Scientists Question Darwinism

[Stripe]

Are you assuming that the coastal hills will survive the "rocknami" before the tsunami hits?

This isn't about coastal hills. It's about water covering "all the high mountains."

Behind the rocknami comes the tsunami, as slower but still really deadly water waves scour the remnants of what was civilization from the surface of the Earth and carry it out to sea.

You expect the ark to survive this?

 

[Derf]

Actually "yom", which as you know, can mean various things. Early Christians had no problem with taking Genesis as it is. The modern revision of YE creationism is no older than the last century. So accepting as it is, a figurative account, has been going on for a very long time.

You mean like this early Christian?

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, we must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names ......................... St. Ephraim the Syrian - Commentary on Genesis I

I don't think it's a good idea to call God's use of parables and allegories, "fanciful."

That's what a parable is (from Merriam-Webster.com):
Definition of parable
: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle

Are you saying it is less appropriate to call God's USE of parables and allegories fanciful than it is to call God's non-use of them fanciful?

Christians 1600 years ago, didn't even know what evolution is. So that's really not a reasonable objection.

And there were certainly "current" scientific theories back then. All ages have their "current" scientific theories. The point is that if the bible has to support all scientific theories from all the ages (which, as you've pointed out so adroitly, is contradictory over time), the bible is worthless as a purveyor of truth. Any truth will do for it.

That is how the modern doctrine of YE creationism was invented by people;to make it fit what they'd like to believe the truth to be.

Let's go back to that quote above. Ephraim the Syrian lived in the 300's AD. So if the modern doctrine of YE creationism is so offensive to you, what about the more ancient doctrine of YE creationism?

No. God makes it clear how He will decide on your eternal home, and what you think of the way He created things, is not one of the ways. You can be a YE creationist, and be saved as easily as any other Christian, so long as you don't make an idol of it.

I agree, it's not about accepting what God says happened in the beginning; rather the big test seems to be whether we will accept what God says about Jesus Christ, though the two things since incontrovertibly entwined.

Why do you keep bringing this point up, if we're trying to come to the truth of a matter in these discussions? It makes it sound like you have nothing more to say, you find that you have no leg to stand on, and you still want to justify your incorrect stance. ...Just saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean like this early Christian?

(writer dissenting from Augustine's work)

There are still some Christians who believe as he does. But even then, they were in the minority.

(Barbarian objects to calling Jesus' parbles "fanciful")

That's what a parable is (from Merriam-Webster.com):
Definition of parable
: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle[/quote[

No "fanciful" there. Do you have anything that actually supports your POV?

Are you saying it is less appropriate to call God's USE of parables and allegories fanciful than it is to call God's non-use of them fanciful?

I think you'd be mistaken to call either of those "fanciful." Why would you do that?

[quote[And there were certainly "current" scientific theories back then.

Not very common, particularly in late Roman times. There were some, hundreds of years before, who actually produced theories in the sense scientific theories, but I can't think of one in Augustine's time.

All ages have their "current" scientific theories.

No. Scientific methodology was pretty much centered in the Ionian Greek colonies, with people like Aristotle and Democritus, until the early middle ages, when Arab and African scientists like Ibn Al-Haytham rediscovered and refined it. It came to Europe mostly due to the work of Roger Bacon, who further refined and developed the methodology of theories.

The point is that if the bible has to support all scientific theories from all the ages

If you're seeking scientific knowlege from the Bible, you're missing His message.

Let's go back to that quote above. Ephraim the Syrian lived in the 300's AD. So if the modern doctrine of YE creationism is so offensive to you, what about the more ancient doctrine of YE creationism?

That was mere literalism. YE creationism was invented in the 20th century by Seventh-Day Adventists. Until that time, most Christian creationists were old Earth creationists.

I agree, it's not about accepting what God says happened in the beginning; rather the big test seems to be whether we will accept what God says about Jesus Christ, though the two things since incontrovertibly entwined.

No. Even if you're a YE creationist, you are still a Christian and your salvation is not at risk, unless you make an idol of YE. Jesus tells you in Matthew 25 how He will decide your eternal home. That's all you need to worry about.

Why do you keep bringing this point up,

Because that's what God is telling us.

if we're trying to come to the truth of a matter in these discussions?

