Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



Runboard.com       Registered Members Will See No Ads - CLICK TO REGISTER FOR FREE  LOGIN

 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Creation - how does it work?


Ok, I'm going to try and put in a few first questions, and please correct me, if and where I go wrong.

First of all, the basis for Creation is the Bible, more precisely the Genesis.


In other terms this means or implies some of the following:

- Earth is only about 5,000 years old.

- All species are as created by God, and will remain as they have been created.

- Humans have been created by God as well, and are not decended from apes. In addition, they are the crown of all living things.

- Dinosaurs have lived together with humans until the great Flood, when they were wiped out.


There must be more, but I can't think of it right now.


Last edited by:
Firlefanz, 26/Sep/04, 15:45


---
- Firlefanz

Reading: Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
26/Sep/04, 13:23 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Creationism - how does it work?


Also...

- the Creator doesn't have to be created whatsoever.

- the Sun and the stars FOLLOWED the creation of Earth (ie. The Earth is OLDER than the Sun and the stars)

- the Sun was created in order to serve as a sign for seasons, for days, and for years on earth.

- the continents and oceans were made exactly in their today form and/or placement.

- EVERYTHING has to be created by god. (including the HIV virus and the plutonium).

- the Creator experiences humanly fatigue.

More to come...


Last edited by:
Alpha Centauri, 26/Sep/04, 15:33


---



26/Sep/04, 15:28 Link to this post PM 
 
WakandaMan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Reply Quote
Re: Creationism - how does it work?


Rightio, here we go. Here are what I see as the important points of Creationism:

The earth, the universe, and all life was created within a space of 7 days by an intelligent, creative being. This act of creation marked the beginning of time. Before this existed only eternity, which cannot be measured (a very hard thing for us to comprehend in our very time-aware reality). Here's the break down of creation week:

Day 1 - God creates light
Day 2 - God creates the ocean and the atmosphere
Day 3 - God creates land and all plants
Day 4 - God creates the stars, the moon and the sun
Day 5 - God creates all the creatures of the sea and the air
Day 6 - God creates all the land animals and finally, man in His own image.
Day 7 - God rests.

The other important event is the great flood, believed to have covered the entire earth with water. It is also believed that massive tectonic upheavels occured at this time, vastly changing the landscapes of our world. Most creationists also agree that the mountains were not as high in those times, nor the trenches of the ocean as deep as they are today.

A minor event of some importance is the splitting up of mankind at the tower of Babel.

Now to address some of your understandings-


fireflanz wrote:
First of all, the basis for Creation is the Bible, more precisely the Genesis.


In other terms this means or implies some of the following:

- Earth is only about 5,000 years old.



On the age of the earth- this is somewhat up for debate. Most creationists would say 5 to 10 thousand years. I don not personally believe that the biblical record is clear enough on some timespans to give an exact age.


- All species are as created by God, and will remain as they have been created.



The term 'species' is a relatively modern term slightly different from how the Bible classifies animals. The Bible uses the word "kind" as in Genesis 6:19-

"Of the birds after their kind, of the animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing on the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

A "kind" is classified as animals that can reproduce within themselves and produce viable offspring. In fact, I believe this was originally the intention of the classification for a species, but it has become overcomplicated with time. So for example, a Dingo is not a kind, even though it is a species, because Dingo's can interbreed freely with Dog's, therefore making them a part of "Dog-kind". So God created each 'Kind" of animal, but with the genetic potential within them to produce a variety of species and sub-species. In effect, the Bible actually supports natural selection...just not evolution!


- Humans have been created by God as well, and are not decended from apes. In addition, they are the crown of all living things.



Bingo. It's also important to note that we were made in His image.


- Dinosaurs have lived together with humans until the great Flood, when they were wiped out.



Yes and no. Noah's mandate was all-inclusive...he would have taken dinosaurs on the ark as well. And before you object about the size of dinos, most were actually quite small, and their was no condition stating that he had to take full grown ones either.

Creationist theories regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs are as diverse as evolutionists ones. One of the most credible is that the global climatic change brought about by the flood was too dire for the dinosaurs to cope with. It is thought that the Pre-Flood earth was covered with a canopy of clouds, making it far more tropical on average, and that in the Post-Flood world different animals flourished as a result of changes.

