Jesus would believe in Evolution?

[StanJ]

But this instant flash of light that shone through a canopy of water still didn't cause a dawn to occur (or a dusk). I think this is sufficient to doubt the literal translation of the creation Days 1-4 to 24-hour periods of time.

This is why I make comments on equivocating. Nothing there says it was an instant flash of light. It doesn't even say what time of day God did this, although it would appear God did this in the day seeing as it always states "there was evening and there was morning", so it doesn't negate dusk and dawn unless your looking for it to?
As God put that canopy of water there AFTER He created the celestial bodies, it wasn't a reaction to what He did on day one, buy IMO just another step in what He had already determined would be needed before He ever started creating. I bet you many people, including geo-physicists, have no idea the earth was covered by a huge outer canopy of water, although if they read this and the account of Noah, they would be able to put two and two together.

 

[Forsakenone]

You haven't shown that as far as I can see. Do you also not believe what Moses wrote in Exodus?

Wonder who taught Moses how to read and write the spoken word? (After all there is no evidence that the Egyptians had demonstrated any evidence of using he written spoken word)

 

[pom2014]

This is why I make comments on equivocating. Nothing there says it was an instant flash of light. It doesn't even say what time of day God did this, although it would appear God did this in the day seeing as it always states "there was evening and there was morning", so it doesn't negate dusk and dawn unless your looking for it to?
As God put that canopy of water there AFTER He created the celestial bodies, it wasn't a reaction to what He did on day one, buy IMO just another step in what He had already determined would be needed before He ever started creating. I bet you many people, including geo-physicists, have no idea the earth was covered by a huge outer canopy of water, although if they read this and the account of Noah, they would be able to put two and two together.

Most scientists agree that there were vast quantities of liquid water on the planet at various times. But much of it was lost due to a low amount or no atmosphere.

What happened with Noah came long after these periods and was a regional not a worldwide event.

 

[DogLady19]

This is why I make comments on equivocating. Nothing there says it was an instant flash of light. It doesn't even say what time of day God did this, although it would appear God did this in the day seeing as it always states "there was evening and there was morning", so it doesn't negate dusk and dawn unless your looking for it to?
As God put that canopy of water there AFTER He created the celestial bodies, it wasn't a reaction to what He did on day one, buy IMO just another step in what He had already determined would be needed before He ever started creating. I bet you many people, including geo-physicists, have no idea the earth was covered by a huge outer canopy of water, although if they read this and the account of Noah, they would be able to put two and two together.

I am using a flash of instant light because that is what you said you believe to have happened, is it not?

I am using the word "morning" to mean "dawn" as you stated as what you believed in a previous post, did you not?

It does negate a dawn or dusk because those are both gradual processes, are they not? Days One to Three had a constant glow of light. No dawn, no dusk.

Equivocate: intent to deceive by a misleading use of a word or term.

Again, you accuse me of being deceitful when I am trying to understand how you (and Ken Ham fans) can be so emphatic about something that is still a mystery... We do not know how long the 6 days of creation really were. geologists and cosmologists would tell us that those days were very very long. You say they are 24-hours.

Most scientists agree that there were vast quantities of liquid water on the planet at various times. But much of it was lost due to a low amount or no atmosphere.

What happened with Noah came long after these periods and was a regional not a worldwide event.

But isn't there geological evidence that the entire world was flooded at some point? Don't we find sea shells at the top of the Himalayas, for instance? Weren't the Badlands carved out by torrential rainfalls?

 

[pom2014]

There was a period where water was more abundant. But that was long before men and a violent upheaval caused much of it to be lost to space.

Badlands are sculpted over many years, not days, by rivers and glaciers.

Mt. Everest and the Himalaya Mountains were once sea floor on the northern edge of the Indo-Australian Plate. As that plate moved north, it collided with the Eurasian Plate. The two plates crunched together, forming the Himalaya, Pamir, Hindu Kush and other mountain ranges in the region.

The shells are over 30 million years old.

The event with Noah was a regional event, and should use that translation of erets.

 

[StanJ]

Wonder who taught Moses how to read and write the spoken word? (After all there is no evidence that the Egyptians had demonstrated any evidence of using he written spoken word)

As far as I can tell, the oldest script known to us now is about 3300 BC and are Egyptian proto-hieroglyphics. It's not hard to figure that written languages probably existed before any physical evidence we now have. Remember most of this was chiselled out in stone, just like the 10 commandments.

