You would expect only a single FLOOD deposit that contained all known creatures mixed up together.

Instead – you have a sequence of depositional environments – shore, marine, desert, stream, etc., and you have a sequence of fossils from primitive to advanced. This is NOT what creationist flood geology would predict, ergo it was jettisoned well over 100 years ago by professional geologists, many of whom were committed Christians.

Report comment to moderator

What makes it poisonous? Time? Would you agree Steve?

“And the fossil record is nothing like what one would expect if a single cataclysmic event had created all the fossils at once.”

For the record, you would expect consistant layering via a world wide flood from sediment/rock to other things like animals.

This is what hte fossil and geological record claims, consistancy.

Not a time issue.

Report comment to moderator

I suspect that both may be complentary allegorical accounts, rather than conflicting literal histories”

Or its quite simply two different types of vegetation, which seems to be the implication. Considering the zoomed in version discusses simply the vegetation that would come about by man’s work in the field. The vegetation can also have been created, and yet was awaiting man’s work to cultivate growth.

Your contradiction is ill founded…as there is an obvious distinction.

Btw..where does Genesis ever present an even allegorical notion of billions of years? Its not there.

What does it say? Day, night, morning. God tells man to go forth and fill the earth and subdue it. Fill implies, reproduction and multiplying…well before death/sin was even a notion. In other words, genes are mixing and creating new diversified offspring. My point is that, God can easily create according to kinds, and let an adaptation mechanism, the combination of genes take over, especially in a concentrated environment pre/post fall like the earth was in. In essence, even an unconstrained mechanism of evolution would rapidly produce wide variation and diversity even over a few centuries.

I however, think its constrained, and I think scientific evidence so far only shows this.

In other words, mechanisms such as evolution are not dependent on billions of years…nor was creation, and the Bible certainly implies otherwise.

Report comment to moderator

I’ll even go easier…. a toad to a frog!

Report comment to moderator

Provost – 94

YOU WRITE: “Genesis one gives two accounts of creation. One lists plants as being created on the third or fourth day (can’t remember) and man being created on the sixth. The next account says God formed man before any plant grew on the earth.”

We can also look at Exodus, where it firmly states that the GOD created within 6 days, literally.

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Exodus 20

Provost – YOU WRITE: “I suspect that both may be complentary allegorical accounts, rather than conflicting literal histories. Please, understand that I believe Genesis is the word of God, it just seems that our culture is more likely to take it literally than the Hebrews would have. Most of the psalms aren’t literal.”

No matter whether someone chooses to take Genesis literally is up to them, or for that matter Exodus 20:11, now that would include the 10 Commandments. Anyone, including you can twist the Scripture, however if one studies, it isn’t that difficult to understand. Genesis is explicit regarding 6 days, and so is Exodus. I didn’t live in the days of Genesis or Exodus, but it’s clear those who did for the most part, followed Moses – the Jews weren’t uneducated as to the law of GOD. If they hadn’t taken it literally they wouldn’t have followed Moses now would they?

If one can twist six days then what might they do with the entire 10 Commandments?

Report comment to moderator

I actually don’t accept evolution as science; I accept it as philosophy, and erroneous philosophy. Yes, there have been changes over time in living creatures (more varieties of dogs and probably more subspecies of tigers, and some animals dying off); that can be observed by science. But microbes to man is philosophy, not science.

BTW, no, I don’t just mean “no biblical reason.” I mean that science with a creationist presupposition really can hold its head up alongside science with an evolutionary presupposition. That might not have been true a few years ago, and there’s still a lot more money and a lot more people in the evolutionary camp, but there’s excellent research coming out that supports the Bible’s historical record, whether in archaeology or biology or any other science on which the Bible touches.

Steve, I do hope you at least read my responses, since I did spend quite a bit of time writing them.

Anlir, obviously I was being tongue in cheek about a Christian who supports evolution “playing for the wrong team.” But when we have one group of scientists mocking believers as ignoramuses, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for believers to jump to their side and mock their fellow believers too. Now, they might respectfully disagree, but too often I see other Christians join in the mocking to prove they’re more sophisticated–and that’s spiritually dangerous to join the other team in such a way. (Not to mention they’ll be the ones who end up looking silly some day.)

Report comment to moderator

I suspect that both may be complentary allegorical accounts, rather than conflicting literal histories. Please, understand that I believe Genesis is the word of God, it just seems that our culture is more likely to take it literally than the Hebrews would have. Most of the psalms aren’t literal. David did not intend to have his sins washed away by real hyssop.

Report comment to moderator

Why is it that Genesis is so hard for those who are Christian Believers to believe? – what is it that you find so disturbing about the Genesis account?

Is GOD not able to create the heavens and the earth in a short span of time? -

Report comment to moderator

I presume you mean that there is no Biblical reason to believe He did it that way, which is true.

There is also no Biblical reason to believe he did it the other way, in a cloud of smoke with a bang. That’s why there is a disagreement between old earthers and the other type, both Christians. The Bible is not conclusive on the issue. It can, and has been, interpreted either way.

Ultimately, the question of evolution is scientific. The Bible does not adress it, although there are theological repercussions as with Copernicus. After Gallileo, Christians finally realized we did not have to be at the physical center of the world to be important to God, but the scripture does not say so straight out.

If you accept that the Bible allows for either old or new earth then you can accept or judge evolution as science not theology.

Report comment to moderator

It is not just liberal heretics who say that the creation account(s) in Genesis may be something other than literal. Not unless you consider B.B. Warfield a heretic.

Anlir,
The important doctrine of creation is that God is ultimately responsible. He’s not going to condemn anyone for making an honest mistake. Either that or the Geocentrists are burning right now…

Report comment to moderator