There is also strong possiblity that mankind wiped out the dinosaurs. We've never liked the idea of any animal being big enough to threaten us. And in almost every culture in the world there are myths of large dragon-like creatures...strange coincidence, or could it be that there is some basis in reality? There is an African tribe that even recently have told stories of a very dinosaur-like creature living in the deep Congo...but let's not get into that.

Fireflanz- thanks for starting off this topic on a fairly neutral note.


Alpha Centauri wrote:

Also...

- the Creator doesn't have to be created whatsoever.



God is eternal. He exists outside of time. He existed before time did. And He's God.


- the Sun and the stars FOLLOWED the creation of Earth (ie. The Earth is OLDER than the Sun and the stars)



Sure. And Light was created BEFORE anything else. Doesn't seem to make sense does it? But for a God who can do ANYTHING, including form complicated creatures such as human beings out of the dust of the earth, I don't see why it's not possible.


- the Sun was created in order to serve as a sign for seasons, for days, and for years on earth.



Yes, as well as the Moon and stars. And isn't this how they are used all over the world? How do we know when a day is over? How do we know how long a month is?


- the continents and oceans were made exactly in their today form and/or placement.



Actually this point is open for debate among creationists. I do not believe that the Bible explicitly states that the continents do not move.


- EVERYTHING has to be created by god. (including the HIV virus and the plutonium).



Sure, in some form, however creation has become twisted by the fall of man. Before the incident in the garden there were no thorns or thistles for example. Creation has been on a downward spiral ever since, becoming more and more flawed with every generation. Viruses are a part of this fallen-ness. Plutonium on the other hand is a chemical substance, which can be used for good or ill.


- the Creator experiences humanly fatigue.



Not necessarily. Because He rested on the 7th day, it does not mean He was tired, or even more importantly, that He was tired in a human sense. This is pure extrapolation on your part. Maybe you're right, but then, maybe not.

I look forward to more open discussion on this topic.

[edited for a quotation tag mismatch]


Last edited by:
Alpha Centauri, 26/Sep/04, 20:44


---
"God choose what we go through; we choose how we go through it." -John C. Maxwell.
26/Sep/04, 20:06 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


WakandanMan, thanks for answering. I do have a few questions in return. (Of course!) emoticon

In order to keep it simple, I'd like to focus on one aspect at a time.


Can you explain more about the great flood? Where did all the water come from? Why did it cause tectonic upheavals, and can the result of those be seen somewhere on earth? If the flood has covered all of earth, there should be sediments or leftovers more or less everywhere, right? And where did the water go after the flood?

In other words (sorry, I need to put this in scientific terms in order to understand), the "theory of the flood" predicts that regardless of the place where I look, there should be signs of the flood - unless the site has been disturbed later on.

Another prediction would be that the waters for the floods came from somewhere, so evidence for this "storage place" should be found. I imagine some now empty hollows or hollows that have collapsed or filled with other materials.

A third predicition would be to find evidence where the water went after the flood - or whether the earth masses rose after the flood. I can hardly imagine God adding to and taking away water from earth before and after the flood, although it probably is another possibility.

---
- Firlefanz

Reading: Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
27/Sep/04, 10:56 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
WakandaMan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


Sure thing!

I'm not at home at the moment, so I can't quote the specific verses in the Bible that refer to these ideas...I'll post them at a later time though.


Can you explain more about the great flood? Where did all the water come from?



It is believed that in the Pre-Flood earth, the atmosphere was covered in a canopy of clouds. During the creation story it talks about how God divided the firmament between the waters below and above. The waters below being the oceans, and those above being the canopy...essentially a layer of clouds.

It is also believed that it had never rained prior to the Flood (although this is a fact of some contention). Evidence for this lies in the fact that there had never been a rainbow prior to the flood, and a few other verses, but it is mostly circumstantial and not overly important. Instead of rain, dew is believed to have watered the ground.

Then with the great Flood, the "Floodgates of Heaven were opened". Heaven in the Bible can refer to either the spiritual heaven, the cosmic heaven (ie. space) or the earth's atmosphere. So the rains poured down.

