 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
dtgrant |
Quote The Bard:
| Quote: | Ok.
So, stop lobbing the dishonest implication that those who do not hold your opinion are those who do not "believe Genesis as written," or else who do not hold Scripture as either authoritative or inerrant or true.
And stop twisting and misrepresenting others' words, as you have done to Travis (and then claiming you didn't do so).
... whichever one of you is actually doing so.
Until and unless those things cease, it is what it is.
And what it is is dishonesty. |
NO, IT IS NOT Ok for you to accuse people of being LIARS.
Using the imaginations of your own mind to twist and misrepresent our views is not acceptable.
Others have chosen to make personal attacks against us.
But you, The Bard, made a conscious decision to call us LIARS.
It is incumbent that you provide FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your ACCUSATION that we, donnie & terri grant, are LIARS.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/22/13 7:11 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Poimen |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Frankly, I don't see what the hubbub is about between Travis and the grants. It seems to me that Travis is saying that it just won't work with a skeptic to say "The Bible says..."
It seems to me that the grants are saying, "Why not say to a skeptic that 'The Bible says...' because that is the only authoritative account of creation." |
I agree. I think it may simply be a misunderstanding of what each the other is saying.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| dolfan wrote: | Hey, Poimen,
This is my first post here, but I have been following for quite a while.
I posed this question to someone else recently, with no response so far. So I will pose it here.
In Genesis 1, the sun is not created until the fourth creation day. Since the sun is responsible for the speed of the earth's rotation being maintained, and since a day is 24 hours as measured by full rotations of the earth in relation to the sun, and also constituting a known fraction of the solar orbit, how can we say that a Genesis "yom" equals 24 hours prior to day 4?
There may well be a perfectly good explanation, but I have not heard or read anyone discuss this. |
Welcome to the board!
One thing to note is that plants were created on the third day. If plants needed light, a thousand-year darkness would have killed them. But, maybe the plants were different then, who knows?
Anyway, if the time period of the first 3 days were different from the time period of the rest of the days, that could explain ancient (old earth) geological differences, but not ancient fossils.
Another thing is the pattern of the "sabbath." God rested on the seventh day. The pattern of rest for man is one 24-hour period out of seven. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/22/13 7:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| hey my man! |
Poimen |
| dolfan wrote: | Hey, Poimen,
This is my first post here, but I have been following for quite a while.
I posed this question to someone else recently, with no response so far. So I will pose it here.
In Genesis 1, the sun is not created until the fourth creation day. Since the sun is responsible for the speed of the earth's rotation being maintained, and since a day is 24 hours as measured by full rotations of the earth in relation to the sun, and also constituting a known fraction of the solar orbit, how can we say that a Genesis "yom" equals 24 hours prior to day 4?
There may well be a perfectly good explanation, but I have not heard or read anyone discuss this. |
Welcome friend! Good to have you join in the dialog.
To seek to answer your question ...
The fact that Scripture uses language clearly indicating a typical 24 hour day when describing the days of the creation week gives us enough basis to understand all of those days as corresponding to the passage of time of a literal day (evening and morning) despite any lack of understanding as to how that was so before day four. God's word is enough to establish the time frame (which, to me, goes to the inspiration and authority of Scripture guiding us to the proper conclusion of the text here).
Furthermore, the fact that each day is noted as consisting of night and day (evening and morning) speaks to each day as a literal day. A literal reading simply says there was night and day each day. Even if one is unsure as to how there was night and day, the following days being described the same way in the same passage, regarding the same group of days, leaves us to conclude they were nevertheless literal days with evening and morning somehow.
I do not believe there is any ambiguity there, from a reading of the text itself, as to that conclusion.
