The Genesis Account...

Here's a couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer.

if you read the bible, it says that there were giants in the earth in those days. before the flood, the environment was very different. people were bigger, people had an easier time doing things due to the rich atmosphere, breathing was a lot easier. many different reasons as to why people could do many different things.

as for plant eating animals and meat eating.... all animals ate plants before the flood. after that, God changed that, he allowed man to eat animals and animals to eat animals... oh and for animals to eat man in some cases.

if you can get ahold of a good bible, look in the index in the back for topics and look these topics up. I recommend a KJV bible since they are the most accurate version of the bible so far.

sorry for not posting lately, I got a huge test to study for.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
as for plant eating animals and meat eating.... all animals ate plants before the flood. after that, God changed that, he allowed man to eat animals and animals to eat animals... oh and for animals to eat man in some cases.

Where does it state this???? So Sharks ate plankton and seaweed, Lions had molars for chewin grass, Somehow I think not

Where does it say that the air was easier to breathe, how can it be compared??

Come on you can do better than that
What about Cains wife??



G

Where does it state this???? So Sharks ate plankton and seaweed, Lions had molars for chewin grass, Somehow I think not

Where does it say that the air was easier to breathe, how can it be compared??

Come on you can do better than that
What about Cains wife??

you dont need molars to eat plants, there are many animals these days that have teeth that look like they are for meat eating but the animal is purely vegitarian. a few examples: fruit bat, panda bear.

the bible says that there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, this would explain how there were giants. if there is more oxygen, you could grow to be a lot taller and a lot bigger. it also explains how we had dinosaurs in the first place. dinosaurs are/were big. however their lungs were small for their body, and the airpassages were small as well for todays environment. now if there is increased oxygen content along with increased atmospheric pressure that will explain how we had giant man and animals.

as for cains wife. the bible does not say where he found her. my guess would be that for the first few generations and and then later, a few generations after the flood, the only people to, marry were sisters. sounds gross in todays world, which it is. and it causes problems today. however, no one knows if it would have caused problems back then or since God was more in control (due to man actually letting him guide/direct/control) problems such as non-beneficial mutations and all them deformed chromosomes probably didnt exist.

EC

you dont need molars to eat plants, there are many animals these days that have teeth that look like they are for meat eating but the animal is purely vegitarian. a few examples: fruit bat, panda bear.

These animals evolved from meat eaters thats why they have the teeth for meat. What about spiders, carniverous insects and the like?

the bible says that there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, this would explain how there were giants. if there is more oxygen, you could grow to be a lot taller and a lot bigger. it also explains how we had dinosaurs in the first place. dinosaurs are/were big. however their lungs were small for their body, and the airpassages were small as well for todays environment. now if there is increased oxygen content along with increased atmospheric pressure that will explain how we had giant man and animals.

When did this happen? Also your water canopy theory holds no water (no pun intended) due to the fact of the amount of water on Earth and the fact that the pressure at sea level would be too great for animals to live or the temperature would be too great ( a high temperature is needed to keep the water in the canopy from condensing).

as for cains wife. the bible does not say where he found her. my guess would be that for the first few generations and and then later, a few generations after the flood, the only people to, marry were sisters.

The bible implies that Cain appeared with his wife BEFORE Adam and Eve had more children. So there would only be Adam, Eve and Cain!!!

Originally posted by shihulud
The bible implies that Cain appeared with his wife BEFORE Adam and Eve had more children. So there would only be Adam, Eve and Cain!!!

I agree it implies this, but if you read all of the Bible over and over and study it, you realize there are places where God leaves some info out at times. There could have been sisters born between Cain and Abel or between Cain and Seth and after Seth. Cain may have already had a wife when He murdered Abel. He could have taken her with him when he left, or returned and taken/kidnapped one of of his sisters. Genesis 5 tells us Adam had daughters also.

