Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2014 1:44 PM
204 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Post Volume:
Total: 733,037 Year: 18,878/28,606 Month: 2,149/2,305 Week: 354/671 Day: 29/57 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Earth of Genesis 1:9
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 91 of 112 (504286)
03-26-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Michamus
03-26-2009 10:13 AM


Re: Peleg
Hi Mich,

Michamus writes:

It seems you are having plenty of time researching and responding to other peoples statements, but are having a rather difficult time responding to my post, which completely destroys your claim that Peleg refers to a physical earth division.

I can find no Lexicons that give the definitions you spin out in Message 26

So you will excuse me if I don't accept your definitions.

If not claim anything you desire.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Michamus, posted 03-26-2009 10:13 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Michamus, posted 03-31-2009 3:30 PM ICANT has responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 92 of 112 (504304)
03-26-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ICANT
03-26-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi ICANT,

Without discussing what species of plants those were and the surrounding environment this argument does not relate to a global catastrophe even as an analogy. Where did the plant life come from the first time the lake went dry? Then where would it likely have come from the next time? And what about that geologic column, you can't have it both ways.

Also each time the lake filled up fish would appear again.

I always thought that was amazing.


Yes that would be amazing, unless the lake was being stocked by someone?
I hope you are not offering this as a reason that fish survived the flood.

Was it the saline or the fresh water varieties that survived?
And if the fish had no difficulties with the flood why is it that those varieties which the scientists assume are ancient/prehistoric are no longer around? Why did the Plesiosaur die off but not the whale for example? If the Coelacanth could do it why not the rest?

And since that flood created the geologic column how did the plant life presumably buried under that sediment arrive on top again?

quote:
Flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.

ref

So where did the flowering plants go that got buried by the geologic column due to the flood?

quote:
There is a relative order to the fossilized species of plants found in the geologic record for which Flood Geology cannot account
same ref

If the land mass was instantly divided there would have been an awful lot of heat unless a miracle was performed. That heat would have caused a lot of water to go somewhere.

All that change in water temperature "that caused the water to go someplace" would not bode well for aquatic lifeforms would it??
Also I think you might be missing the magnetude of that heat by several orders, just a hunch though.

Concerning the creosote tree, "scientists have estimated the age of "King Clone" as 11,700 years"

So you think that the creosote growth rate was dramatically different in the past? Is that your estimate? Or do you even have an estimate?
Here is a reference that explains the ring growth a little better with some pictures.

Nice article, but you do know that the plant you was looking at is 300 or less years old as that is their life span.

It thrives in, "the cold wet gloom of Tasmanian gullies,".

Water then should not pose this plant a problem


No but a geologic column atop of it would...
the geologic column was the result of an old earth and evolution, oh wait..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:47 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:09 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 93 of 112 (504313)
03-26-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by shalamabobbi
03-26-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi shalamabobbi,

shalamabobbi writes:

No but a geologic column atop of it would...
the geologic column was the result of an old earth and evolution, oh wait..

What geological column?

My flood would not produce one.

It would be more like the Bay of Fundy except there would be no low tide.

All the fresh water springs of the deep opened up and the ocean overflowed onto the land mass.

All the land mass was in one place.

There is no way of knowing what the sea level of that land mass was. Which would determine how much water was needed to cover it.

shalamabobbi writes:

Where did the plant life come from the first time the lake went dry?

I would assume from roots that was in the lake that had been there for many, many years.

The lake was not restocked ever. It went dry too often. It had no inlet or outlet.

It was probably restocked by birds.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-26-2009 4:37 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-27-2009 3:54 AM ICANT has responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 94 of 112 (504322)
03-27-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
03-26-2009 10:09 PM


Re: Land Mass
What geological column?

My flood would not produce one.


So you accept the geologic column? Then you are accepting it was created pre-flood?
So fossils are created over time rather than resulting from a single catastrophic event?
So if you do not accept the ToE than God creates various life forms at distinct times?

But I thought that you took the 6 days of genesis creation as 24 hr days with the exception of the 1st day being indeterminate in length, if I remember correctly.

That does not leave enough time since the creation of life forms for them to end up in a geologic column.
Do you believe the fossils are remnants of previous creations? Repetative cycles of creation on earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2009 2:58 AM shalamabobbi has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 95 of 112 (504417)
03-28-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by shalamabobbi
03-27-2009 3:54 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi shalamabobbi,

shalamabobbi writes:

But I thought that you took the 6 days of genesis creation as 24 hr days with the exception of the 1st day being indeterminate in length, if I remember correctly.

