How exactly do strict creationists explain geology?

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by Zipdot

There is no way that megalodon sharks were herbivorous. Please source your arguments. I'm quite familiar with the Bible, and I am not aware of any passages that state that before Noah's flood, all animals ate plants.

Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

This does not mean that the animals did not eat meat, it just said that God gave plants as food to animals.

EDIT: Do you think that megalodon sharks were herbivorous?

Zip

[edit on 6/30/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot

Speaking of dogs in the Bible, here are some weird quotes:

Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, [so] a fool returneth to his folly.
...
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

What were they feeding these dogs?

Proverb 26:11
I think you are missing the point with the 2 verses. God is trying to teach us something. A dog can eat something that it shouldn't and become sick. Once it's in the stomach and the digestive system doesn't like it the dog will vomit it back up. OK you would think the dog would think I just atew this and threw it up so I guess I shouldn't have eaten that. But no, the dog will proceed to eat what it just threw up. He didn't learn anything. That's not a pretty sight to watch either.

A foolish man or woman will do the same thing. They could be involved in something harmful and pay the consequences for it(example-say taking a drug that almost kills them)and you would think the person would say, "I nearly died I better not do that again." But yet there are some who will get out of the hospital and do the same thing. That also is not a pretty sight to watch.

2 Peter2:22
The dog thing is mentioned again because God is trying to emphasize something to us.

The pig thing is you can take a pig and give it the best bath it ever had with soap and shampoo and maybe spray on a little perfume afterwards. That same pig can 2 minutes later find a mud hole and dive in and be completely dirty again. Why because that is in it's nature. The outside of the pig was cleaned up and not the inside. Relate that too people. Without a change of a person's nature on the inside, with the acceptance of Christ as Savior, we will continue to engage in wrong activities and desires.

I know, I was just kidding. Anyway, what do you think about the rest of my posts - the megalodon question and the animal kindness/fright question? You ignored them.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
There is no way that megalodon sharks were herbivorous. Please source your arguments. I'm quite familiar with the Bible, and I am not aware of any passages that state that before Noah's flood, all animals ate plants.

From my other post, God created people and animals as vegeterians. Death entered creation with the sin of Adam and Eve. Before their disobedience there was no death. Death came after their sin. Since I wasn't there I don't know what sea creatures ate before sin entered creation but there was no death until then.

[waving hand in air franticly] OH OH I KNOW THIS ONE ME ME PLEASE ME !!!

I was raised Christian [ugh], the ideology and teaching (then at least, 20+yrs) was that the earth was created with age.

I always asked [them] why with age? It still goes un-answered. Guess it filled in their gap. Hell with it, if it doesn't fit - make it up as ya go.

As for the megalodon not being into herbs, um, has everyone forgotten how damn well rich the ocean is of plant life? Seaweed alone is welll known for inadvertantly creating floating islands of itself literally in the sq. miles of spread.

That's not me defending the Bible or anything, as I am niether Creationist nor Evoloutionist, I'm a dontgiveadamnilist.
Just pointing out a non-mentioned yet very pertinant fact.

Misfit

Seeweed. Right.



If this thing was such a herbivore, then you probably wouldn't mind swimming with it:



Because everyone knows sharks eat plants:



And without original sin, we wouldn't have to worry about this:



By the way, how does that passage go in Genesis, where God made all creatures afraid of humans? I think I quoted it above.

Zip

Originally posted by dbrandt
Since I wasn't there I don't know what sea creatures ate before sin entered creation but there was no death until then.

That's quite a coincidence, the authors of the Bible weren't there, either.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Seeweed. Right.

I did not imply they ate seaweed. I simply brought to forefront the fact that there is vast amounts of plant life to sustain the lives as such creatures as this.

Were all the fish/mammals in the ocean all carnivorous - life as they know it would have killed it all off.

Also - the fact that any given animal is large in size, does not imply it eats only meat. Read about many Dinosaurs?

Misfit

Not a young-earther so i can't help ya, other then some links(sure that's not what your looking for tho).

But as a long time surfer i have to say this pic is so cool.


I assume that's photo-chopped but i still want that poster on my wall...wife would never go for it tho,

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by dbrandt
Since I wasn't there I don't know what sea creatures ate before sin entered creation but there was no death until then.

That's quite a coincidence, the authors of the Bible weren't there, either.

Zip

What I mean is, the verse I quoted before Genesis 1:30 specifically tells us about land creatures, it doesn't mention sea creatures. So we are kind of left without an answer. Death came after sin. So I guess my guess would be sea vegetation. Does it matter right now what sea creatures before the flood ate, not really. It would be kind of neat to know for sure but focusing on that dilema takes your focus off the real message of the Bible, Jesus Christ. So it's cool to throw around ideas about sea creatures and discuss it but lets not get bogged down in it.

As far as the people who physically wrote the Bible, right they weren't there. Some people who did write parts of the Bible saw visions and/or were transported to the future to see it.

But if you are going to believe the Bible, then you believe all of it or you might as well believe none of it. It's not a pick and choose book. I like that part, but I don't like that part so I choose not to believe that part.

So I believe it all. And on the basis of that, the Bible tells us that God inspired the writers of the Bible with what He wanted them to write. Genesis is credited to being written by Moses, so that means God spoke to him as to what to write down.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Anyway, what do you think about the rest of my posts - the megalodon question and the animal kindness/fright question? You ignored them.