I agree it implies this, but if you read all of the Bible over and over and study it, you realize there are places where God leaves some info out at times. There could have been sisters born between Cain and Abel or between Cain and Seth and after Seth. Cain may have already had a wife when He murdered Abel. He could have taken her with him when he left, or returned and taken/kidnapped one of of his sisters. Genesis 5 tells us Adam had daughters also

IF this is the case (given that Genesis 5 implies that the other sons and daughters of Adam were 'begat' after Seth) then this produces another problem. Genesis 4 implies that Seth was born after Tubalcain and Naamah which is possible as Seth was born when Adam was 130 (Gen 5) but then this would mean when Enoch (Cain's son) was born Cain would be about 20 and his wife around 16. Genesis also states
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch"
Forgive me if I'm wrong but a 'city' gives the impression of many houses and many people but as we have seen there should only be Adam,Eve, Cain, Cains wife and Enoch and possibly a few other sons and daughters (who would all be younger than Cains wife). How then is a 'city' possible?

Also with your implication that information is missing from the bible this would show that an infinite number of unknown events could have occurred and throught this we could infer that Moses had 10 wives or that Jesus was married or gay. The information on these statements could be missing.


G

[edit on 21-10-2005 by shihulud]

the 6th day creation, and adam was created on the 8th day. Cain got his wife from a 6th day woman (from the land of Nod) and started the city of tubalcain (as he was unable to farm).

Originally posted by shihulud
Also with your implication that information is missing from the bible this would show that an infinite number of unknown events could have occurred and throught this we could infer that Moses had 10 wives or that Jesus was married or gay. The information on these statements could be missing.


G

[edit on 21-10-2005 by shihulud]

Jesus can't be gay because He was sinless. He didn't come to be married and raise physical children, He came to bring us back to God spiritually and make uS children of God. You can't just let your mind wander, you have to know what the rest of the Bible says also.

Lifespans were longer before the flood which gave people many, many more years to do things.

In Strong's concordance the word builded used for Cain making a city can mean, to build(literal or figurative), begin to build, builder, obtain children, make, repair, set-up. It could have been a literal city, doesn't mean it has to have 100,000 people immediately. I think one of the things God is telling us is Cain took Adam and Eve's disobedience farther. The children Cain had, he, "built" them up in opposition to God training them to oppose God.

Jesus being sinless I dont think so, check this out
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Just when was this flood??

About the word 'Builded', the KJV says 'built' so I take it as built (the KJV is supposed to be the closest correct translation).




G

Originally posted by shihulud
Jesus being sinless I dont think so, check this out
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Just when was this flood??

About the word 'Builded', the KJV says 'built' so I take it as built (the KJV is supposed to be the closest correct translation).


G

No, the KJV uses the word builded
17 ¶ And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
The New KJV uses the word built.

You are also wrong about Jesus not being sinless.

No, the KJV uses the word builded

Yes your right I was looking at another bible (KJV Std).
Although taken in context the word 'builded' does mean 'built'.

You are also wrong about Jesus not being sinless.

How do you know this, there is evidence that he was and also there might be more evidence that just didn't make it into the bible (you said it)


G

Just when was this flood??

the same year methuselah died. which was about 4400 years ago. counting from THE first day of creation by adding the years of men that lived and sons that were begat, the time from the creation until the flood was about 1600 years later.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Just when was this flood??

the same year methuselah died. which was about 4400 years ago. counting from THE first day of creation by adding the years of men that lived and sons that were begat, the time from the creation until the flood was about 1600 years later.

There is no geological evidence for a global flood at that time. Also a global flood of such proportions has many many problems associated with it. The only evidence for a flood in that area occured around 7000 years ago and that was localised and not as severe.
Is it not possible that the flood story is not to be taken literally but likened to a parable by Jesus?


G

I've heard the speakers and seen the programs that show the evidence for a global flood. I've gone on the internet and read the information detailing a global flood. It all boils down to this. If you do not believe the Bible and have no intention of reading it and what it contains then your answer will be that there was never a global flood. If you have come to God through Christ then you do take the Bible for what it says and then you will find out the evidence that is out there that explains the evidence for a global flood.