The 6 days in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 are not the original creation. It is the process of fixing some things that got messed up.

Creation took place in Genesis 1:1

The generations (history) of that light period is given in Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:24.

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

This says creation took place in one light period, Not 6.

The only water on the earth was from the river that divided into four rivers.

Everything was watered by the mist that come from the ground.

There was no oceans as there was no water creatures created in the beginning of the day of Genesis 1:1.

shalamabobbi writes:

Do you believe the fossils are remnants of previous creations? Repetative cycles of creation on earth?

I believe that during the light period of Genesis 1:1 There were men, animals, birds, on earth, and at some point there was much water and then water creatures were created.

During this light period God prepared all the things we would need that we use today. Whatever animals and vegetation required was provided.

But I only believe in one cycle in Genesis 1:1 and then a cycle of rebirth in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3.

In Genesis 1:2 we find that there is no dry land, everything is covered with water.

We don't have land until Genesis 1:9, 10.

Where God had all the water to gather in one place and the dry land mass appeared, that I have been talking about in this thread.

Since all land was underwater for a period, that would explain how all the fossils appear on and in mountains.

That land mass then had to be divided into the present day configuration. Which was noted in Genesis 10:25.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-27-2009 3:54 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-28-2009 5:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 1304 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 96 of 112 (504418)
03-28-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by shalamabobbi
03-25-2009 11:51 PM


Re: Land Mass
shalamabobbi writes:

Since neither you nor Peg is YEC and you are arguing about a flood etc, maybe you could tell me when this flood occured in the history of our old earth which you say you accept.

it would be wrong to assume that all plant life was killed off by the flood.

Even the story tells us that after a length of time Noah sent out a dove and it returned with an olive branch in its beak.

That olive tree was obviously still in tact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-25-2009 11:51 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 97 of 112 (504420)
03-28-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
03-28-2009 2:58 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi ICANT,

Ok, let's see if I have it right.
Genesis 1:1 = Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24
There are created men, land animals, birds, plant life. Then eventually oceans and aquatic life.
Now there is some first flood disaster picked up in Genesis 1:2. This flood creates the fossils.

Everything is recreated in Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3
Then the account picks up in Genesis 4:25 with another second man called Adam and his first son is Seth.

All along the earth is flat and featureless, no mountains. Then we get to Noah with a second inundation, that although shallow kills everything except those on board the ark. This second flood does not create fossils.

If the above is correct a textual problem is the first light isn't mentioned until Genesis 1:3. The text taken at face value would suggest that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 occur in the dark. But ignoring that..

Let's say this is the source of the flood waters. I give them the volume of the arctic ocean.

from here we get
.0134 Arctic of total oceans. 1.06%
.6677 Pacific
.3235 Atlantic
.2597 Indian

1.2643 total km^3 (x10^9)

Surface area of world = 361,800,000km^2
ref

Underground ocean - That covers the earth to a height of 37meters above the ocean level.
Ice caps 1.74% is another 63 meters

So total plausible depth of 100 meter rise in ocean level, that is if the ice caps etc are counted as above ocean level. If the ice cap counts ice below ocean level this would give less to work with.

There still remain some problems.

This still cannot account for the ordering found within the geologic column. That is the major problem that can't be surmounted. If man was on the earth from the beginning, even if it was a long time ago the problem still exists explaining how the geologic column could be formed. How can the sifting and segregation and top to bottom order happen? It is not just a matter of ages and dating.

You have no mountains pre Noah's flood so presumably no collision of continents. You'd have uniformity of fossil finds everywhere rather than what is observed with differing ages exposed in different places.
It is the differing lifeforms at different times of the earth's past history that account for their order and position in the geologic column. In your model there is no evolution so there are essentially always the same animals found on earth over all ages of the earth.

Another problem if such a world flood occured is it would have shown up in the ice layers, the varve layers, the dendrochronology, etc that RAZD put together in his thread. Unfortunately it's a no show.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2009 2:58 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2009 1:51 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 98 of 112 (504449)
03-28-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by shalamabobbi
03-28-2009 5:33 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi shalamabobbi,

shalamabobbi writes:

If the above is correct a textual problem is the first light isn't mentioned until Genesis 1:3. The text taken at face value would suggest that Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 occur in the dark. But ignoring that..