Because He said it, and it's true.

It makes it sound like you have nothing more to say,

Creativity and imagination isn't really a good idea with God's word. Let Him be God, and it won't bother you any more.

 

[aikido7]

I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours. And that the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane. A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it but if you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.

But remember, Genesis says nothing about days are years.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

But remember, Genesis says nothing about days are years.

The term in Hebrew referred to a time period, the period was normally intuited from the context. The same term would be used for both days and years depending on context. There was a lot of flexibility built into how the language used time it seems.

Various interpretations of the six-day creation trying to make it all make sense have come down to these main ones:
- Six sequential days
- Six nonsequential days with an unknown period of times between the days.
- Six time periods of unknown length but likely geologic.

The same term that is used in Hebrew could apply to all of these.

Some of the days include the phrasing the morning and the evening or something like that implying that one at least was an actual day.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You expect the ark to survive this?

You do realize that is also one of the objections to the HPT?

 

[Right Divider]

The term in Hebrew referred to a time period, the period was normally intuited from the context. The same term would be used for both days and years depending on context. There was a lot of flexibility built into how the language used time it seems.

Various interpretations of the six-day creation trying to make it all make sense have come down to these main ones:
- Six sequential days
- Six nonsequential days with an unknown period of times between the days.
- Six time periods of unknown length but likely geologic.

The same term that is used in Hebrew could apply to all of these.

Some of the days include the phrasing the morning and the evening or something like that implying that one at least was an actual day.

Actually ALL SIX of the days of creation include that.

Gen_1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.​

Gen_1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

Gen_1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.​

Gen_1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

Gen_1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

Gen_1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Interesting, but not compelling.

It's compelling refutation of your assertion of "zero" evidence.

Yes, it is a refutation of my assertion that there is "zero" evidence of supercritical water under the crust of the earth.

However, it is not compelling evidence that the expanse that God called sky (firmament called heaven)

See, here's your problem. You see the word "Heaven" and immediately think "home in the clouds, golden paved roads." It's called begging the question.

And then you use circular reasoning to show that the sky is called "the firmament called Heaven."

Nowhere does it state that "Heaven" is in the sky, nor does the Bible state that there was a second heaven created.

in Genesis is really the crust of the earth.
Nor is it compelling evidence that the flood was caused by supercritical water instead of meteor impacts.

It is more likely that the supercritical water formed after the flood than that supercritical water was the cause of the flood.

Wouldn't happen.

Supercritical water formation happens only under extreme pressures and temperatures.

About SCW:

Spoiler 2. Temperatures increase with depth inside the Earth. Subterranean water about 60 miles below the Earth’s surface would have been extremely hot. Wouldn’t all life on Earth have been scalded if that water flooded the Earth? No. Today’s geothermal heat is a result of the flood. Let’s first understand what made the subterranean water hot—tidal pumping that produced supercritical water (SCW)—a very high-energy, explosive form of water discovered in 1822.50(Besides, the expanding fountains of the great deep became very cold. See "Rocket Science" on pages 598–599.) Tidal Pumping.51 Tides in the subterranean water lifted and lowered the massive crust twice daily, stretching and compressing the pillars, thereby generating heat and raising the temperature of the subterranean-water. As quartz and certain other minerals dissolved, this hot, high-pressure water increasingly contained the ingredients that would later produce limestone (CaCO3), salt (NaCl), other forms of quartz (SiO2). In a few chapters, you will see why, after the flood, this dissolved quartz petrified some wood and cemented loose flood sediments into sedimentary rocks. SCW. At a pressure of one atmosphere—about 1.01 bar or 14.7 psi (pounds per square inch)—water boils at a temperature slightly above 212°F (100°C). As pressure increases, the boiling point rises. At a pressure of 3,200 psi (220.6 bars) the boiling temperature is 705°F (374°C). Above this pressure-temperature combination, called the critical point, water is supercritical and cannot boil! Nor will any amount of pressure liquefy the water vapor! The pressure in the 60-mile-deep subterranean chamber, simply due to the weight of the crust, was about 372,000 psi (25,550 bars)—far above the critical pressure. As the denser and thicker portions of the crust sagged in places and settled to the chamber floor, it lost potential energy which was gained as heat by the subterranean water. That water then became supercritical, exceeding 705°F and to a degree ionized.52 [See Figures 239-240 on pages 486-487.] SCW can dissolve much more salt (NaCl) per unit volume than normal water—up to 840°F (450°C). At higher temperatures, all salt precipitates (out-salts).53 In a few pages, this fact will show why our oceans have so much salt, and how salt domes formed. SCW consists of microscopic liquid droplets dispersed within very dense water vapor. Hot droplets cool primarily by evaporation from their surfaces.54 The cooling rate is proportional to their total surface area. The smaller a droplet, the larger its surface area is relative to its volume, so more of its heat can be quickly transferred to its surroundings. Liquid droplets in SCW have an area-to-volume ratio that is a trillion (1012) times greater than that of the flood water that covered the Earth’s surface. Consequently, the liquid in SCW cools almost instantly if its pressure drops, because the myriad of shimmering liquid droplets, each surrounded by vapor, can simultaneously evaporate.55 A typical SCW droplet at 300 bars and 716°F (380°C) consists of 5–10 molecules. These droplets evaporate, break up, and reform rapidly and continually.56 This explains how the escaping supercritical liquid transferred its energy into supercritical vapor. How did the vapor lose its energy and cool? Rapid expansion. A remarkable characteristic of supercritical fluids is that a small decrease in pressure produces a gigantic increase in volume—and cooling. So, as the SCW flowed toward the base of the rupture, its pressure dropped and the vapor portion expanded and cooled to an extreme extent. [See “Rocket Science” on page 598.] As it expanded, it pushed on the surrounding fluid (gas and liquid), giving all fluid downstream ever increasing kinetic energy. As the horizontally flowing liquid-gas mixture began to flow upward through the rupture, the pressure steadily dropped in each bundle of supercritical fluid. This released its electrical ionization energy, and some of each liquid droplet evaporated to become vapor. Within seconds, portions of the flow rose above the atmosphere where the pressure was almost zero. This 10,000-fold expansion was a weeks-long, focused explosion of indescribable magnitude—“splitting” the atmosphere and accelerating much of the water, along with rock and dirt, into the vacuum of space.57 In summary, as the flood began, SCW jetted up through a globe-encircling rupture in the crust—as from a ruptured pressure cooker. This huge acceleration expanded the spacing between water molecules, allowing flash evaporation, sudden and extreme cooling, followed by even greater expansion, acceleration, and cooling. Therefore, most of the vast thermal, electrical, chemical, and surface energy58 in the subterranean water ended up not as heat at the earth’s surface but as extreme kinetic energy in all the fountains of the great deep. As you will see, these velocities were high enough to launch rocks into outer space—the final dumping ground for most of the energy in the SCW. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html#wp35150998

There is only one firmament.

I have shown you that there are two firmaments. Why do you keep disagreeing with the Bible?

"firmament of the heavens"
"firmament called Heaven"

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day. - Genesis 1:6-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:6-13&version=NKJV

Again, GO, my question for you on the above passage:

Why did God not call what He had done "good" at the end of the second day?

The expanse (firmament) called the sky (heaven) is the expanse (firmament) of the skies (heavens).

There is no scripture that says that.

But I'll bite...

If what you say is true, that "the firmament called Heaven" is the same firmament "of the heavens", then I ask you this:

Where are "the waters above the firmament," if the firmament is the sky?

When you use unambiguous translations of the words, it makes it harder to get confused.

And yet, you seem to be using ambiguous translations of the words.

"Raqiyah/raqia" simply means "expanse" or "something pounded out."

It has no inherent meaning of sky or earth.

We know for sure about two of the largest impacts and that there were many more in addition to those two.

So, at least two meteorites, then?

Good, so that's the number then. Now, how big? And where?

The meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs is assumed to be 65 million years ago, which marks the separation of the Cretaceous and Paleocene time periods.
That means that the meteor struck Earth during the flood.

The Impact That Wiped Out the Dinosaurs :blabla:

So... Now you're saying that the flood happened 65 million years ago???

Because THAT totally makes sense. :kookoo:

:mock:

A larger meteor strike is assumed to have happened 3.5 billion years ago, putting it in the Precambrian time period.
That means that the meteor struck the Earth at the beginning of the flood.