Most scientists agree that there were vast quantities of liquid water on the planet at various times. But much of it was lost due to a low amount or no atmosphere.

What happened with Noah came long after these periods and was a regional not a worldwide event.

Gen 1:6-8 shows the creation of the water canopy pom. Are you now denying the accuracy of Gen 1?

The loss of that water canopy is depicted in Gen 7:10-12 and it WAS a world wide event.

I am using a flash of instant light because that is what you said you believe to have happened, is it not?

I am using the word "morning" to mean "dawn" as you stated as what you believed in a previous post, did you not?

It does negate a dawn or dusk because those are both gradual processes, are they not? Days One to Three had a constant glow of light. No dawn, no dusk.

Equivocate: intent to deceive by a misleading use of a word or term.
Again, you accuse me of being deceitful when I am trying to understand how you (and Ken Ham fans) can be so emphatic about something that is still a mystery... We do not know how long the 6 days of creation really were. geologists and cosmologists would tell us that those days were very very long. You say they are 24-hours.

No, it is NOT what I said, and is easily seen in the post you refer to.

Yes, so what EXACTLY is your point because I sure I explained myself UNEQUIVOCALLY?

I said that is what it is now, but creation was not gradual. All processes we see now, had a beginning. You only assume the dawn didn't happen. Can you not see that creation, in all it's aspects, had a beginning? Was Adam created as a baby?

Then stop rewording what I state and I won't identify it as such. You get offended at the word but practise it, so I don't really understand why you do that and then complain about me identifying it?
e·quiv·o·cate

əˈkwivəˌkāt/

verb
verb: equivocate; 3rd person present: equivocates; past tense: equivocated; past participle: equivocated; gerund or present participle: equivocating

1. 
   
   
   
   
   use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

There was a period where water was more abundant. But that was long before men and a violent upheaval caused much of it to be lost to space.

Badlands are sculpted over many years, not days, by rivers and glaciers.

Mt. Everest and the Himalaya Mountains were once sea floor on the northern edge of the Indo-Australian Plate. As that plate moved north, it collided with the Eurasian Plate. The two plates crunched together, forming the Himalaya, Pamir, Hindu Kush and other mountain ranges in the region.

The shells are over 30 million years old.

The event with Noah was a regional event, and should use that translation of erets.

None of this is scientific FACT pom, just assertions based on UNOBSERVED geological events and erroneous science.

Seems you've gone over to the dark side?

 

[DogLady19]

No, it is NOT what I said, and is easily seen in the post you refer to.

Yes, so what EXACTLY is your point because I sure I explained myself UNEQUIVOCALLY?

I said that is what it is now, but creation was not gradual. All processes we see now, had a beginning. You only assume the dawn didn't happen. Can you not see that creation, in all it's aspects, had a beginning? Was Adam created as a baby?

Then stop rewording what I state and I won't identify it as such. You get offended at the word but practise it, so I don't really understand why you do that and then complain about me identifying it?
e·quiv·o·cate

əˈkwivəˌkāt/

verb
verb: equivocate; 3rd person present: equivocates; past tense: equivocated; past participle: equivocated; gerund or present participle: equivocating

1. 
   
   
   
   
   use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Well, you are obviously above my head and soooo much smarter and brilliant than myself. I cannot continue to discuss things with you due to my failure to master the English language and my inability to be logical. You win! Yay! You're the superior one! Yay!

 

[StanJ]

Well, you are obviously above my head and soooo much smarter and brilliant than myself. I cannot continue to discuss things with you due to my failure to master the English language and my inability to be logical. You win! Yay! You're the superior one! Yay!

Sadly condescension like this is the last resort of the refuted.

 

[DogLady19]

Sadly condescension like this is the last resort of the refuted.

Yep. You got me again! I was trying to deceive you one more time but you're just too slick for me! You win! Yay!

 

[River Jordan]

Gen 1:6-8 shows the creation of the water canopy pom. Are you now denying the accuracy of Gen 1?

The loss of that water canopy is depicted in Gen 7:10-12 and it WAS a world wide event.

