Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 5:28 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Jedothek, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,372 Year: 15,408/19,786 Month: 2,131/3,058 Week: 505/404 Day: 20/89 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   How old did the Garden of Eden appear on Day 7?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 35 (236689)
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


If this has been covered a thousand times, my apologies. I haven't seen anything on it here (search is disabled) and AiG seems to be quiet on the issue...

Creation science seems to reject the notion of apparent age and insists on a scientific evidence trail back to creation. My first question is...

What were the constituents of the soil in Eden?

I believe that consideration of this question leads either to an apparent age or to a non-scientific miraculous event


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2005 7:37 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 5 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-30-2005 4:17 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 7 by Jman, posted 01-17-2006 10:15 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 01-18-2006 1:52 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 03-03-2006 12:45 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Joman, posted 03-03-2006 3:27 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 16 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 6:31 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-08-2006 11:36 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 35 (237530)
08-26-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


Where to?
Where do you think this should be put? I presume "Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy" but don't know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2005 5:31 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 3 of 35 (237655)
08-27-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
08-26-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Where to?
That would be perfect, thank you...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2005 7:37 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 35 (238403)
08-29-2005 8:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 35 (238495)
08-30-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


Reject apparent age?
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

Creation science seems to reject the notion of apparent age...

Perhaps certain groups do but many groups proclaim the notion of apparent age...as far as I know, and I am a YEC.

I would tend to think that the plants in the garden would have had the appearance of various stages of maturity, but that is speculation.

cavediver writes:

What were the constituents of the soil in Eden?

That is an interesting question. I would imagine it to be the best possible soil...most likely unlike any that we've seen. My personal theory is that our present soils are mineral deficient (and therefore so are we) when compared to the pre-flood soils. But again, that is pure speculation on my part.

I know of one organization that manufacturers colloidial minerals...the minerals are got from shale, I believe...supposedly rich in a host of minerals. The thought is that the shale is the remnants of the pre-flood plants...if that is true, then the high mineral content might be an indication of the mineral content of the preflood topsoils.

I take colloidial minerals, but I buy a cheaper brand, which may not be harvested from shale.

cavediver writes:

I believe that consideration of this question leads either to an apparent age or to a non-scientific miraculous event

Well, I'm not so sure that a soil necessarily indicates "apparent age" (however I understand what you mean...soil is formed by errosion today and therefore requires time). I wanted to point out here, however, that creation is miraculous.

Is there a group of creationists, who are proclaiming that creation is not miraculous?

-- Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2005 8:53 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 6 of 35 (238543)
08-30-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheLiteralist
08-30-2005 4:17 AM


Re: Reject apparent age?
I was thinking specifically of the organic content of soil... the detritus. If Adam had investigated, what would he have concluded about the origin of this organic material?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-30-2005 4:17 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-18-2006 11:11 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 35 (279772)
01-17-2006 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


garden and soil
Another inconsistency in the Bible. But wait! On day six God populated the Earth with men and women, bidding them "prosper and subdue the Earth" or something like that. The "garden" story, which is the second story of creation in the old Bibles, is given us as a first Sabbath event. So, is the Bible wrong or what?

The natural state and home of life as we know it on Earth is in the many corresponding spiritual kingdoms which coincide with the physical planet. All "primative peoples" know this but Christian traditions omit it. Why? Probably because it's not necessary to be aware of until good answers are ernestly sought. The story of A&E is only a metaphore for the earlier life lost resulting in man being banned to an Earthly existance. There was no sin however as this was the plan all along. "Salvation" is another metaphore for our earned right to return to our true home so long fortold. This land we know of as the "Kindom of God".

As for the soil, well, as with the story of the lion and the lamb, life forms in that "heaven" are in super light, refined bodies like the one the ressurected Jesus used which do not require sustainance in the same way that we do. The menu has only one item on it, the direct intake of energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 35 (279851)
01-18-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by cavediver
08-30-2005 8:53 AM


Re: Reject apparent age?
Interesting question.....I'd have to agree with you at this point that it probably indicates apparent age.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 08-30-2005 8:53 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 9 of 35 (279877)
01-18-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


Soil Constituents in Eden
Cavediver writes:

What were the constituents of the soil in Eden?

I thought many YECs accepted "apparent age" in their scheme(s)!

Btw: Day 7 seems to me to be God's (holy) rest day and might perhaps be interpreted to include *forever*. I.e., there is no "evening and morning" biblically stated therein.

Eden's soil constituents may have been those that exist today (sub-atomic particles, the 'known' elements, inorganic and organic compounds, etc.) plus 6 thousand years (or so) of additional radiometric decay.

Unfortunately, radiometric clocks might not synchronize validly with diurnal clocks (and/or other measuring devices of time) during the *creation event(s)* and interval(s) following. So your question may be 'flawed' and impossible to answer, scientifically.