Originally posted by dbrandt
I've heard the speakers and seen the programs that show the evidence for a global flood. I've gone on the internet and read the information detailing a global flood. It all boils down to this. If you do not believe the Bible and have no intention of reading it and what it contains then your answer will be that there was never a global flood. If you have come to God through Christ then you do take the Bible for what it says and then you will find out the evidence that is out there that explains the evidence for a global flood.

Excuse me, but I have read the bible and it doesn't have all the answers (infact it doesn't have many answers, asks a lot more questions).
Can your Christian 'evidence' explain these anomalies?
1) Vapour canopy - How was the water suspended and what made it fall as rain? Also if so much water was being held as a vapour then the atmospheric pressure would be very high raising oxygen and nitrogen to toxic levels. With such a vapour canopy the temperature levels would also be very high (boiling in fact) to keep the water as vapour.
How does life survive in toxic high temperatures?
2)Water Depth/Volume - The bible states that the water covered all the Earth above the mountains. Mount Everest is nearly 30,000 feet high so the flood level around the world must have been over an extra 30,000 feet of water. Where did this water go?
3) Sedimentary evidence - If there was such a global flood then there should be more sediment in the oceans than on land which is not the case.
4) Erosion - Why are some mountains eroded more than others?
5) Ice Caps - If there was a flood then the ice caps would not be possible as the influx of water would destabilise the ice caps allowing them to break and float away (also with the high temperatures there might be none) And it would take many many years to regrow. The greenland ice sheet for instance would not regrow under modeern climatic conditions. Ice core samples for instance show no evidence for a global flood.
6) Why is the fossil record convieniently sorted for the evolutionary theory?
If all creatures died at the same time then the fossils should be on the same strata which is not as we find. We dont find human remains with dinosaours or trilobytes!

These are but a few anomalies and I haven't even got to the problems with Noah and his Ark yet. Lets see if any of these can be explained first.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
Excuse me, but I have read the bible and it doesn't have all the answers (infact it doesn't have many answers, asks a lot more questions).
Can your Christian 'evidence' explain these anomalies?

Hey shihulud these are good questions. I believe the global flood is a misinterpretation(or exaggeration if you prefer) of a very real and cataclysmic but local flood. I should make clear however that i do believe that the Bible is the living word of GOD and i don't doubt it's accuracy...it's our interpretations that are faulty imo. The same as in the young -vs- old Earth debate. The Bible is not wrong about these things, we have mis-interpretated what is said. And i'm am perfectly willing to accept that i may be the one whose interpretation is wrong. These things can be very complicated and not always so black and white.

1) Vapour canopy - How was the water suspended and what made it fall as rain? Also if so much water was being held as a vapour then the atmospheric pressure would be very high raising oxygen and nitrogen to toxic levels. With such a vapour canopy the temperature levels would also be very high (boiling in fact) to keep the water as vapour.
How does life survive in toxic high temperatures?

This argument comes from the young Earth creationists so far as i'm aware. Here's a great page imo with a different yet still Christian perspective on the so called "water canopy".

www.kjvbible.org...

Some of our Young Earth Creationist brethren have also reached the conclusion that the antediluvian world had a much higher atmospheric pressure, and they also cite the benefits of Hyperbaric oxygen as a possible contribution to the longevity of pre-flood mankind. Good for them (every once in a while they get one right), but then they attribute the increased pressure to their mythical "water canopy" that, they say, God placed above the Earth's atmosphere when He divided the waters (Genesis 1:6) and was the liquid water source for the "windows of heaven" component of the flood. They are wrong on both latter assumptions. [Here is a link to that webpage.]
What is needed is an antediluvian atmospheric model that, unlike their "water canopy" assumption, does not violate the laws of physics, and can explain why the Earth's atmosphere became reduced in volume.

These guys do however go on to make the case for a global flood model that answers some of your other questions as well shihulud.

That completes this proposed flood model. Far fetched? You be the judge. It is only a theory and requires further refinement. However, it meets the requirements of the literal wording of the Bible and does so through the agency of observable scientific principles.