Now, as to the somehow (where ambiguity may be argued, IMO), my reading of the text is not so much that it says God created the sun, moon, and stars on day four. He already did that when He created the heaven(s) and earth (on day one). Rather, on day four these became visible in the firmament, and their visible purpose in the firmament was explained.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| My argument, simply stated |
Poimen |
For all the questions one may have (including myself) about things not clearly spelled out in the text(s), a straightforward reading of Genesis chapter one, and the first portion of chapter two (especially when compared with corroborating texts regarding the creation), clearly proclaims that God created the universe in six literal days.
That is my argument, based on the very words and reading of the text alone. I have made it several times already, and I now make it again with no attempt or intent to say anything that is, or could even be construed, as misrepresenting anyone else.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Last edited by Poimen on 8/23/13 3:55 am; edited 2 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| dtgrant wrote: | Nature Boy Florida wrote:
| Quote: | | I hate to say this...but Bard is correct here. |
The previous two posts are concerning The Bard calling us LIARS.
SO, Just asking for clarification (not being accusatory)
The Bard has, WITHOUT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN HIS OWN IMAGINATIONS has called us, donnie & terri grant, LIARS.
Are you saying you agree with the Bard’s accusations that we are LIARS?
(donnie & terri grant) |
No - not calling anyone liars.
Bard is over the top often - and I have asked him to tone it down. He has good ideas - but his presentation is lacking for a message board.
He doesn't take my advice too well. 
Nonetheless, this thread was a good idea. I wish it would stay on track. Probably not surprising that accusations of lying and such are a part of a thread dealing with the creation account - which had distortions of the truth and got us all kicked out of the garden.
Poimen - like I said before - I am young earth for a host of reasons. But you again said a phrase "When I was younger and less established in the word..." - which I do not believe is helpful because it again seems to say - "if you knew as much as I knew now you would agree with me". I don't necessarily agree that is true. I know what I believe - but as I have gotten older I am less inclined to believe I know everything I thought I knew.
I am a life long studier of the creation account - because I believe we have let the world define this thought for us - and they are way off base. For goodness sake - those of us that believe in special creation need to find what we can agree on (and disagree on the rest with a little grace) and not take pot shots at one another.
That's what I want.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/22/13 7:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| perhaps my lack of formal higher education hinders, however |
Poimen |
NBF, the Bard, et al,
I am not saying others with different views than mine regarding creation are not mature or grounded in the word. I was relaying my own experience.
Also, please note I prefaced the term smug with the word "seeming" when referring to the Bard. I wasn't accusing you of being smug, but was trying to say your comments can be perceived that way. Or at least that is what I was trying to say.
Publicly squabbling over all these misunderstandings of one another over more or less side issues only serves to deteriorate the topic. I'm just trying to get us all to move on and move past that, for the good of everyone and the discussion proper.
My apologies for failing in that attempt, to all.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 8:16 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
It's time to abandon this thread and go read! Here's your list:
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box & The Edge of Evolution
Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell & Darwin's Doubt
Now...GO!!! |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/22/13 12:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| philunderwood wrote: | | Quote: | | Reasoning from Scripture, we know that since dinosaurs were land animals, they were made on Day 6 with Adam and they went on the ark with Noah. If they are in fact extinct (there is some intriguing testimony that they just might not be), they went extinct recently |
Now, THAT got my attention. Who is testifying? Where do they live?
I see a business opportunity emerging... Jurassic Tours
But, on the off chance they left recently, becoming extinct, not as a species, but as an entire entity, everywhere, in every type of species, I wish someone had taken pictures. |
Phil, at the risk of jumping the gun (but in lieu of Dr. T's delay and difficulties in posting more frequently) ... I'm pretty sure his use of "recent" is in the context of the evolution vs YEC debate. Recent would mean pertaining to a young earth existence and at least, initially, of coexistence with early man. Recent as in several thousand years compared to several million years or more.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Terri Grant @ Travis Johnson |
dtgrant |
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | 2. The other issue is more aesthetic. Still, I'm having a hard time getting past the representation that you and your wife/husband agree on everything and that you both as a committee write and vet your thoughts in total unanimity and on the fly.