Genesis 1:1 being in darkness is an assumption based on what?

Genesis 1:2 being in darkness is a Biblical fact, according to the Bible.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This does not say which side of the earth light was on, does it?

Prior to that it seems the earth was covered from light because of some reason.

We know that when some of the metorite hit the earth it was darkened for years. There goes the theory that plants can't survive without direct sunlight.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

So a division was made between light and darkness.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The light portion God called day.

The dark portion God called night.

The light portion of the day of Genesis 1:1 had been spent, as we come to the dark portion in Genesis 1:2.

Twelve (12) hours later when light appeared was the beginning of day 2.

shalamabobbi writes:

Surface area of world = 361,800,000km^2

Actually for an extended period there was nothing but land on the planet earth other than the river that divided into 4 rivers according to the Bible.

When the oceans came about is not addressed in the Bible

But doesn't the scientific version have a dry earth to begin with?

There was enough water on planet earth in Genesis 1:2 to cover the land mass as there was no dry land. The Bible does not say how long this condition had lasted.

shalamabobbi writes:

So total plausible depth of 100 meter rise in ocean level, that is if the ice caps etc are counted as above ocean level. If the ice cap counts ice below ocean level this would give less to work with.

According to some scientist in Japan there is enough water in the earth's mantel to fill our oceans 5 times.

You can find the reference Here.

There is plenty of water if extracted that would cover Mt. Everest as it stands in the present.

There is no problem with the volume of water necessary to cover the land mass.

shalamabobbi writes:

This still cannot account for the ordering found within the geologic column.

Huh!

There was a period of light that lasted for an undetermined period on planet earth when there was no sea just a tropical lush earth that grew things to humungus sizes. Plants and animals alike.

Science tells us that period was billion's of years.

So, are you saying in that period the geological column could not be formed?

That sounds rough on the theory that opposes creation.

shalamabobbi writes:

That is the major problem that can't be surmounted

Why?

shalamabobbi writes:

If man was on the earth from the beginning, even if it was a long time ago the problem still exists explaining how the geologic column could be formed. How can the sifting and segregation and top to bottom order happen? It is not just a matter of ages and dating.

Why does man being here in the beginning pose a problem for the geological column being formed.

We got people all over the world digging up things that was buried in the last couple of thousand year's.

A billion years from now wouldn't that be a part of the geological column?

shalamabobbi writes:

You have no mountains pre Noah's flood so presumably no collision of continents. You'd have uniformity of fossil finds everywhere rather than what is observed with differing ages exposed in different places.

Now you revert back to the YEC earth.

There is a lot of uplifted land mass today that pre-flood was ocean floor. Thus the fossil shells on and in mountains.

At one time there was a tropical land mass world wide. No ocean.

Animals could wander anywhere they desired.

I think I read somewhere that they found tropical animals in the arctic circle.

Keep in mind God was preparing planet earth for modern's mans eventual arrival.

An no the humans who inhabited the Genesis 1:1 earth was not just like modern man.

I would assume them to be far superior to us, but they did degenerate.

That man was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living soul. Genesis 2:7.

Modern man was spoken into existence in the image and likeness of God male and female at the same time. The female was not formed from the rib of the man as was the one in Genesis 2:22.

shalamabobbi writes:

It is the differing lifeforms at different times of the earth's past history that account for their order and position in the geologic column.

What is the problem with that?

God created whatever He need to serve His purpose and plan.

That would explain how all of a sudden in our geological column new creatures appeared fully functional.

Some scientist put forth punctual equilibrium to account for the sudden appearances of these creatures.

My first car I rode on was a Model A Ford and it served it's purpose.
But those that exist today have a hard time navigating our super highways. Therefore the automobile has changed.

God had specific thing for specific occasions and purposes.

Could you imagine some of the very large animals existing on earth today.

Talk about a traffic jam.

Why couldn't He change them as He completed certain aspect of preparing the earth for modern man?

shalamabobbi writes:

In your model there is no evolution so there are essentially always the same animals found on earth over all ages of the earth.

That maybe your assumption.

I think I stated God provided whatever was necessary.

God began creating in Genesis 1:1 after a long extended period of light (daylight period of day one of Genesis 1:5) that had ended in Genesis 1:2 with darkness with the added 12 hours of darkness God declared to be day one.