Many also postulate that there were large underground resevoirs of water that opened up, also contributing to the quantity of water needed. I think there is a biblical basis for this idea as well, but I'll need to look that up.


If the flood has covered all of earth, there should be sediments or leftovers more or less everywhere, right?



Yep, sure are. The layers of sedimentary rock covering the earth is the primary one. Creationists also believe that formations like the Grand Canyon were formed as a result of the Flood, instead of the gradual transformation believed by other scientists. Similiar fast occuring valley formations have been observed as a result of mudslides within recorded history, just not of as large a scale as the Grand Canyon. Of course, if one does not believe the that such a massive flood could occur, then one must accept the notion that it was created incrementally, otherwise forming such a large canyon would be impossible!

The Fossils are another major one. It is known that water is required for fossilisation, and also proven that it can happen very quickly (there was a tribal village in new Zealand in recent history that was fossilized as a result of a mud slide I believe). Personally, I don't see how one can believe that complete or near complete fossils can possible be formed slowly, as scavengers always make quick work of carcasses. There are many fossils of great mixtures of creatures all close together (as if huddled in a cave perhaps?). Or of creatures locked in combat (The Velociraptor battling a Monoceratops in Mongolia). Or of track prints showing creatures all running in the same direction (assumed to be stampedes to escape a predator by evolutionists). Or of sea creatures found at remarkably high elevations. As you can see, one's interpretation of these instances are all dependant upon one's worldview...as Riane likes to state.

Another evidence is the existence of salt lakes found at high elevations such as in the Himalayas, which there are multiple instances of around the world.


Why did it cause tectonic upheavals, and can the result of those be seen somewhere on earth?



I'm not as sure on this one, and since I'm doing all this by memory at the moment, I'll get back to it. However it stands to reason that any catastrophe of such a large scale would have enormous ramifications.


And where did the water go after the flood?



There is a verse that states that the oceans opened up and swallowed them. I think the Marianas Trench alone is deep enough to contain enough water to cover the earth. So it (and possibly other ocean trenches) would have opened up (that could be the answer for the tectonic upheavels?) causing the water to subside.


In other words (sorry, I need to put this in scientific terms in order to understand), the "theory of the flood" predicts that regardless of the place where I look, there should be signs of the flood - unless the site has been disturbed later on.

Another prediction would be that the waters for the floods came from somewhere, so evidence for this "storage place" should be found. I imagine some now empty hollows or hollows that have collapsed or filled with other materials.

A third predicition would be to find evidence where the water went after the flood - or whether the earth masses rose after the flood. I can hardly imagine God adding to and taking away water from earth before and after the flood, although it probably is another possibility.



Agree on all said points. As I said, most of it comes down to a different interpretation of the same data used by evolutionists and geologists.

---
"God choose what we go through; we choose how we go through it." -John C. Maxwell.
27/Sep/04, 11:37 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
David Meadows Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 390
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



WakandaMan wrote:
Many also postulate that there were large underground resevoirs of water that opened up, also contributing to the quantity of water needed. I think there is a biblical basis for this idea as well, but I'll need to look that up.



Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.



---
Music, shorn of labels and standing alone, when it is conceived, composed and performed with love and integrity, can elevate us all.
-- Jon Lord
27/Sep/04, 16:31 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



WakandaMan wrote:
It is believed that in the Pre-Flood earth, the atmosphere was covered in a canopy of clouds. During the creation story it talks about how God divided the firmament between the waters below and above. The waters below being the oceans, and those above being the canopy...essentially a layer of clouds.

It is also believed that it had never rained prior to the Flood (although this is a fact of some contention). Evidence for this lies in the fact that there had never been a rainbow prior to the flood, and a few other verses, but it is mostly circumstantial and not overly important. Instead of rain, dew is believed to have watered the ground.