Massive Asteroid Hit Earth 3.5 Billion Years Ago, Dwarfing One That Killed The Dinosaurs :blabla:

And now you're saying that the flood lasted at least 3.4 billion years?

The physical evidence of the meteor strikes that caused the flood is there to be seen, even if the scriptures did not specifically state that meteors caused the flood.
It appears that there were at least 71 impacts that happened during the year of the flood.

So now you're saying there were 71 meteors? Where'd they hit, and how big were they?

The size of the two mentioned above (the one that hit during the Precambrian and the one that hit at the end of the Cretaceous) would have destroyed all life on the earth with earthquakes and tsunamis.

Did Meteors Trigger Noah’s Flood? :blabla:

So far in your explanation, we have (according to you) a flood that lasted over 3.4 billion years, caused by 71 (73?) meteorites, two of which are supposed to have wiped out or at least been capable of wiping out all life on earth, and you think that Noah and his family somehow survived all that time.

Did I get that right?

:kookoo:

(After slowly making my way through your post, responding to what needs to responded to, it appears that this is not what you believe. If this is so, please ignore the above)

Not really.
Your claims rely upon a deliberate misinterpretation of "firmament".

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I have shown you the Hebrew word used and what it means, and I have shown you clearly how there are two firmaments, not just one.

God never called the firmament "earth" or "dry land".

Never said He did.

I said that He called the firmament that divided the waters above from the waters below "Heaven." That is EXACTLY what scripture states.

He then made the dry land to appear, and called the dry land "Earth."

And it was ONLY AT THAT POINT that God called what He had made good.

The firmament is the sky.

No, "the firmament of the heavens" is the sky.

"The firmament called Heaven" is continental crust, dividing the waters above (which became the Seas) from the waters below (also called "the Deep")

The firmament always refers to the sky.
The firmament is never the land.

Once again, saying it doesn't make it so.

You can repeat yourself all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

"The firmament of the heavens" is the sky, space.

"The firmament called Heaven" is the continental crust, which divided the waters above from the waters below.

I believe that the secular evidence of the flood has been misinterpreted as taking place over millions and billions of years.
There is secular evidence of the meteor strikes that caused the flood, but the times of the impacts have been misassigned to millions and billions of years instead of putting them during the flood when they happened.

So, tell me, where did these meteors come from?

I assume that the firmament refers to the sky because that is what the Bible states.

Scripture please.

Because it doesn't state that.

I understand your position,

No, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't make the following statement.

but I cannot accept the claims that the "sky" is really the "crust of the earth".

This is what happens when you question beg.

You end up misunderstanding my position, and then you end up misrepresenting my position.

My CLAIM is that God made the crust of the earth to divide the waters above from the waters below, and that the waters above are not above the sky (which is the natural conclusion of your position).

My CLAIM is that what you keep referring to as one thing is actually two DIFFERENT things.

My CLAIM is that the sky is not the earth, and that God refers to BOTH in Genesis, one literally and one figuratively.

My CLAIM is that scripture never calls "the firmament of the heavens" Earth, and the scripture never calls "the firmament called Heaven" the sky, because they are two different things.

My CLAIM is that "firmament of the heavens" is figurative, and the "firmament called Heaven" is literal.

That is nice, but I will go with Paul's claim that he knew a man that went to the third heaven.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

The first heaven is the atmosphere, the second heaven would be space, and the third heaven would be where God's throne is.
The earth is never called heaven.

You've forgotten that the meaning and connotation of a word can and do change over time.

"Heaven" (in Paul's time, and still even today) has the connotation of being somewhere above us, above the earth, not on this earth.

The MEANING has remained mostly the same, however.

"Heaven" today means "a place regarded in various religions as the abode of God (or the gods) and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the sky."

Did God dwell on Earth after the six days of creation? or did God dwell somewhere else?

[/QUOTE]Yes, God created an expanse in the midst of the waters and called it the sky.[/QUOTE]

Once again, your position raises the question, "Where are the waters "above the 'sky'? In space?"

Once again, we see the sky being called "the expanse of the skies".

Uh, no, there is no word "skies" in that verse.

I said, "we see the sky being called "the firmament of the heavens", and not "the firmament called Heaven," and not "the firmament.""