There then follows 5 days in which God caused some things to reappear and created some new things.

At the end of that 6 day period God ceased from creating.

He will resume creating in the future, but at present is not creating.

I have had the opportunity to live on one of the most beautiful islands in the world, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.

The land mass of that island is 27 miles long and 7 miles wide at the widest point. Not a very large place. It is very possible that the land mass in Genesis 1:9, 10 was no larger than Grand Cayman, Cuba or any other number of islands. The rest of our now land mass covered with water.

The Bible does not say how large it was, only that dry land was to appear.

Genesis 10:25 then tells us it was divided in Peleg's days.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-28-2009 5:33 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-28-2009 5:28 PM ICANT has responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 99 of 112 (504456)
03-28-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
03-28-2009 1:51 PM


Is your model self consistent?
According to some scientist in Japan there is enough water in the earth's mantel to fill our oceans 5 times.

You can find the reference Here.


Yes, but that water would be chemically bound. As such it is not technically water, just as water is not technically oxygen and hydrogen. The combination becomes something else just as water molecularly bound with other molecules into new larger molecules becomes something else in character and properties.

I am looking for ways to get water out that don't require completely miraculous means. An underground ocean could be vacated by contact with magma turning enough water to steam to force the rest of the water out for example.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You found an error in my post. It was late and I was looking at the reference thinking the surface area applied to the world, oceans and land areas, not just the land. Unfortunately this correction reduces the depth of rise of any water used to cover the world with flood waters.

Average Radius Earth = 6,371km
surface area = 4 pi r^2
surface area to be covered = 5.1x10^8 meters squared

So 0.0134x10^9 total km^3 divided by 5.1x10^8 gives us a depth of coverage of 26.3 meters.

(checking against the previous post -dividing the surface areas gave 71%, so that reference was in error as well giving the surface area of the oceans in the last column rather than the land surface area)

Adding the ice caps gives us about 71 meters of depth. Which makes sense since I used the surface area of the oceans instead of the total surface area previously.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So if I understand your argument correctly then the different life forms came about just as predicted by science except evolution was not involved. The life forms were created at various times throughout the history of the earth.

Ok sounds reasonable on the surface, this is your idea, not the view of science, so my job as a debater is not to prove your view different from science, but to see if it is self consistent or self contradictory.

If you are postulating animals created along the way, that's fine. You are merely attributing their arrival on the scene to special creation rather than to evolution. There are about 530 million years of history for multicellular life forms BTW. That marks the Cambrian explosion. Previously all that time was taken up with microbial life creating oxygen, rusting the earth, etc.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So now the problems left with your model are three that I can see.

1. No gradual plate tectonics which enter into the creation of what the geology indicates happened in terms of analyzing what we see in the earth. I don't think a one time sudden movement of the plates would correspond with the facts. The creation of the Hawaiian Islands comes to mind.

2. No record of evidence of a global flood exists. Lots of evidence for local floods however does.

3. And the most glaring problem to my understanding is that of the moon. It does not get created in your model until Genesis 1:16 and is not not placed into position until Genesis 1:17.

The isotopic ratios of radioactive elements such as U-235 to U-238 for example are due, in the earth, to some initial concentration and decay over time so that now we have a ratio of about 0.7%. If we look at moon rocks that same ratio exists there as well indicating a common origin in time.

The moon stabilizes the spin axis of the earth but since the sun and the rest of the universe does not exist in your model until the moon gets created I guess that does not matter either.

But here is the clincher. Fossil coral reefs show that the day was shorter in the distant past in exactly the manner predicted by a slowing of the earth's spin rate due to tidal friction caused by an interaction with...

the moon

which in your model is not there to cause the change in the spin rate of the earth.

Also with everything bathed in light there are no seasons or biological years for the biosphere so this contradicts the fossil coral record as well. This would also cause tree rings not to exist etc as growth does not turn on and off but is continuous.

Any geologic records that show this yearly seasonal activity contradict your model.
Varve layers are yearly and seasonal with pollen captured etc going back for quite some time. Ice layers exist because of seasonal variations.

So your model cannot fit the evidence as I see it.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling

Edited by shalamabobbi, : ditto


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2009 1:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2009 4:54 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 100 of 112 (504482)
03-29-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shalamabobbi
03-28-2009 5:28 PM


Re: Is your model self consistent?
Hi shalamabobbi,

You are giving my musings too much credit calling them a model.

shalamabobbi writes:

Yes, but that water would be chemically bound.