Even if one takes all the above as "facts" like you say, or, even if one accepts the biblical verses as "evidence" like you also said, there is a MOST important question that lies within what you call as "mostly circumstantial and not overly important." The question is this:

For a "canopy" of clouds to be able to produce such trememdous water supplies (such as covering the whole earth with a layer of waters thousands of feet thick) it takes the layer of clouds to have a thickness of at least a 1,000 times the thickness of the layer of the water it produces as rain. Now, according to the above, this cloud canopy must have been millions of feet thick, expanding way beyond the stratoshpere, being extremely dense at the same time... I won't go into discussing the gravitational/orbital/centrifugal details and parameters that would physically disallow such thing to happen; nor will I argue that prior to the flood rivers or lakes would be completely non existent (no rain, no river, remember?). Instead, what I would like to ask is this:

Given the enormous thickness and density of the cloud layer and the "fact" that it never had rained prior to the Flood like you say, how could it be possible for the Sun rays to penetrate such thick layer and reach the surface of the Earth? What you said above, dictates/entails that prior to the cataclysm no man or other creature had EVER been able to see the Sun (much less the Moon or the stars), and also, that prior to the cataclysm there was COMPLETE DARKNESS across the surface of the Earth! (the Sun being completely obscured by a huge dense "blanket" millions of feet thick, based on what you have said)... One may be able to "solve" the watering of the plants issue with a "dew solution" like you did, but how can they "solve" and/or overcome the ...photosynthesis one?


Last edited by:
Alpha Centauri, 27/Sep/04, 21:08


---



27/Sep/04, 17:26 Link to this post PM 
 
WakandaMan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?




Alpha Centauri wrote:


WakandaMan wrote:
It is believed that in the Pre-Flood earth, the atmosphere was covered in a canopy of clouds. During the creation story it talks about how God divided the firmament between the waters below and above. The waters below being the oceans, and those above being the canopy...essentially a layer of clouds.

It is also believed that it had never rained prior to the Flood (although this is a fact of some contention). Evidence for this lies in the fact that there had never been a rainbow prior to the flood, and a few other verses, but it is mostly circumstantial and not overly important. Instead of rain, dew is believed to have watered the ground.



Even if one takes all the above as "facts" like you say, or, even if one accepts the biblical verses as "evidence" like you also said,



*Sigh* I hate when these discussions break down into arguing about semantics. My usage of the word fact is clearly different from the one you are implying. Please stop trying to merely twist my words around to make me look like an arrogant buffoon. In truth it would have been more appropriate to use the word 'idea' in place of fact, since everything we are talking about here are simply ideas.

Note that this thread was created for the discussion of the Theory of Creation. My intention here is to present the ideas behind that theory from the prespective of someone who does believe in them. The basis for this theory is the biblical account given in Genesis. By neccessity then, what is written in the Bible needs to be the primary reference for the ideas contained in it, with scientific observations to back them up. If it isn't based in the Bible, then there is no point. So in fact, creationist theories must stand up to both scientific and biblical scrutiny...not an easy task.



there is a MOST important question that lies within what you call as "mostly circumstantial and not overly important." The question is this:



Thanks for twisting my words again Alpha. I was merely referring to it's relative importance to the overall theory of creation.


Given the enormous thickness and density of the cloud layer and the "fact" that it never had rained prior to the Flood like you say, how could it be possible for the Sun rays to penetrate such thick layer and reach the surface of the Earth? What you said above, dictates/entails that prior to the cataclysm no man or other creature had EVER been able to see the Sun (much less the Moon or the stars), and also, that prior to the cataclysm there was COMPLETE DARKNESS across the surface of the Earth! (the Sun being completely obscured by a huge dense "blanket" millions of feet thick, based on what you have said)... One may be able to "solve" the watering of the plants issue with a "dew solution" like you did, but how can they "solve" and/or overcome the ...photosynthesis one?



First let me point out that not all creationists agree that it never rained before the Flood.

Second...for the Sun, Moon and Stars to have been created as a sign for the days, months, etc, they had to have been visible in some way.

This is a very good point, and in fact, one that I had wondered about on occassion myself. Sunlight IS neccessary for life, and so it must have been able to penetrate the canopy somehow.

Note that clearly the Bible makes reference to underground reservoirs of water as well (Thanks David for finding that reference). There is no way that we can tell what proportions of water came from the reservoirs, and which from the canopy, so your generous estimations as to the thickness of cloud cover required have no real foundation. The only reference do draw is that is rained globally for "forty days and forty nights" but even that cannot give a clear idea, since the intensity of rain no doubt varied during that time. Nonetheless...I do agree with you concerns about photosynthesis. I will have to do some reading and get back to you about this. As I said in my last post, I was doing it all by memory with no references.