"The expanse of the heavens" IS NOT "the expanse (called Heaven)"

The former is figurative, the latter is literal.

H7549 - raqiya` רָקִיעַ, translated as firmament, is always overhead, it is never under foot.

Spoiler

Ezekiel 1:22-26 22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. 24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. 25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.​

Not so.

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. - Psalm 19:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm19:1&version=NKJV

In this verse, David is contrasting "the heavens" (hassamayim) with "the firmament" (haraqia).

Which means that they don't always refer to the same thing.

God "raqa" the "raqia" in the midst of the waters.

I am not assuming that the high mountains were completely under water for the entire time.
I am assuming that tsunami after tsunami would crash into the high mountains and wash over them.
I believe this fits the description of "the waters prevailed exceedingly" better than any other explanation.

Genesis 7:19-20 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.​

"I am assuming"
"I believe"

Both are phrases that indicate opinion.

Injecting your opinion into scripture leads to errors.

You do realize that is also one of the objections to the HPT?

What specifically is the objection?

 

[genuineoriginal]

See, here's your problem. You see the word "Heaven" and immediately think "home in the clouds, golden paved roads." It's called begging the question.

No, I understand that the KJV translates the word "שָׁמַיִם" as "heaven(s)" 398 times and "air" 21 times.
Unless the word is used in a verse that is speaking about the abode of God, I see the word "heaven" and immediately think "sky".

Genesis 1:8 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

Heaven h8064 שָׁמַיִם shamayim heaven, heavens, sky visible heavens, sky as abode of the stars as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc Heaven (as the abode of God)

​

Nowhere does it state that "Heaven" is in the sky

"Heaven" is the "sky".
Do you need a better translation?

Genesis 1:8 CJB 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.​

nor does the Bible state that there was a second heaven created.

If there is no second heaven, then why does the Bible talk about God creating the heavens (plural) and a man being caught up to the third heaven?

2 Corinthians 12:2 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.​

I have shown you that there are two firmaments. Why do you keep disagreeing with the Bible?

"firmament of the heavens"
"firmament called Heaven"

I am not disagreeing with the Bible, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible since it does not fit with what the Bible actually says.

If what you say is true, that "the firmament called Heaven" is the same firmament "of the heavens", then I ask you this:

Where are "the waters above the firmament," if the firmament is the sky?

When it rains, does the water fall down through the sky?

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I have shown you the Hebrew word used and what it means, and I have shown you clearly how there are two firmaments, not just one.

As you have said: "Saying it doesn't make it so."
The Bible speaks of one firmament, not two and more than one sky (heaven, heavens, third heaven).
The one firmament called "sky" is the firmament of the skies.

I said that He called the firmament that divided the waters above from the waters below "Heaven." That is EXACTLY what scripture states.

He then made the dry land to appear, and called the dry land "Earth."

God separated the waters and created the sky on the second day and then God brought out the dry land from the waters under the sky on the third day.

Genesis 1:6-10 6 God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” 7 God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day. 9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let dry land appear,” and that is how it was. 10 God called the dry land Earth, the gathering together of the water he called Seas, and God saw that it was good.​

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. - Psalm 19:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm19:1&version=NKJV

In this verse, David is contrasting "the heavens" (hassamayim) with "the firmament" (haraqia).

Which means that they don't always refer to the same thing.

Actually, they do refer to the same thing, which is why David used repetition to say the same thing with different phrasing.

Psalm 19:1 CJB 2 (1) The heavens declare the glory of God, the dome of the sky speaks the work of his hands.​

Injecting your opinion into scripture leads to errors.

You could stop doing that.

 

[Stripe]

You do realize that is also one of the objections to the HPT?

1. This is unresponsive.
2. This is a logical fallacy, ie, tu quoque.
3. We have a reasonable answer to this potential objection.
4. The point is, no tsunami, no matter how big, would ever cross a continent.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The point is, no tsunami, no matter how big, would ever cross a continent.

No single tsunami would.
However, the flood was caused by multiple meteor strikes which pierced the crust and entered the mantle, and caused multiple mega-tsunamis that were the flood.

 

[Stripe]

No single tsunami would.

There's no such thing as a single tsunami. You can't cover the world in water using waves.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You can't cover the world in water using waves.