Zip

The animal kindness fright thing. Are there wild canines, yes. Wolves, coyotes, dingos etc. Can a dog be wild and dangerous, yes. There have been instances of pet dogs killing adults and kids. Are all dogs wild, no. If you establish a relationship with a puppy and feed it, it trusts you and becomes used to you and it's temperment usually should be nice with proper care and treatment.

Originally posted by dbrandt
What I mean is, the verse I quoted before Genesis 1:30 specifically tells us about land creatures, it doesn't mention sea creatures. So we are kind of left without an answer. Death came after sin. So I guess my guess would be sea vegetation.

I would suggest that megalodons probably ate meat. I would also suggest that the "original sin" thing never took place. I believe this to be a prudent way of looking at things.

Does it matter right now what sea creatures before the flood ate, not really. It would be kind of neat to know for sure but focusing on that dilema takes your focus off the real message of the Bible, Jesus Christ. So it's cool to throw around ideas about sea creatures and discuss it but lets not get bogged down in it.

Right, but the Bible is supposedly the word of God. Well, there are numerous contradictions, injustices, and absudities in the Bible - not to mention all of the cruelty and violence and intolerance. It leaves one wondering whether it was written by a God or by simple humans.

As far as the people who physically wrote the Bible, right they weren't there. Some people who did write parts of the Bible saw visions and/or were transported to the future to see it.

Not necessarily. Since this is unlikely, and there is no proof of this happening either with ancient or modern man, I must assume that with no evidence, this didn't take place - I believe that the alternative happened - the stories were completely fabricated.

But if you are going to believe the Bible, then you believe all of it or you might as well believe none of it. It's not a pick and choose book. I like that part, but I don't like that part so I choose not to believe that part.

So I believe it all. And on the basis of that, the Bible tells us that God inspired the writers of the Bible with what He wanted them to write. Genesis is credited to being written by Moses, so that means God spoke to him as to what to write down.

I agree that one should either believe all or none, but to believe all of the Bible appears to be an ignorant thing to do, with all of the conflicts that the Bible has with modern human knowledge. It simply appears that, at least most of it, was written as a fable by humans who were intelligent for their time, but their testimony is not withstanding the test of time.

To me, anyways.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Not necessarily. Since this is unlikely, and there is no proof of this happening either with ancient or modern man, I must assume that with no evidence, this didn't take place - I believe that the alternative happened - the stories were completely fabricated.

It simply appears that, at least most of it, was written as a fable by humans who were intelligent for their time, but their testimony is not withstanding the test of time.

To me, anyways.

Zip

Regarding the Bible, you think it's false I think it's true. Everyone is faced with that decision, and everyone must individually make that decision. It's the same with Jesus Christ, who is the centerpeice of the Bible, everyone must individually decide who He is also. Is He the Savior or not.

How exactly do strict creationists explain geology?

They can't.

The proper question is "How exactly do strict creationists explain the geologic column?"

They can't other than to deny it and what it records and represents.

***

Every location on Earth with sedimentary deposits exposed (surface exposure or drill cores) gives you a section of the established "geologic column" worked out 100-150 years ago. Every section will contain microfossils and macrofossils of certain genuses/species of critters. Just by the fossil content you can correlate this with any other section in the World. Likewise if you know the geologic position of any deposit you can predict exactly WHAT kinds of fossils can be found.

The position of the fossils in the geologic column determines the relative age of critters because older forms are deeper in the geologic column and newer forms are higher in the geologic column. Radiometric dating establishes approximate dates (or ranges) for the appearance or disappearance (extinction) of certain forms.

So here you have two methods of determining age and charting the development of life on Earth: 1) Relative position in the column and 2) Radiometric dating.

If you produce a time chart using either method it will produce the EXACT SAME chart. You put all the data together and you get a very nice "Tree of Life" showing the development of life through time.

The correlation of geology and radiometric dating has advanced so much that the chrono-resolution of dating some layers is 500,000 years or less. Factor in global marine cycles X depositional rates X magnetic pole shofts recorded in stone and you can get ever more precise dating.

We now can determine down to a few million years WHEN the transition from aquatic amphibian TO terrestrial amphibian TO proto-reptile was. We now know where and when (geolgically) to find those "missing links". The fossil material found in last few decades has already proved what was figured out without direct evidence at the time by Paleontologists way before. Using the geologic column as the time axis we can map the linear development in the skull plates of certain Permian age "reptiles" (actually proto-mammals) over a couple million years.

The predictability of all this methodology is the proof that it's completely sound science and TRUE. It's not theory, it's fact.

***

The Creationsist position seems to be that there really is no geologic column and that there is no predictable order to any of it. They point to a few easily explainable things like redeposited sandstones or fossils as "proof" that all the layers are topsy-turvey or whatever.

If that was the case then the past 100 years plus of geologic literature that further correlates and age-refines local geology with Global cycles and layers is impossible. Also the predictability of using geologic maps to find certain fossil species would have to be impossible since no one species can be tied to a specific geologic layer or zone since it's all mixed up and there are no geologic "ages" or "periods" or "fossil zones".

Well, the die-hard Creationsist needs to take up a fun hobby called "fossil hunting" and go out into the field with a geologic map and see how wrong they are.

slank
How do strict creationists explain geology?

Like this -