And again...all of this is theory, and like all scientific theories, open to review. The difference with Creationism is that the Bible is the starting point, as it is the word of God. Since God cannot lie, then as a christian, what is stated in it must be considered fact...just as David keeps stating. To consider it otherwise is to denounce one's faith. In that sense, a creationist viewpoint can give them impression of narrow-mindedness....whereas I see it as a position of great faith.

I can assure you from first hand experience, to ascribe to a theory that is so perpendicular to the primary scientific discourse is not at all easy. I can not concieve of why anyone would willingly do so without good reason.

---
"God choose what we go through; we choose how we go through it." -John C. Maxwell.
28/Sep/04, 9:14 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



WakandaMan wrote:
*Sigh* I hate when these discussions break down into arguing about semantics.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but in conversations such as these, semantics DO play a major part, in order for one to be as precise as possible, so you'd better get used to it... emoticon

WakandaMan wrote:
My usage of the word fact is clearly different from the one you are implying. Please stop trying to merely twist my words around to make me look like an arrogant buffoon.

I won't be accused of supposedly twisting your words, when the only thing I did was to take your words face-value! No sir! Actually, the only thing we all are entitled AND obliged to do within this board is this: to always take everyone's words face-value... I am NOT supposed (nor obliged) to "interpret" your sayings and if I did, THEN you could possibly accuse me of twisting your words. But this isn't the case, here, is it? My friend, a fact's a fact, a theory's a theory, an idea's an idea... Using the right word always prevents such misunderstandings... Just so you know... As for your personal hint according to which I try to make you look like an arrogant buffoon, I will make no comment, given all the above... Everyone is entitled to their own views and conclusions; true or false.

WakandaMan wrote:
Note that this thread was created for the discussion of the Theory of Creation. My intention here is to present the ideas behind that theory from the prespective of someone who does believe in them. The basis for this theory is the biblical account given in Genesis.

Hmmm... It's nor only about bible... Don't forget that you can find references to different versions of "genesis" in almost EVERY religion, modern or ancient... Although, I grant you that the biblical one plays the major part as far as this particular topic is concerned...

WakandaMan wrote:
Thanks for twisting my words again Alpha. I was merely referring to it's relative importance to the overall theory of creation.

On the "twisting" part I won't comment, like I said before, although I suggest you shouldn't be using it so often in the future... As for the "relative importance" thing, well, let me tell you that many VERY POPULAR and WELL ESTABLISHED scientific theories have crumbled in the past just because they failed to provide sufficient answers to waaaaay less important questions than those that's been asked here about creation... Therefore, when it comes to a theory's or an idea's validation, EVERYTHING has to be considered as equally important... At least that's how science works; don't know about you creationists, tho... emoticon

WakandaMan wrote:
There is no way that we can tell what proportions of water came from the reservoirs, and which from the canopy, so your generous estimations as to the thickness of cloud cover required have no real foundation.

First off, my estimations are far from being "generous". I always try to keep my estimations to a bare minimum for all its worth... (also note that I've used the word "AT LEAST" in my post).

Secondly, MY estimations may have ANY foundation within YOUR frame of argument... Since YOU (as a creationist bearing the burden of proof) fail to "provide" the EXACT proportions of water that came from the reservoirs, it goes without saying that I'm entitled to assume those proportions myself, isn't this correct? Oh, and while I was at it, I made some calculations for you: The volume of waters that would suffice to completely cover the surface of the Earth, up to the highest peak of the Himalayas (roughly 9,000 meters) equals to roughly 500 QUADRILLION cubic meters... Want it in numbers? Here you go: 500,000,000,000,000,000 m3 - metric tons)... Quite a biggie, uh? Now, if you choose to favor underground reservoirs in order to "overcome" my aforesaid question about the clouds, be prepared for my next question which will be along these lines:

In what way could it be possible for this tremendous quantity of water mass to EMERGE from the ground and take its way UPHILL, despite EVERY GRAVITATIONAL LAW of physics (not to mention hydrodynamics)???


