water for this to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 04-18-2007 5:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 04-25-2007 12:11 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 149 by obvious Child, posted 04-25-2007 3:11 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 142 of 173 (397326)
04-25-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
04-18-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Message 66: 3 of 5
3) [The Great Flood water] would have to spontaneously appear and likewise spontaneously disappear.
Not true. You only need the water that is present here on Earth to flood the entire Earth. As I’ve stated before if all of the land were leveled and the polar ice caps were melted, water would cover the entire Earth to a depth of about 1.7 miles. The highest mountains were only covered to a depth of 20 feet or more during the Flood, so it wouldn’t be necessary to level all of the mountains.
Also the evidence supports many mountain ranges being formed during and shortly after the Flood. The water level would not have to rise to the top of Mount Everest.
No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them! Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood. That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised, back in Genesis. Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains? | The Institute for Creation Research
This article also mentions fossils of sea creatures found at the tops of the Himalayas, which is further evidence that the Himalayas were once covered by water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 04-18-2007 5:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2007 2:15 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2007 2:21 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 146 by Nuggin, posted 04-25-2007 2:39 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 145 of 173 (397336)
04-25-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
04-18-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Message 66: 4 & 5 of 5
4) [The Great Flood water] would have to be DEVISTATINGLY corrosive in Arizona, but absolutely NON-corrosive everywhere else in the entire world.
5) It would have to resist freezing at the N and S poles, otherwise, we'd still see the ice results of that flood standing higher than the tops of any mountain
Are you suggesting that the Grand Canyon is the only canyon in the world? You’ve also forgotten about mountain ranges and other geological formations that were formed during and shortly after the Flood.
After the Flood, the earth experienced a substantial period of isostatic readjustment, where local to regional catastrophes with intense earthquake and volcanic activity were common. Post-Flood sedimentation continued to be rapid but was dominantly basinal on the continents. Left-over heat in the new oceans produced a significantly warmer climate just after the Flood. In the following centuries, as the earth cooled, floral and faunal changes tracked the changing climate zonation. The warmer oceans caused continental transport of moisture that led to the advance of continental glaciers and ultimately to the formation of polar ice caps.
ICR | The Institute for Creation Research
The pre-Flood Earth was much warmer than our current climate. Also with all of the volcanoes erupting at the bottom of what is now the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere, the temperature of the water was much higher than it is today. The polar ice caps formed in the Ice Age following the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 04-18-2007 5:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Nuggin, posted 04-25-2007 2:51 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 148 of 173 (397340)
04-25-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Nuggin
04-18-2007 6:09 PM


Re: My top 20: 13 of 20
So the human genes have been changing over time? That sounds ODDLY like evolution
Genetic change over time is part of the Creation Model. It’s also part of observable scientific fact. You make an incorrect logical jump when you equate it with Darwinian Evolution. This is only a horizontal change at best. There are no mutations which cause an upward progression. For example sickle cell anemia is a mutation that gives a survival benefit to people living in areas affected by malaria, but this is not the kind of mutation needed to progress upward from molecules to man. It's a degeneration of the red blood cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Nuggin, posted 04-18-2007 6:09 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by kuresu, posted 04-25-2007 3:14 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 152 by obvious Child, posted 04-25-2007 3:20 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 151 of 173 (397348)
04-25-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Doddy
04-18-2007 7:23 PM


Re: My top 20: 13 of 20
That can't be true. Fungi contain mutagens (that is, they cause genetic mutations) called Aflatoxin. So, either mutations were caused before the fall, or new features can evolve. Which is it?
Poison was not a part of God’s original creation, neither were thorns, sin or death, but Adam’s disobedience (sin) brought about all of these things. After each day of creation God declared his creation “very good.” I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call poison “very good.” The mutations in fungi to produce Aflatoxin happened after the Fall. Mutations began after the Fall and continue today. The mutations to produce Aflatoxin may give the fungi a survival benefit, but it doesn’t change the fungi into something other than fungi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Doddy, posted 04-18-2007 7:23 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2007 3:26 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 158 by anastasia, posted 04-25-2007 6:43 PM jjsemsch has replied
 Message 160 by Doddy, posted 04-25-2007 7:31 PM jjsemsch has not replied

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 5806 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 171 of 173 (398404)
04-30-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by anastasia
04-25-2007 6:43 PM


Re: My top 20: 13 of 20
jj, have you noticed that the popular argument for ID is based upon how good the world currently is? How all things are so 'perfect' that there must be a Designer?
Would you agree with these claims?
Yes, this is a very sound and logical argument. The irreducible complexity in living things and the complexity of the food chain make an Intelligent Designer a logical conclusion. The human brain is vastly more complex than the world’s best supercomputers and yet no one assumes that a computer didn’t have a designer. The only problem I see with the Intelligent Design Movement is that they fail to specifically name the Designer.
I haven't read the entire thread, but if you believe the world used to have a different and better system in place, which obviously isn't here now, why would you argue so much against the ToE?
Does it matter how God changed things from the original creation, as long as you are sure that there WAS change?
Yes God originally created the Earth “very good”. That “perfection” that you and I see that requires a Designer is still a reflection of that original “very good” creation. But you and I both know that the world we live in is far from perfect. That “change” that first started when Adam was disobedient to God (sinned) and God cursed the Earth because of Adam’s sin. I don’t disagree with mutations, natural selection and speciation. I disagree with molecules to man Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution contradicts the Bible and I accept the Word of God over the word of man.
Yes, how the change happened and which direction the change is heading is very important. The changes we see in nature are a downward progression. This is consistent with God creating all plants, animals and humans “very good” and since degenerating as a result of the curse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by anastasia, posted 04-25-2007 6:43 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 4:15 PM jjsemsch has not replied
 Message 173 by Doddy, posted 05-01-2007 6:37 AM jjsemsch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024