Noah's global flood (which few YECs deny) may have jumbled up Eden's soil somewhat, but not enough to accelerate radiometric decay into that soil ... not without boiling all life to death.

The next inevitable phase seems that this thread will devolve into semantic quibbling about time and/or time-clocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 03-11-2006 5:59 AM Philip has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 996 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 35 (291814)
03-03-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


Evidence of Death
If the soil in Eden were good, and natural, and normal, then we would expect it to include a considerable amount of dead and decaying organic stuff - cast off leaves, fallen twigs, animal excrement, etc.

Life depends upon death.

Come to think of it, I believe that is a Christian teaching as well. I think the Christian teaching specifies that:

quote:
Life depends upon the death of a God.

Yes? :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by musicman, posted 07-10-2006 2:40 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 35 (291865)
03-03-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-25-2005 4:30 AM


Apparent age?
It appears to me that this thread is focusing on the "outward appearance of age" and is for that reason an inappropriate question.

To my mind such an outward appearance of age is inherent to the existence of things. And, we tend to resolve such a question with simple comparison too other things. Thus, we mark things with age and authorship indicators lest unresolvable confusion occur in the future about the age or source of a man-made thing.

The real question is...does nature exhibit the appearance of age at all levels of investigation (seeing)?

So, although Adam may ponder how long the Garden of Eden existed before he was put there his understanding depends on the validity of witnesses as to the actual age ,and/or some methodical means of determining age scientifically.

Joman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2005 4:30 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 03-11-2006 6:02 AM Joman has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 12 of 35 (294219)
03-11-2006 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Philip
01-18-2006 1:52 PM


Re: Soil Constituents in Eden
Sorry Philip, I'd completely forgotten this thread of mine and only just noticed your reply!

My point concerns what Adam would have noticed about the Eden soil, not observations from today. The questiosn is, would Adam have perceived "dead" organic matter and what would he have concluded.

I agree, there is often an implicit "apparent age" in YEC scenarios but mostly they stop short of "fabrication", in the sense of dead things that never were alive (supernova progenitors, fossilised life, and in this case decayed life).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 01-18-2006 1:52 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 13 of 35 (294221)
03-11-2006 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Joman
03-03-2006 3:27 PM


Re: Apparent age?
I am more concerned about more obvious conclusions. For example, if Adam had dug down, would he have discovered fossils? Not in most YEC beliefs. But if he examined the soil, would he have discovered dead organic matter (leaves for example) that was never actually alive? Or was the soil of Eden of a totally different character?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Joman, posted 03-03-2006 3:27 PM Joman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2006 4:30 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 14 of 35 (329434)
07-06-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by cavediver
03-11-2006 6:02 AM


Organic???
Cavediver,

You've asked an excellent question, and it reveals a very ordered and logical mind. For an answer let me first direct you to the following article from Wikipedia.

Organic material or organic matter refers to any material that is capable of decay or of being decomposed or is the product of decomposition, and is usually the remains of a recently living organism, and may also include still-living organisms. Polymers and plastics, although they may be organic compounds, are usually not considered organic material, due to their poor ability to decompose.

In soil science, organic matter refers to that of soil.

Organic matter is not necessarily created by living organisms, and living organisms do not only leave behind organic material. A clam's shell, for example, while biotic, is not capable of being decomposed—largely because it is lacking in organic molecules. Conversely, urea is one of many organic substances that can be synthesized without any biological activity.

The equation of "organic" with living organisms comes from the scientifically abandoned idea of vitalism that attributed a special force to life that alone could create organic substances, which was first called into question by the abiotic synthesis of urea by Friedrich Wöhler in 1828.

Now let me direct your attention to Genesis 1:24, 2:7, 2:19 and 3:19. There you will find that God created all living things from the dust of the ground and that when living things die, their bodies return to the dust.

So to answer your question, was the ground in the garden of Eden composed of organic materials? Yes and no.

According to the strictest definition on Wikipedia, the soil was organic in that it contained the same elements and compounds that are found in living things; but according to the traditional definition, it was inorganic in that those elements and compounds had never before been part of a living creature. Of course by the end of day six I'm sure that the garden of Eden had collected a significant amount of undoubtedly organic material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 03-11-2006 6:02 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 5:00 PM w_fortenberry has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 35 (329444)
07-06-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by w_fortenberry
07-06-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Organic???
w_fortenberry writes:

... God created all living things from the dust of the ground and that when living things die, their bodies return to the dust.

Well, no. Not quite.

quote:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Aquatic creatures - and birds - were made of water, not dust. Water is not "organic".

(By the way, would you please provide a link to Wikipedia instead of just a quote? I have some reservations about their definition of "organic". :) )

Other than that, your point seems to be that God put organic compounds into the soil just as if they were the result of decomposition? Since those compounds "normally" enter the soil by decomposition, what's the difference between that and putting fake fossils in the ground?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2006 4:30 PM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2006 7:01 PM ringo has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019