Joseph Dillow’s book, The Waters Above, is probably the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date defense of any canopy theory where Dillow himself states. “We readily admit that Genesis does not teach the existence of a pre-Flood vapor canopy.”

2)Water Depth/Volume - The bible states that the water covered all the Earth above the mountains. Mount Everest is nearly 30,000 feet high so the flood level around the world must have been over an extra 30,000 feet of water. Where did this water go?

Where did the water come from and where did it go? That would be The Hydroplate Theory.

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

Where the water went is covered in the "Recovery Phase" of the Hydroplate Theory. There are four phases: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery. This is one of the best sites i've found that advocates a global flood model. The author, Walt Brown, has a Ph.D in mechanical engineering from MIT and teaches college level physics, mathematics and computer science.

When the compression event began on a particular hydroplate, the plate crushed, thickened, buckled, and rose out of the water.48 As it did, the flood waters receded.
Simultaneously, the upward-surging, subterranean water was “choked off” as the plates settled onto the subterranean chamber floor. Without sinking hydroplates to produce high-pressure flow, water was no longer forced up onto the earth’s surface. With the water source shut off, the deep, newly-opened basins between the continents became reservoirs into which the flood waters returned.

3) Sedimentary evidence - If there was such a global flood then there should be more sediment in the oceans than on land which is not the case.

[Also to your question]

6) Why is the fossil record convieniently sorted for the evolutionary theory?
If all creatures died at the same time then the fossils should be on the same strata which is not as we find. We dont find human remains with dinosaours or trilobytes!

You say uniformitarianism they say liquefaction. It's always interesting to see two conflicting theories that are based on the same data. How are we layman supposed to know who's right and who's wrong? I don't know...i'm not qualified. I do know that we have some Geologists and Engineers around ATS who i'm sure have a better more qualified opinion.

5. Sometimes adjacent, parallel layers contain such different fossils that evolutionists conclude those layers were deposited millions of years apart, but the lack of erosion shows the layers were deposited rapidly. Liquefaction resolves this paradox.
snip
7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. However, groups of varves contain fossils, such as fish. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake, would decay long before enough varves could accumulate to bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, then decay.) Most fish fossilized in varves have been pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as would happen to a fish compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.
snip
Liquefaction provides a mechanism for the rapid, but gentle, burial and preservation of trillions of fossils in sedimentary layers—including fossilized footprints, worm burrows, ripple marks, and jellyfish

You see the same evidence you use to refute the idea they use to support it.

4) Erosion - Why are some mountains eroded more than others?

I'm not sure how this could be answered without you being more specific. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that mountains are only eroded by water..if a global flood did happen 5 or 6 thousand years ago(depending on who you ask but for argument's sake) wouldn't we expect them to have eroded differently since then and prior to for that matter?

5) Ice Caps - If there was a flood then the ice caps would not be possible as the influx of water would destabilise the ice caps allowing them to break and float away (also with the high temperatures there might be none) And it would take many many years to regrow. The greenland ice sheet for instance would not regrow under modeern climatic conditions. Ice core samples for instance show no evidence for a global flood.

Interesting that they use greenland ice sheet studies to back up their position: Here.

The bottom layers of ice sheets in Greenland, Canada, and Antarctica contain up to 50 times more microparticles than the glacial ice above.139 Ice crystals containing these microparticles are much smaller than normal glacial ice crystals. This suggests that the hail that buried and froze the mammoths was smaller than normal hail. Another study found that the lower portion of the Greenland ice sheet contains abnormally high amounts of dust, sea salt, and other chemicals

The site i've been linking you to is very thorough and covers every question you have in great detail and many more that you didn't include. Like i said i don't agree with a global flood model but i'm open to the idea and to ignore the evidence from the other side would be ignorance personified imho...Christian or not.




[edit on 2-11-2005 by Rren]

I should make clear however that i do believe that the Bible is the living word of GOD and i don't doubt it's accuracy...it's our interpretations that are faulty imo. The same as in the young -vs- old Earth debate. The Bible is not wrong about these things, we have mis-interpretated what is said. And i'm am perfectly willing to accept that i may be the one whose interpretation is wrong. These things can be very complicated and not always so black and white.