Last edited by:
Alpha Centauri, 28/Sep/04, 13:07


---



28/Sep/04, 12:23 Link to this post PM 
 
David Meadows Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 390
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



Alpha Centauri wrote:
In what way could it be possible for this tremendous quantity of water mass to EMERGE from the ground and take its way UPHILL, despite EVERY GRAVITATIONAL LAW of physics (not to mention hydrodynamics)???


Volcanic magma does it. Not in the same quantity, granted, but at least a well-understood scientific principle exists to allow the phenomenon.

Although, personally I would say that a God who can create the whole world can surely with impunity break the laws that govern that world when He needs to.



---
Music, shorn of labels and standing alone, when it is conceived, composed and performed with love and integrity, can elevate us all.
-- Jon Lord
28/Sep/04, 13:20 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



David Meadows wrote:
Volcanic magma does it.

Hmmm... Not quite an analog... Given the extreme conditions of pressure accumulated due to tectonic plates movement one can easily conceive the magma being PUSHED upwards... Osmosis would be another example... But in the said case, BOTH magma and osmosis examples are simply a no-go... Don't you agree? It's like comparing the Himalayas to a zit!...

emoticon

---



28/Sep/04, 14:14 Link to this post PM 
 
WakandaMan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?



Well, I hate to disappoint you, but in conversations such as these, semantics DO play a major part, in order for one to be as precise as possible, so you'd better get used to it... emoticon



Okay...you want to play the semantics game. As tiresome as I find it, I'll play along. At least this time:

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

fact Pronunciation Key (fkt) noun.
 
1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2) a) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
   b) A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
   c) Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4) Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

My usage of the word fact in the above statements was from definition 2c...that is, something which I believed to be true or real. Yours is clearly a different one.

Surely you realise that every word can have multiple nuances. This is why I hate arguing semantics. Fact, theory and idea can be interchangeable in some circumstances.


Hmmm... It's nor only about bible... Don't forget that you can find references to different versions of "genesis" in almost EVERY religion, modern or ancient... Although, I grant you that the biblical one plays the major part as far as this particular topic is concerned...



Well actually, 'Creation Theory' is about the Bible. Yes there are many other creation myths (many of which share numerous similarities to the Genesis account!), but none of them are so broadly accepted, nor have there been made attempts to scientifically support them (to my knowledge). Unless Firlefanz tells me otherwise, since this was her idea, I'm pretty sure the intention of this thread is to discuss the christian creation theory.

Now, lets get back to the science (far more interesting).

As I stated earlier, my initial post was done from memory without any reference. I've now had a chance to look up some relevant articles, and it seems I mis-spoke somewhat about the canopy. It was not a canopy of clouds, but rather one of vapour. It also seesm that current theory is generally dismissing the idea of a canopy altogether. Like I said, in Creation Science theories are formulated and dismissed as well. Here are some excerpts from a relevant article. It's long, but I've put a couple of particularly interesting points in bold:

Noah's Flood—what about all that water?
By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

In telling us about the globe-covering Flood in the days of Noah, the Bible gives us much information about where the waters came from and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis 7:11 as ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and the ‘windows of heaven.’

The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of heaven,’ indicating either relative importance or the order of events.

... the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.
 
If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters, then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.

Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.

There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were ... deposited during Noah's Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood (see What about continental drift?), Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep.’

The other source of the waters for Noah's Flood was ‘the windows of heaven.’ Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously.

Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on the earth until the time of the Flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this, so we should not be dogmatic.4

The expression ‘windows of heaven’ is used twice in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: twice in 2 Kings 7:2 and 19, referring to God's miraculous intervention in sending rain, and once in Malachi 3:10, where the phrase is used again of God intervening to pour out abundant blessings on his people. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.

We are told in Genesis 1:6-8 that on the second day of creation God divided the waters that were on the earth from the waters that He placed above the earth when He made a ‘firmament’ (Hebrew: raqiya, meaning ‘expanse’) between those waters. Many have concluded that this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse, suggesting that the expanse includes the atmosphere where the birds fly. This would put these waters above the atmosphere.

So what were these ‘waters above’? Some have said that they are simply the clouds. Others thought of them as a ‘water vapor canopy,’ implying a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth.