I can't do that, but God did it during the time of Noah.
That is what is described by the "waters prevailed exceedingly"

Genesis 7:18-24 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.​

 

[Stripe]

God did it during the time of Noah.

This is the fallacy of begging the question.

If God covered the Earth using waves, He would have had to sustain the waves, as physics would not allow them to make any significant progress inland.

Are you asserting miraculous waves?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is the fallacy of begging the question.

If God covered the Earth using waves, He would have had to sustain the waves, as physics would not allow them to make any significant progress inland.

Are you asserting miraculous waves?

He's asserting miraculous meteors.

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5322267

I wouldn't put it past him to also assert miraculous waves.

 

[Derf]

(writer dissenting from Augustine's work)

There are still some Christians who believe as he does. But even then, they were in the minority.

Being in the minority isn't the same as "no older than the last century".

But there were others. What do you think about this statement:
"They are deceived, too, by those highly
mendacious documents, which profess to give the
history of many thousand years, though, reckoning
by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years
have yet passed."

It was written by Augustine--one of those early YE'ers, the scoundrels.

No doubt you'll just say he was dissenting against his own work.

No. Scientific methodology was pretty much centered in the Ionian Greek colonies, with people like Aristotle and Democritus, until the early middle ages, when Arab and African scientists like Ibn Al-Haytham rediscovered and refined it. It came to Europe mostly due to the work of Roger Bacon, who further refined and developed the methodology of theories.

If you're seeking scientific knowlege from the Bible, you're missing His message.

That's pretty funny, considering "science" means "knowledge", and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7). Here are a few verses that link a fear of God with knowledge or wisdom:
[Pro 1:7 NKJV] The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge, [But] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
[Pro 1:29 NKJV] Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD,
[Pro 9:10 NKJV] "The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One [is] understanding.
[Isa 11:2 NKJV] The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

That was mere literalism. YE creationism was invented in the 20th century by Seventh-Day Adventists. Until that time, most Christian creationists were old Earth creationists.

What do you think the modern creationism movement is all about? It's about reading the bible literally. Whether it started with the seventh day adventists or not, the whole point is that if we can glean knowledge from the source of truth and knowledge, that knowledge is not going to mislead us. We might have trouble interpreting what God is saying, but often that's because we are trying to stuff our own understanding into the bible's words.

No. Even if you're a YE creationist, you are still a Christian and your salvation is not at risk, unless you make an idol of YE. Jesus tells you in Matthew 25 how He will decide your eternal home. That's all you need to worry about.

Again, because we trust God's word to reveal truth to us, we can trust that Jesus Christ saves by His death and resurrection. But He also instructs and commands us to abide in Him and have His words abide in us. This is knowledge. He gives it. If we allegorize His words to say something other than what He is trying to say, we prevent people from hearing truth. The same applies to the beginning of sin, and the beginning of the world. If these are truths God is trying to tell us literally, then we destroy His message by making them out to say something different.

Because that's what God is telling us.

It's so odd that you are willing to say this about one thing God is telling us, but not willing to say it (even deny it) about something else God tells us.

Because He said it, and it's true.

Did He not say to Adam, "Don't eat of that tree or you will die"? Isn't it confirmed truth because He said it? Or are you really saying that you know better than God what He said, what He did, and how He did it?

Creativity and imagination isn't really a good idea with God's word. Let Him be God, and it won't bother you any more.

Funny, that should apply to the whole of God's revelation, don't you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

Being in the minority isn't the same as "no older than the last century".

YE creationism is much more than imagining a world only a few thousand years old.

But there were others. What do you think about this statement:

Augustine's rejection of an eternal Earth as the Pagans supposed it to be?
"They are deceived, too, by those highly
mendacious documents, which profess to give the
history of many thousand years, though, reckoning
by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years
have yet passed."

Augustine's reasoning was sound as far as an eternal Earth was concerned. He knew that was impossible. Since he had no evidence as far as the age of the Earth was concerned, he supposed that Genesis, although figurative, did not rule out a 5,000 year-old Earth. However, he did leave us this:
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. – Genesi Ad Litteram

It was written by Augustine--one of those early YE'ers, the scoundrels.

Seems as though he's an entirely orthodox Christian, when you understand what he was getting at.