Anyway, I can't make you treat the second observation differently. But, it feels like a fairly repressive posture for either spouse to only be allowed to share opinions that the other spouse agrees with...or to hold the opinion held by the dominant spouse. |
Who/what do you think you are?
This is all Terri, now talking to you Mr. Travis Johnson. Your comments are so over the top and untrue they make me sick to my core. You are very lucky you tried to pull this “little” mind domination game on me now that I am a truly born again Christian lady. If not, you would have deservingly received some un-ladylike comments, probably getting me barred from this board.
How dare you disparage my marriage. Again I must ask you … who do you think you are…You don’t know my past life and my experience within a verbally abusive ex -marriage with a dominant husband.
I suggest you refrain from nonsensical judgments on my marriage and give a little more attention to reading God’s Word and come to clarity regarding what it is you believe. I don’t know how old you are but I think its time for you to get off milk.
(terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/22/13 7:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Not Dr. T obviously ... |
Poimen |
| Troy Hamby wrote: | | Is the Earth as old as the Universe on the whole? If so, are we saying that the entire Universe is 6,000 years old? How does that jive with the widely accepted observation that the Universe is billions of years old. As Wikipedia states: |
Speaking for myself, yes. My understanding of Scripture is that God created the universe (heaven and earth) around 6000 years ago.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Last edited by Poimen on 8/23/13 4:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| Phillip Johnson wrote: | | The fundamentals of radiocarbon dating and radiological half lives are very sound. It is not some hocus pocus used to try to disprove the bible. The understanding of nuclear science is pretty astounding and allows for very precise control of nuclear reactions. Those reactions are not observable, directly, but it is predictable based on the science. Nuclear power would be neither safe nor reliable energy without it. C-14 dating alone is reliable 60k to 80k years. |
Phillip I'm not sure if this article addresses everything you have in mind, but it does seem applicable.
A few select quotes follow:
| Quote: |
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). ...
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old. |
| Quote: | Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.
The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age. |
| Quote: | What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.
If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age. |
| Quote: | | The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years. |
| Quote: | Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.
The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions. |
And ...
| Quote: | All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.
The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history. |
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 8:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| Phillip Johnson wrote: | | Diverging adapting species due to time and some barrier where the species can no longer reproduce with the other pretty much defines evolution. I guess it comes down to how far you are willing to accept that it actually has happened, and how far you believe those species can or have diverged. |
Biblically every kind has a common ancestor each its own, but all kinds do NOT share a common ancestor.
As Ray Comfort recently succinctly put it (more or less, working form memory here) to several leading evolutionary professors when addressing this very question ...
So what you saying is that the adaptation in finches noted by Darwin resulted in more finches? So the adaptation of bacteria resulted in bacteria becoming bacteria? That is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. That is not a change in kind.
See the Evolution vs God video for more.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 8:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Lucifer’s Flood of the ‘Gap Theory’ |
dtgrant |
IF … there were an ‘original’ creation (billions of years ago) in Genesis 1:1 as the Gap Theorizers propose …
AND the earth‘s condition in Genesis 1:2 is the result of ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ (earth without form and void) as the Gap Theorizers propose …
QUESTION …
Why would ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ have not destroyed the ‘billions of years’ of geological layers (and fossils) ?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/24/13 6:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Lucifer’s Flood of the ‘Gap Theory’ |
Travis Johnson |
| dtgrant wrote: | IF … there were an ‘original’ creation (billions of years ago) in Genesis 1:1 as the Gap Theorizers propose …
AND the earth‘s condition in Genesis 1:2 is the result of ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ (earth without form and void) as the Gap Theorizers propose …
QUESTION …
Why would ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ have not destroyed the ‘billions of years’ of geological layers (and fossils) ?