The water canopy? I know Stan has me on ignore (as he likes to tell everyone), but come on....that has to be one of the worst creationist arguments ever. There are so many problems with it, it'd be hard to know where to start.

None of this is scientific FACT pom, just assertions based on UNOBSERVED geological events and erroneous science.

Seems you've gone over to the dark side?

LOL! So now plate tectonics is "the dark side"? :wacko:

 

[pom2014]

None of this is scientific FACT pom, just assertions based on UNOBSERVED geological events and erroneous science.







Seems you've gone over to the dark side?

The Flood occured in 2348 BC.

2474 BC–2398 BC Golden Age of Ur in Mesopotamia.

Now tell me how can there be a golden age of anything, if Noah and his clan are rebuilding and repopulating the whole of the world, of which Mesopotamia is part of that.

So in 60 short years a whole civilisation was created with a society that saw a golden age?

Not to mention it destroys all of the Eygptian and Indus Valley civilisations that were thriving.

Now either the dates are wrong by scholars of the bible OR the word erets was using the definition region and not world.

1. land, earth
   earth
   whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2. earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. earth (inhabitants)

[*]land

1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)

[*]ground, surface of the earth

1. ground
2. soil

[*](in phrases)

1. people of the land
2. space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
3. level or plain country
4. land of the living
5. end(s) of the earth

[*](almost wholly late in usage)

1. lands, countries 1e

[*]often in contrast to Canaan

The elephant used its trunk to eat. Would we use the first definition? The elephant used its main stem of a tree? Perhaps its torso? Or perhaps it was its large piece of rigid luggage?


a : the main stem of a tree apart from limbs and roots —called also bole

b (1) : the human or animal body apart from the head and appendages : torso (2) : the thorax of an insect

c : the central part of anything; specifically : the shaft of a column or pilaster


2
a (1) : a large rigid piece of luggage used usually for transporting clothing and personal effects (2) : the luggage compartment of an automobile

b (1) : a superstructure over a ship's hatches usually level with the poop deck (2) : the part of the cabin of a boat projecting above the deck (3) : the housing for a centerboard or rudder


3
: proboscis; especially : the long muscular proboscis of the elephant


4
plural : men's shorts worn chiefly for sports <swimming trunks>


5
a : a usually major channel or passage (as a chute or shaft)

b : a circuit between two telephone exchanges for making connections between subscribers; broadly : a usually electronic path over which information is transmitted (as between computer systems)


6
a : the principal channel or main body of a system or part that divides into branches <a nerve trunk> <the trunk of a river>

English is indeed a complex language, but I do not think it is THAT complex.

 

[StanJ]

Yep. You got me again! I was trying to deceive you one more time but you're just too slick for me! You win! Yay!

Like I said...typical.

The Flood occured in 2348 BC.

2474 BC–2398 BC Golden Age of Ur in Mesopotamia.

Does ANYONE have first hand knowledge of this pom? Has it been observed?

I choose to believe what the Word of God says, not science that has NEVER been able to observe and confirm it's own findings, let alone historians.

The time frame from Gen 1 to 7 is about 1600 years so what do you think the world population was at that point?
The world population has grown to it's present state of 7.2 Billion, from 350 Million in 1350. All other stats are estimates.

 

[pom2014]

Stan we have physical proof in cuneiform tablets, relics and human remains.

From Mesopotamia and we have proof from Egypt and the Indus valley. This we cannot deny that people lived and prospered during this time.

Now the Bible doesn't have to be wrong in the account, just humans must either say it happened long before this time or that erets means land or region, not world.

So which is easier to accept as a correction to human thought? The chronology was off or the event was not worldwide?

In neither case does it invalidate God. It, just like the mistaken belief in a geocentric universe, needs to be revised.

 

[DogLady19]

Stan we have physical proof in cuneiform tablets, relics and human remains.

From Mesopotamia and we have proof from Egypt and the Indus valley. This we cannot deny that people lived and prospered during this time.

Now the Bible doesn't have to be wrong in the account, just humans must either say it happened long before this time or that erets means land or region, not world.

So which is easier to accept as a correction to human thought? The chronology was off or the event was not worldwide?

In neither case does it invalidate God. It, just like the mistaken belief in a geocentric universe, needs to be revised.