No doubt you'll just say he was dissenting against his own work.

I've actually read him. He's remarkably sensible and even modest. But it help if you know what the quotes are about.

Here's another:
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
ibid

What do you think the modern creationism movement is all about?

That's a great question. It's about a search for certainty. For simple instructions that can't be misunderstood or cause any confusion or searching. And that's not totally wrong. Jesus said you must, as a child say "Abba" (daddy). Literalism is a consequence of that search. In that new religious movement, there's the claim that it's all simple and direct in all things.

Matthew 13:10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?

[11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. [12] For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. [13] Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. [15] For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

So there are things that God reveals to some, but not to all. And yet, salvation is simple.

Jesus, on one hand says "Here, it's really not hard; there are two great commandments, and everything else hangs on them. Do that. Follow the example of a Samaritan, if he has charity, and shun the learned Levite, if he has not. For what you do for the least of these among you, is done for me, and that will decide where you spend eternity."

On the other hand, he's speaking in parables, deliberately obscuring things from most people, and requiring his disciples to puzzle through them and learn. And much of scripture is like that.

Coming to terms with the "matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision" as St. Augustine described them, is a difficult thing. The key, I think, is that theology won't save you. But loving God and your neighbor will.

It's about reading the bible literally. Whether it started with the seventh day adventists or not, the whole point is that if we can glean knowledge from the source of truth and knowledge, that knowledge is not going to mislead us.

But we can mislead ourselves. That was Augustine's point about "reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture" who do much harm, thereby. When someone makes careless claims about scripture, it is often heard by unbelievers who know better, and they may wrongly assume that the reckless expounder is expressing essential Christian faith.

We might have trouble interpreting what God is saying, but often that's because we are trying to stuff our own understanding into the bible's words.

Yes. And that is the real damage that YE creationism does. It won't send you to hell; God does not care what you think of the way He created things. He cares that you love Him and other people, and act on it. But YE lays stumbling blocks in the way of others who might otherwise come to Him. And that is a serious matter, even if you're innocent in your intentions.

It's so odd that you are willing to say this about one thing God is telling us, but not willing to say it (even deny it) about something else God tells us.

We disagree on some of what scripture says,

Did He not say to Adam, "Don't eat of that tree or you will die"?

No. He said:
Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

"In what day soever though shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it's not a physical death God was speaking of. Indeed, Adam was not immortal. After the Fall, God even expresses concern that Adam might become so.

Isn't it confirmed truth because He said it?

Yes, it is. And the serpent undermines this with Eve, by saying "you won't die; your eyes will be open and you'll know good and evil." And when she eats and has Adam eat, the serpent was right - partially. Their eyes are open, and they don't die physically. But they die a different death, which is spiritual, not physical. Satan is most effective at deception by speaking part of the truth.

Or are you really saying that you know better than God what He said, what He did, and how He did it?

I'm just accepting it His way to the very best of my ability. So, I suppose, are you. It's not a subject that will send you to hell, if you don't get this right.

He is a loving and caring God after all. And that's what he wants from you. Go and do likewise.

 

[Stripe]

[YEC is] about a search for certainty. For simple instructions that can't be misunderstood or cause any confusion or searching.

Nope. Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Bible plainly teaches six days of creation about 6,000 years ago.

Your two-cent psychoanalysis is spawned from your own insecurities.

If you were prepared to engage over what people say, rather than on what you wish they would say, there might be a chance at a sensible conversation.

As it is, we have to put up with you regurgitating the same nonsense.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What do you think the modern creationism movement is all about? It's about reading the bible literally.

Here is something to consider:

"Of the origin of our world the first chapter of Genesis tells us nothing save that 'in the beginning,' whenever that was, God 'created' it. It may be, as Tyndall said in his Belfast address, that 'for eons embracing untold millions of years, this earth has been the theatre of life and death.' But as to this the 'Mosaic narrative' is silent. It deals merely with the renewing and refurnishing of our planet as a home for man" (Sir Robert Anderson, A DOUBTER'S DOUBTS about science and religion).​

 

[Stripe]

Of the origin of our world the first chapter of Genesis tells us nothing save that 'in the beginning,' whenever that was, God 'created' it.

It says a lot more than that. For instance, it says it took six days.