Dr Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the Flood. In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the ‘waters above’ could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the earth similar to those around Venus.

The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapor canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapor canopy, causing the water vapor to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.

Dillow, Vardiman and others have suggested that the vapor canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.

A vapor canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today, as we shall see. In today's world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.

Those interested in studying this further should consult Dillow's and Vardiman's works. Vardiman recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution, but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modeling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored. Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood. A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the floodwaters.

Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain. In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).
That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins.

The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially towards the end of the Flood.

The Bible refers only to ‘high hills,’ and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today’s Earth surface.

Kata Tjuta in central Australia is composed of material which must have been deposited quickly by water.
Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

Receding floodwaters eroded the land, creating river valleys. This explains why rivers are often so much smaller than the valleys they flow in today—they did not carve the valleys. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous Flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah’s Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go... there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.



---
"God choose what we go through; we choose how we go through it." -John C. Maxwell.
28/Sep/04, 16:05 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


This is an interesting article. Thanks for showing it - it does clarify a lot. Of course, it also raises plenty more questions.

 emoticon


Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.



Ok, lets forget about the canopy model.


In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.



This is very interesting, because there should be a place on earth where this can be seen. Do you know of such place?

The article says, the water would have been super hot. Wouldn't so much water heat the atmosphere? Rain gets warmer as it falls, not colder. Wouldn't the water have scalded Noah?


Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.



Hmmm. Why would the tectonic plates suddenly increase their horizontal movement? Also, how would they be able to push up the Mount Everest in such a short time? We are talking kilometers in height in a matter of months, whereas now the change is a few centimeters in years.

Mountains rise as a result of friction between tectonic plates. If they rose so quickly, imagine what the friction must have been - and the heat this caused.

I also wonder about the water - wouldn't those rapid changes have caused huge waves? How could the ark have survived the waves?


In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.



This is a part you emphasized yourself. I have a big problem with this. Sedimentation happens, when water flows slowly or even stops. Rapidly flowing water pulls rocks, sand and clay particles with it - that's how canyons get washed out. How could sedimentation occur on Mt. Everest, if it was pushed up while the water drained? If anything, this should be evidence against the flood.

---
- Firlefanz

Reading: Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
28/Sep/04, 17:31 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


Ok... Let's examine this flood issue from another -more practical- perspective:

Why the flood, in the first place??? This translates into:

- If God was disappointed in mankind, why kill all the innocent animals?

- Supposedly God DID want to kill all the animals as well, and spare Noah's and his family's lives only. Couldn't he have done it in another way? This further translates into:

- If God is omnipotent, why couldn't he just have converted the atmoshere's O2 into CO2 and have them all exterminated within 1 hour's time at most, instead of 40 days? and then convert CO2 back into O2, while in the meantime Noah would have been protected in a hermetically sealed cave? Was building the Ark (with all it entailed) an easier task to accomplish compared to hermetically sealing a small cave's entrance?

- If God is wise, why didn't he choose the above proposed extermination method (one out of many possible options) which would have been much easier, cleaner, faster, and more effective than the flood, while at the same time being a big saver as far as the available physical resources are concerned?

- If God initially created all animals in 24 hours' time, why was it so hard for him to do it again from scratch after the extermination had been over, but he had to go through this "keep-a-pair-of-everything" messy approach, instead?

In other words, why didn't God simply hit the RESET button?

Just wondering...

emoticon


Last edited by:
Alpha Centauri, 11/Oct/04, 22:22


---



11/Oct/04, 22:13 Link to this post PM 
 
WakandaMan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


Despite my pronounciation not to continue with this debate, I feel I at least owe you a response to this post Firle-



Firlefanz wrote:


In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.



This is very interesting, because there should be a place on earth where this can be seen. Do you know of such place?



Since such evidence would be located on the ocean floor, I highly doubt we would ever find it. I imagine any number of ocean trenches could be responsible.

This theory is fairly new to me. It's certainly interesting though.


The article says, the water would have been super hot. Wouldn't so much water heat the atmosphere? Rain gets warmer as it falls, not colder. Wouldn't the water have scalded Noah?