I agree with you. The corruption in the world had to be pervasive enough to justify flooding the entire world... Which means to me that civilization was well developed... They composed and played music, built intricate cities, they had mastered metallurgy... There were most likely tens of millions in the population, maybe more...

As for whether the entire earth was flooded, I'm not sure. In 2 Peter 2:5, it's reference to the Flood uses the word "world" as "everything on the surface, including its inhabitants"... I've seen some modern translations that say "the KNOWN world" but I'm not sure where they get that idea from. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.

As for the canopy of water, for it to have stayed over the earth for even 10 years, it would have prevented life from ever developing... A "canopy" of water (even if it was only 20 feet thick) would make the earth's temperature above 200 deg. F and/or it would have blocked too much sunlight to sustain life. I think rain occurred even before Adam and Eve left the Garden. In Genesis 2:5 it says that God didn't cause it to rain because there wasn't anyone to tend the vegetation... Once Adam and Eve were made, that problem was solved. I think there was simply 100% humidity (a misting of the earth) that occurred before it rained.

 

[River Jordan]

Now the Bible doesn't have to be wrong in the account, just humans must either say it happened long before this time or that erets means land or region, not world.

Of course. Eretz is also used to describe the Land of Israel. Are our young-earth creationists here are willing to argue that the Land of Israel was the entire globe? :wacko:

 

[pom2014]

I agree with you. The corruption in the world had to be pervasive enough to justify flooding the entire world... Which means to me that civilization was well developed... They composed and played music, built intricate cities, they had mastered metallurgy... There were most likely tens of millions in the population, maybe more...

As for whether the entire earth was flooded, I'm not sure. In 2 Peter 2:5, it's reference to the Flood uses the word "world" as "everything on the surface, including its inhabitants"... I've seen some modern translations that say "the KNOWN world" but I'm not sure where they get that idea from. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.

As for the canopy of water, for it to have stayed over the earth for even 10 years, it would have prevented life from ever developing... A "canopy" of water (even if it was only 20 feet thick) would make the earth's temperature above 200 deg. F and/or it would have blocked too much sunlight to sustain life. I think rain occurred even before Adam and Eve left the Garden. In Genesis 2:5 it says that God didn't cause it to rain because there wasn't anyone to tend the vegetation... Once Adam and Eve were made, that problem was solved. I think there was simply 100% humidity (a misting of the earth) that occurred before it rained.

The source is simply logic.

The whole glove could not have been covered and still propagate the civilisations that we have physical evidence of at the exact same time.

Further we can even look at scripture to know that it is not true, because God cannot force people to sin. And his law said that incest is sin and they would have had to become incestuous to repopulate the world.
God would not do that.

And on a genetic note, there are no semitic gene markers in aboriginal Australians, nor Polynesians or other ethic groups during the time just after Noah.

 

[StanJ]

Stan we have physical proof in cuneiform tablets, relics and human remains.

From Mesopotamia and we have proof from Egypt and the Indus valley. This we cannot deny that people lived and prospered during this time.

Now the Bible doesn't have to be wrong in the account, just humans must either say it happened long before this time or that erets means land or region, not world.

So which is easier to accept as a correction to human thought? The chronology was off or the event was not worldwide?

In neither case does it invalidate God. It, just like the mistaken belief in a geocentric universe, needs to be revised.

Proof of WHAT pom? Proof that know dating technics are accurate? How has that been demonstrated?

Again proof of what?

The Bible is NEVER wrong, but men without faith in it are. Maybe you can actually provide scripture to support your POV?

I don't really care about HUMAN thought, I care about what the Bible teaches and that I faithfully believe it, but as all you are being is nebulous, there really is nothing for me to address pertinently.

I guess it depends on what you connote geocentric to be? As there is NO proof of life anywhere in our history of exploring the cosmos, why wouldn't the earth be considered the center of the universe as far as man can tell? Do we know where it ends or where we are in relational to it's overall dimensions? As far as I'm concerned, given what the Bible does teach, we are the center of the universe.
Nothing invalidates God, including your own misconceptions.