It is presently chemically bound.

But where did it come from? How did it get in the mantle?

Here and Here

It tell us water gets in the mantle through subduction.

If it gets there by subduction it comes from the surface.

When did enough water get there to fill our oceans 5 times?

shalamabobbi writes:

I am looking for ways to get water out that don't require completely miraculous means.

I don't care anything about getting the water out of the mantle to flood the earth.

I am pointing out that it gets in the mantle by subduction. So that means that possibly all that water was on the surface at one time, or at least the majority of it.

shalamabobbi writes:

So if I understand your argument correctly then the different life forms came about just as predicted by science except evolution was not involved. The life forms were created at various times throughout the history of the earth.

Yes, as change was needed.

shalamabobbi writes:

If you are postulating animals created along the way, that's fine. You are merely attributing their arrival on the scene to special creation rather than to evolution.

I don't see where taking materials and creating something is anything special. I been creating things since I was 10 when my father and I built a house.

I do see where nothing (absence of life) becoming something is very special creation and especially if it does it all by it's self.

shalamabobbi writes:

There are about 530 million years of history for multicellular life forms BTW. That marks the Cambrian explosion.

Isn't it amazing how so many different creatures came on the scene at one time without any apparent common ancestor.

Doesen't that speak to instant creation rather that billions of changes over millions of years.

shalamabobbi writes:

The creation of the Hawaiian Islands comes to mind.

What's the problem?

Those volcanos were not always covered with water. When the became covered with water they did not cease to build the islands.

When the continents moved to their present position the shifting of the land masses caused land to rise in many places, why not the islands.

You ever wonder why the Hawaiian islands don't have any native land animals. Everything they have had to fly there, swim (float) or be carried there.

It was not part of the land mass that was divided therefore animals had not scattered out over it.

shalamabobbi writes:

I don't think a one time sudden movement of the plates would correspond with the facts.

Does your thinking make it true or false?

The land mass was in one place in time past. The land masses are where they are today. That is a fact we can agree on.

shalamabobbi writes:

2. No record of evidence of a global flood exists. Lots of evidence for local floods however does.

But that is exactly what you would expect to find if the land mass was divided after the flood.

You guys keep hinting at massive destruction with a flood the nature of one told of in the Bible.

On low tide at the Bay of Fundy there is dry land.

At high tide there is 55' of water where that dry land was.

This happens twice a day and you can't tell the difference from one day to the next.

shalamabobbi writes:

3. And the most glaring problem to my understanding is that of the moon. It does not get created in your model until Genesis 1:16 and is not not placed into position until Genesis 1:17.

I have no problem with the sun and moon being made (`asah) on the fourth day.

Because they were created (bara') in Genesis 1:1.

In Genesis 1:16 God had to do some work to make the sun and mood visible as the light was not reaching the earth.

Something similar to what has happened when the asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula. All the soot and dust generated by this impact would have caused night like conditions for at least six months and the earth would have been covered with a Sulfuric acid cloud for a decade.

So what is the problem since the sun and moon was there a long time before Genesis 1:2?

shalamabobbi writes:

Any geologic records that show this yearly seasonal activity contradict your model.

Yea the Hemlock trees in Alaska have a real hard time dealing with the 6 months of light and 6 months of darkness.

Bring their seedlings south and they grow at the same rate per year, almost like they were running on a self contained program.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-28-2009 5:28 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-29-2009 8:45 PM ICANT has responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 101 of 112 (504495)
03-29-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
03-29-2009 4:54 PM


Re: Is your model self consistent?
Hello ICANT,

ICANT writes:

It tell us water gets in the mantle through subduction.
If it gets there by subduction it comes from the surface.
When did enough water get there to fill our oceans 5 times?

Let's consider that for a moment. Here's the geological account..

quote:
Initially molten, the outer layer of the planet Earth cooled to form a solid crust when water began accumulating in the atmosphere. The Moon formed soon afterwords, possibly as the result of a Mars-sized object with about 10% of the Earth's mass,[2] known as Theia, impacting the Earth in a glancing blow.[3] Some of this object's mass merged with the Earth and a portion was ejected into space, but enough material survived to form an orbiting moon.

Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, produced the oceans.[4] As the surface continually reshaped itself, over hundreds of millions of years, continents formed and broke up. The continents migrated across the surface, occasionally combining to form a supercontinent. Roughly 750 Ma (million years ago) (ICS 2004), the earliest known supercontinent Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600540 Ma (ICS 2004), then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 180 Ma (ICS 2004).[5] The present pattern of ice ages began about 40 Ma (ICS 2004), then intensified during the Pleistocene about 3 Ma (ICS 2004). The polar regions have since undergone repeated cycles of glaciation and thaw, repeating every 40,000100,000 years. The last glacial period of the current ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.[6]



reference

No mention of a flooded earth. A gradual accumulation of water with moving continents continually transporting that water into the earth through subduction activity.

Now let's look at your model, or musings. Here we have fast plate tectonics after Noah's flood in the days of Peleg.
So the oceans after Noah's flood are already subsided. Then plate activity, so no water gets subducted since the waters of Noah already abated. It is your idea that does not answer how 5 ocean volumes get into the interior of the earth!

In addition to this flood of Noah you have a flood separating the initial long history of Genesis 1:1 from the rest of Genesis. But there is no subduction activity to transport that water beneath the ground. Only a model that allows for continual plate tectonic activity when the oceans formed can account for the water in the interior. Thanks. Your argument supports me not you!

I don't see where taking materials and creating something is anything special.

Well maybe you'd like to create a dog for me then. I'd prefer a new breed so that it may serve as a conversation starter. Thanks.
Special creation is the standard terminology to distinguish it from natural descriptions. It amounts to definitions and terminology accepted by most so communication can take place w/o talking past one another.

But as I see it, an evolutionary process makes us human and creation from scratch makes us androids or robots or machines.

Isn't it amazing how so many different creatures came on the scene at one time without any apparent common ancestor.
Doesen't that speak to instant creation rather that billions of changes over millions of years.

Actually a time of millions of years is 'explosive' compared with the billions that passed before. There was a development in single celled life forms that created oxygen as a waste product. It was chloroplasts. That change in the atmosphere allowed the evolution of the respiration cycle, 18 times more efficient than the previous method of creating energy, glycolysis. This extra energy availability allowed for the development of higher lifeforms. We still share that inefficient hardware BTW of glycolysis. Why if we are designed from scratch did that inefficient mechanism get thrown into the design as well?

Also, when posting to RAZD's thread on age correlations I mentioned that the Oklo reactors started 2 billion years ago. I thought about that and the coincidence of going back two billion years to get a 3% concentration of U-235 to U-238 to start a chain reaction and the oxygen becoming available in the waters through photosynthesis to move Uranium through rain and collect it in one spot seemed too great. So I did the calculations and it turns out that a 3% concentration was reached at 1.72 billion years ago. Going back to two billion years means the concentration exceeded 3%. So the reactor you see, was waiting on Uranium to become oxidized and transported via rain to get underway, not on the relative concentrations of the isotopes of Uranium which were already sufficient.

This proves the creation of oxygen in the atmosphere some 2 billion years ago as does the iron oxide bands found in the earth. If you understand evolution it predicts that changes would be sudden. It takes time for the gradual changing mutations to find something that is better and an improvement over what went before. When it finds something it quickly takes over and stasis is again observed while evolution searches for something better yet..

What's the problem?
Those volcanos were not always covered with water. When the became covered with water they did not cease to build the islands.
When the continents moved to their present position the shifting of the land masses caused land to rise in many places, why not the islands.
You ever wonder why the Hawaiian islands don't have any native land animals. Everything they have had to fly there, swim (float) or be carried there.
It was not part of the land mass that was divided therefore animals had not scattered out over it.

quote:
Hawaiian "Hot Spot":1
Over the past 70 million years, the combined processes of magma formation, volcano eruption and growth, and continued movement of the Pacific Plate over the stationary Hawaiian "hot-spot" have left a long trail of volcanoes across the Pacific Ocean floor. The Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamounts chain extends some 6,000 kilometers from the "Big Island" of Hawaii to the Aleutian Trench off Alaska. The Hawaiian Islands themselves are a very small part of the chain and are the youngest islands in the immense, mostly submarine mountain chain composed of more than 80 volcanoes. The length of the Hawaiian Ridge segment alone, from the Big Island northwest to Midway Island, is about equal to the distance from Washington, D.C. to Denver, Colorado (2,600 kilometers). The amount of lava erupted to form the Hawaiian-Emperor chain is calculated to be at least 750,000 cubic kilometers-more than enough to blanket the entire State of California with a layer of lava roughly 1.5 kilometers thick.

reference
1. Kious and Tilling, This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics: USGS Online Publication and

ICANT writes:

shalamabobbi writes:

I don't think a one time sudden movement of the plates would correspond with the facts.