(donnie & terri grant) |
You don't have to believe in a Gap Theory and a Flood and a recreation taking place to explain what transpires between Genesis 1:1-1:3. One can simply take Genesis 1:1-2 at face value and treat it literally as you do with Genesis 1:3. Doing that without filling in the blanks and attempting to complete incomplete sentences is faithful to the Scriptures.
I believe one of the reasons we do t do that is because we're uncomfortable with any ambiguity in the Bible. We're uncomfortable with seeing through glass darkly. We're uncomfortable with not having concreteness. But, we do have a choice offered to us, which is settling into not having answers for everything while being comfortable in Who has the answers.
An interesting thing concerning the first verses of Genesis from the standpoint of a young earth, young man Bible faithful creationist is that the first two verses are treated as some sort of executive summary of the creation timeline. I don't think it's a salvation issue. And I don't think it's being unfaithful to the Scriptures. But, I do think it is not equitable to others to condemn them while at the same time picking and choosing when to interpret Scripture literally and when not to. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7821
8/24/13 10:04 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
| Poimen wrote: | | Phillip Johnson wrote: | | Diverging adapting species due to time and some barrier where the species can no longer reproduce with the other pretty much defines evolution. I guess it comes down to how far you are willing to accept that it actually has happened, and how far you believe those species can or have diverged. |
Biblically every kind has a common ancestor each its own, but all kinds do NOT share a common ancestor.
As Ray Comfort recently succinctly put it (more or less, working form memory here) to several leading evolutionary professors when addressing this very question ...
So what you saying is that the adaptation in finches noted by Darwin resulted in more finches? So the adaptation of bacteria resulted in bacteria becoming bacteria? That is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. That is not a change in kind.
See the Evolution vs God video for more. |
May I offer a recommendation? I wouldn't suggest using Ray Comfort to lend credibility to your scientific opinions. He's not a scientist. Read Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross and many others are credible sources from which to form your view. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/24/13 10:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
philunderwood |
I think EVERYTHING - history, geology, people, stuff and stories that pre-date 1847 is allegory.
_________________
Live an epiK life!
Discover More...
http://www.refocusing.org
A Mission in Formation
www.bluewaterinthekeys.com |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3954
8/24/13 3:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Lucifer’s Flood of the ‘Gap Theory’ |
dtgrant |
Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | | You don't have to believe in a Gap Theory and a Flood and a recreation taking place to explain what transpires between Genesis 1:1-1:3. |
We agree with your above statement. But, your statement does not address our question.
Our question was specifically addressed to the doctrine of the ‘Gap Theory’.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/24/13 8:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
May I offer a recommendation? I wouldn't suggest using Ray Comfort to lend credibility to your scientific opinions. He's not a scientist. Read Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross and many others are credible sources from which to form your view.[/quote]
You may! And I don't, necessarily. I do however listen to him as a fellow minister and believer, and am blessed by his straightforward and simple approach that helps cut through a lot of the peripheral and lay bare the spiritual nature of such issues in the light of the word of truth.
Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations, here and in additional threads as well.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/24/13 8:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| "Lucifer's Flood"... |
Aaron Scott |
I've never heard it called that (though it sounds like Dake's Pre-Adamite existence theory).
However, I would add that a flood would not DESTROY layers...but would likely serve to CREATE them. That is, sediment would be layed down.
One of the strongest things going for evolutionary theory is that fact that the layers of earth are characterized by containing certain life forms...and NOT others. We see a gradual move toward more complex lifeforms the higher we go in the layers.
If we all arrived at the same time, then it is logical to conclude that you could not characterize one layer as having only X type of lifeforms (or perhaps saying it does NOT contain X type of lifeforms). But as it is, these multiple layers are clearly different.
If Noah's flood killed everything and it all got covered over by sediment, you would expect to see all lifeforms (presumably) in the same layer. As it is, it is so unusual that finding some things together in the same strata can lead to claims of trickery or inappropriate science. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/24/13 9:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