As for the canopy of water, for it to have stayed over the earth for even 10 years, it would have prevented life from ever developing... A "canopy" of water (even if it was only 20 feet thick) would make the earth's temperature above 200 deg. F and/or it would have blocked too much sunlight to sustain life. I think rain occurred even before Adam and Eve left the Garden. In Genesis 2:5 it says that God didn't cause it to rain because there wasn't anyone to tend the vegetation... Once Adam and Eve were made, that problem was solved. I think there was simply 100% humidity (a misting of the earth) that occurred before it rained.

Well I'd like you to actually cite where this opinion comes from as IMO the reason men lived so long early on was because of the temperate nature of the world given that is was a perpetual rain forest. The water filtered all the harmful rays from the sun and diffused the rest. Are you purporting that the bottom of the oceans are hotter than the top and that there is no life down there?
Actually rain didn't occur until the flood, which is why people laughed at Noah when he warned them it would rain. Gen 2:5-6

 

[River Jordan]

Sheesh.....it's almost like these young earth creationists are just blindly believing things without thinking about them on an even basic level.

If there was a canopy of water above the earth, in order for it to remain in place and not dissipate into space, it would have to be close enough to be affected by the earth's gravity. And if it's that close, it directly affects atmospheric pressure on the surface of the earth. Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the air in a column extending from the earth's surface up through the atmosphere. The more air in the column, the greater the pressure on the surface. At sea level, it's about 14 pounds per square inch (a one-inch column of air going to the top of the atmosphere weights 14 pounds). This is measured in "atmospheres", where 1 atmosphere = ~14 psi.

Therefore, if we add in a thick canopy of water, the weight of that water adds to the pressure. Let's estimate about 5 km of water in this canopy (we have to flood the entire earth....if anyone has a better number, let me know). So with this canopy in place, the pressure at the surface of the earth would be the 14 pounds, plus the weight of the water in the canopy. IOW, it would be like being 5 km deep in the ocean. We know that each 10 m we descend into the ocean adds one atmosphere of pressure. So at 5 km, the pressure would be 500 atmospheres.

But wait....water under that much pressure doesn't stay in vapor form; it condenses into liquid, and being within the gravitational pull of earth that water would immediately fall to the surface. So how could it stay in the canopy? We would have to raise the earth's temperature to where the boiling point of water is at 500 atmospheres. Let's just say, that's crazy hot, and pretty much everything on earth would have been poached.

Christians need to stop making such ridiculous arguments in the name of our faith.

 

[DogLady19]

The source is simply logic.

The whole glove could not have been covered and still propagate the civilisations that we have physical evidence of at the exact same time.

Further we can even look at scripture to know that it is not true, because God cannot force people to sin. And his law said that incest is sin and they would have had to become incestuous to repopulate the world.
God would not do that.

And on a genetic note, there are no semitic gene markers in aboriginal Australians, nor Polynesians or other ethic groups during the time just after Noah.

First off, Mosaic law prohibits specific types of incest, not ALL incest. By the time Moses came on to the scene, human DNA had a chance to become corrupt with disease and genetic abnormalities... Adam and Eve's DNA was perfectly pure, so incest would not have caused any problems in subsequent generations up to a certain point. But from the beginning of Adam and Eve's line, it was always taboo for parents and children or pairs of siblings to propagate...

God had a serious problem with Noah's daughters committing incest with him, but it did happen, and God blessed the descendants anyways because He doesn't go back on His promises.

I would like to see that study that shows Polynesians and Aborigines have no Semitic DNA just after the flood. Please provide a link.

Sheesh.....it's almost like these young earth creationists are just blindly believing things without thinking about them on an even basic level.

...
Christians need to stop making such ridiculous arguments in the name of our faith.

I agree 100% with your view on this, and the science you cited is how I understand the physics of having all of the antediluvian water in a canopy above the earth...

But young earthers might all be Christians, but not all Christians are young earthers... please don't stereotype. Young earthers are a very small radical (and gullible, IMO) group of Christians...

 

[River Jordan]

I agree 100% with your view on this, and the science you cited is how I understand the physics of having all of the antediluvian water in a canopy above the earth...

The sad thing is, it's not even really complicated. It's just basic math.

But young earthers might all be Christians, but not all Christians are young earthers... please don't stereotype. Young earthers are a very small radical (and gullible, IMO) group of Christians...

That's why my comment was specifically about the subset of Christians making these goofy arguments.