Does your thinking make it true or false?


My thinking is the result of facts like that for the formation of the chain of Islands above. A one time fast movement of the plates does not agree with the data.

ICANT writes:

shalamabobbi writes:

No record of evidence of a global flood exists. Lots of evidence for local floods however does.


But that is exactly what you would expect to find if the land mass was divided after the flood.

No. Except you said Noah's flood was not very deep and did not participate in the creation of the geologic column or of fossils.
So fossil beds that correspond to pangea have no method of formation by your model/musings.

ICANT writes:

I have no problem with the sun and moon being made (`asah) on the fourth day.
Because they were created (bara') in Genesis 1:1.
In Genesis 1:16 God had to do some work to make the sun and mood visible as the light was not reaching the earth.


Well if your previous interpretation of scripture was not a stretch this certainly is.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven.
You need to modify your previous cut and paste job of genesis to add these scriptures to what really took place in Genesis 1:1..

So what is the problem since the sun and moon was there a long time before Genesis 1:2?

That is not what the text says? Hint: read Granny Magda's signature line again..

ICANT writes:

shalamabobbi writes:

Any geologic records that show this yearly seasonal activity contradict your model.


Yea the Hemlock trees in Alaska have a real hard time dealing with the 6 months of light and 6 months of darkness.
Bring their seedlings south and they grow at the same rate per year, almost like they were running on a self contained program.

Six months of light followed by six month's of dark is a yearly seasonal environment. What you proposed was continual light bath 24/7 which would not show up as seasons in the varve records or ice core samples.

And now that you say the sun moon and stars existed prior to their mentioned creation in Genesis 1:16,17 and really occurred in Genesis 1:1 Then your continual light bath and one long day hypothesis gets blown out of the water as well..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2009 4:54 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 03-31-2009 11:57 AM shalamabobbi has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 102 of 112 (504598)
03-31-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by shalamabobbi
03-29-2009 8:45 PM


Re: Is your model self consistent?
Hi shalamabobbi,

shalamabobbi writes:

Let's consider that for a moment. Here's the geological account..

quote:
Initially molten, the outer layer of the planet Earth cooled to form a solid crust when water began accumulating in the atmosphere. The Moon formed soon afterwords, possibly as the result of a Mars-sized object with about 10% of the Earth's mass,[2] known as Theia, impacting the Earth in a glancing blow.[3] Some of this object's mass merged with the Earth and a portion was ejected into space, but enough material survived to form an orbiting moon.

Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, produced the oceans.[4] As the surface continually reshaped itself, over hundreds of millions of years, continents formed and broke up. The continents migrated across the surface, occasionally combining to form a supercontinent. Roughly 750 Ma (million years ago) (ICS 2004), the earliest known supercontinent Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600540 Ma (ICS 2004), then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 180 Ma (ICS 2004).[5] The present pattern of ice ages began about 40 Ma (ICS 2004), then intensified during the Pleistocene about 3 Ma (ICS 2004). The polar regions have since undergone repeated cycles of glaciation and thaw, repeating every 40,000100,000 years. The last glacial period of the current ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.[6]



reference

Who was there to record these events?

Can they be duplicated?

If not they are just the musings of some crackpot like me.

You must believe and accept it by faith.

shalamabobbi writes:

It is your idea that does not answer how 5 ocean volumes get into the interior of the earth!

The water that is there, gets there by subduction whether it takes billions of years or a nano second.

shalamabobbi writes:

Well maybe you'd like to create a dog for me then.

Send me the raw material and I will see what I can do to accommodate you.

Although science has failed to produce life, with the proper raw material I might be able to achieve that.

Now if you want to get real and need a house constructed out of building materials that we can obtain drop me a line.

shalamabobbi writes:

But as I see it, an evolutionary process makes us human and creation from scratch makes us androids or robots or machines.

Your ability to reason and make choices make you human and not a machine.

shalamabobbi writes:

This proves the creation of oxygen in the atmosphere some 2 billion years ago as does the iron oxide bands found in the earth. If you understand evolution it predicts that changes would be sudden.