I agree things aren't always as they seem but as you have stated your beliefs then you have chosen your colour.

This argument comes from the young Earth creationists so far as i'm aware. Here's a great page imo with a different yet still Christian perspective on the so called "water canopy".
quote: www.kjvbible.org...

Some of our Young Earth Creationist brethren have also reached the conclusion that the antediluvian world had a much higher atmospheric pressure, and they also cite the benefits of Hyperbaric oxygen as a possible contribution to the longevity of pre-flood mankind. Good for them (every once in a while they get one right), but then they attribute the increased pressure to their mythical "water canopy" that, they say, God placed above the Earth's atmosphere when He divided the waters (Genesis 1:6) and was the liquid water source for the "windows of heaven" component of the flood. They are wrong on both latter assumptions. [Here is a link to that webpage.]
What is needed is an antediluvian atmospheric model that, unlike their "water canopy" assumption, does not violate the laws of physics, and can explain why the Earth's atmosphere became reduced in volume.

One blindingly obvious problem with this model is the fact that they 'assumed' a pressure of between 1-2 atmos due to TOXICITY of the nitrogen and oxygen at greater pressures.

Where did the water come from and where did it go? That would be The Hydroplate Theory.

But due to the increase in air pressure the pressure underground would be far higher and therefore the water underground would definately be vapour and be pushed to the surface boiling the seas as it went. Plus there is no erosional evidence for such an event and the Earths crust does not float on water.

Liquefaction I dont know about but if it uses the above theory as it seems to, then I have to disagree.

I'm not sure how this could be answered without you being more specific. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that mountains are only eroded by water..if a global flood did happen 5 or 6 thousand years ago(depending on who you ask but for argument's sake) wouldn't we expect them to have eroded differently since then and prior to for that matter?

Such a flood would be easy to detect if it was global. Also there is no evidence of a global flood at that time.

The site i've been linking you to is very thorough and covers every question you have in great detail and many more that you didn't include. Like i said i don't agree with a global flood model but i'm open to the idea and to ignore the evidence from the other side would be ignorance personified imho...Christian or not.

If you read into their claims you find that they falll to pieces scientifically. Also try having a look at this gondwanaresearch.com...
Just shows how the MIT scientist reacts to a challenge.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the same year methuselah died. which was about 4400 years ago. counting from THE first day of creation by adding the years of men that lived and sons that were begat, the time from the creation until the flood was about 1600 years later.

I feel sorry for the American tribes that have inhabited the Americas for 12,000+ years and never got the memo that they weren't supposed to exist 6000 years before Genesis, or the follow up memo that they were wiped out by a flood 4400 years ago.

Oh that's right. Radiometric dating is invalid unless it is used to support a young earth because the flood magically altered rates of decay.

see the thing is, you dont know how long anything has been around... neither do I. radio metric dating is not altered by the flood. its the fact that the rates are not comfirmed and the ratio they compare to in most cases are not constant. the results from radiometric dating are always incorrect when they date something of known age and always correct when they dont know what the age is. its flawed. get over it.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the results from radiometric dating are always incorrect when they date something of known age and always correct when they dont know what the age is. its flawed. get over it.

Why would I get over something patently false? It's true that it is possible to get bad measurements from radiometric dating, but it isn't true that such measurements on objects of known age are generally off.

Studies to determine the accuracy of c14 dating have been undertaken, such as the one descibed here, that show the accuracy of that type of radiometric dating for previously living objects up to about 50,000 years old. C14 won't work for things older than that.

For a Christian perspective to radiometric dating from a Bible believing scientist, look here.

While an old earth may threaten your current preconceptions about Christianity, it is not fundamental to the Christian faith. Very few Christians find any problem reconciling their faith with an old earth. Few find a problem reconciling their faith with evolution either. It is only those who have accepted the simple minded approach of Hovindesc literalism who have a problem.