Darwin sure did not believe it took place suddenly.

Evolution predicted nothing of the sort until it was discovered that it happened that way.

shalamobbie writes:

My thinking is the result of facts like that for the formation of the chain of Islands above. A one time fast movement of the plates does not agree with the data.

What does the continents dividing have to do with the Hawaiian Islands other than possibly to cause them to be lifted up.

shalamabobbi writes:

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven.
You need to modify your previous cut and paste job of genesis to add these scriptures to what really took place in Genesis 1:1..

Why?

They were not assigned their jobs of ruling over day and night until Genesis 1:17, 18.

Until that time God had been the light and there had been no darkness until the evening we find in Genesis 1:2.

shalamabobbi writes:

Six months of light followed by six month's of dark is a yearly seasonal environment. What you proposed was continual light bath 24/7 which would not show up as seasons in the varve records or ice core samples.

They would grow just like they do in the 6 months of light if it was continual light.

Time only matters to man.

God gave the sun and the moon the job of giving us something to measure time by.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-29-2009 8:45 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-31-2009 3:06 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 103 of 112 (504613)
03-31-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
03-31-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Is your model self consistent?
Hi ICANT,

ICANT writes:

Who was there to record these events?
Can they be duplicated?
If not they are just the musings of some crackpot like me.
You must believe and accept it by faith.


Is this your argument for acceptance of your interpretation of the bible? Just how little is your flock?

The water that is there, gets there by subduction whether it takes billions of years or a nano second.

If you are going to ignore the laws of physics, why accept subduction as the mechanism? Because it was discussed in an article that provided some evidence of the amount of water you want to exist?

Although science has failed to produce life

Actually a race is on in the labs to see who will be first. The estimate is it will be resolved within a decade.

Your ability to reason and make choices make you human and not a machine.

So 'data' from star trek next generation would be human?

Darwin sure did not believe it took place suddenly.

I have enough work for the present learning about evolution itself, much less the history of evolution. So what Darwin believed or understood is irrelevant to a discussion of what is known now.

What does the continents dividing have to do with the Hawaiian Islands other than possibly to cause them to be lifted up.

Does your forum name stand for "I can't understand your POV"?
The island chain is volcanic and arose from the same hot spot on the ocean floor and coincides with a steady slow movement of the ocean floor due to plate tectonics, and the time involved goes back way past 6,000 years.
I know, I know, "Were you there? Did you see it?"
Great rebuttal..

They would grow just like they do in the 6 months of light if it was continual light.

Again, does your forum name stand for "I can't understand your POV"?
This has nothing to do with the following 6 months of dark. That would produce an annual pattern. Continual light 24/7 would not.

What kind of light is this that comes from God? Did he park himself on the side of the earth opposite the sun to eliminate darkness there? Do photons from God travel in curved paths? And without a night of darkness to cool off what happens to the build up of heat in the environment?

Again if you are going to ignore the laws of physics why pay attention to any of them? Why are you telling YECs they are wrong? They are no more wrong than you by the system of logic you espouse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 03-31-2009 11:57 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 104 of 112 (504616)
03-31-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
03-26-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Peleg
ICANT writes:


Hi Mich,

I can find no Lexicons that give the definitions you spin out in Message 26

So you will excuse me if I don't accept your definitions.

If not claim anything you desire.

God Bless,

What an excellent response! You can't find representing Lexicons, so they must not exist. Hmmm... or you are perhaps refusing to utilize a Hebrew dictionary? Out of curiousity, what Interlinear program are you using?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2009 10:55 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2009 2:40 PM Michamus has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 105 of 112 (504936)
04-05-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Michamus
03-31-2009 3:30 PM


Re: Peleg
Michamus writes:

Out of curiousity, what Interlinear program are you using?

Why do you assume I am using an Interlinear program?

I do consult with them after I have done my study.

I use the LXX as my Bible study tool.

I also study the available Hebrew Texts.

The oldest Hebrew Texts are 700 years younger than the oldest LXX Texts.

Jesus and the apostles quoted the LXX.

Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.

Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based.

In many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version.

The oldest surviving codices of LXX date to the fourth century CE.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Michamus, posted 03-31-2009 3:30 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Michamus, posted 04-05-2009 10:29 PM ICANT has responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014