I also wonder about the water - wouldn't those rapid changes have caused huge waves? How could the ark have survived the waves?



I placed this questions together because the answer is related. The Ark was not a boat in the convential sense of the term, despite the many fanciful depictions of it as such. According to the very explicit dimensions given for it in the Bible, the ark was essentially a very large, very flat rectangle on the outside. It was completely sealed from the outside, and extremely sturdy. A lot of feasability studies have been done on it, and they have shown that it was essentially impossible to overturn.

So the massive waves (which would have definitely been a factor) and the scalding rain (which I'm not sure about) are not issues.



Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.



Hmmm. Why would the tectonic plates suddenly increase their horizontal movement? Also, how would they be able to push up the Mount Everest in such a short time? We are talking kilometers in height in a matter of months, whereas now the change is a few centimeters in years.

Mountains rise as a result of friction between tectonic plates. If they rose so quickly, imagine what the friction must have been - and the heat this caused.



Because the movement is slow now, does that mean that it was necessarily always that way? Certainly not.

I'm not sure why the movement started. Build up of pressure beneath the crust perhaps? But certainly the catastrophic effects of the flood were snowballed by one another.

That heat caused by friction seems like good support for the linear geyser models doesn't it?



In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.



This is a part you emphasized yourself. I have a big problem with this. Sedimentation happens, when water flows slowly or even stops. Rapidly flowing water pulls rocks, sand and clay particles with it - that's how canyons get washed out. How could sedimentation occur on Mt. Everest, if it was pushed up while the water drained? If anything, this should be evidence against the flood.



The sedimentation could have been lain down in the earlier part of the flood, not necessarily while it was draining. The Bible explicitly states that the entire earth was covered with water...so therefore sedimentary rock should be found everywhere. And it is.

How else do you explain sedimentary rock on Everest? Especially bearing marine fossils in it- more evidence that it was lain down in the earlier part of the Flood.

---
"God choose what we go through; we choose how we go through it." -John C. Maxwell.
16/Oct/04, 9:34 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Creation - how does it work?


Thank you, WakandaMan, for answering. I do appreciate you doing it for me.


You haven't really convinced me with the Mt. Everest example, though. There are two points in it, that for me are still very unclear.

How fast does sedimentary rock form? Because the layer of sediment that can be layed down in the course of a year (I'm not sure, but the Flood did stay for a year, didn't it?) varies from less than a millimeter to about a few centimeters. Even so, the material does not become rock so quickly. That needs pressure and time - sandstone does not "grow" on our coasts within a year.

I also wonder about fossilization. You say that maritime fossils on Mt. Everest are proof of the Flood. But just like rock, fossils don't "happen" that quickly, or we would be able to find fossilized shellfish on our beaches all the time.

In addition, I think you are contradicting yourself: Mt. Everest could not have started to really rise until the end of the Flood, or the waters would not have covered all Earth. So it must have been pushed up rather quickly (granted, in combination with the deep sea trenches opening), causing water and rain to run off its flanks with speed. Sediments should not have been able to cling to it, or maybe only in certain spots. However, as far as I know some parts of Mt. Everest are basically sedimentary rock (with embedded fossils).


(The geological explanation, which of course is based on Earth being 4,6 billion years old, suggests that the rock now making up Mt. Everest was part of a seafloor once that was squashed, uplifted and tilted by tectonic forces when the Indian plate collided with the Asian plate through continental drift about 60 million years ago. Simultaneous erosion gave Mt. Everest the shape it has now. Of course, this process would have taken millions of years to push Mt. Everest as high up as it is now. The sedimentary rock and the maritime fossils would thus date back to the time before the collision of the two plates. )


You mention that some deep sea trenches might be remnants of the geysirs that gushed out the waters of the flood. Satellites have been peering into those trenches for quite a while now. I think that Creationist scientists would have pointed out a location if there is one to fit the description. Have you heard more than the theory that it might be one of the deep sea trenches?


This is getting very interesting, because we are coming closer to predictions the Creation theory can make, and thus possible experiments to support its claims:

- Eventually a deep sea trench or some other geological feature should be found for the linear geysir that was the starting point of the Flood. There are plenty of satellites scanning earth, so that should be fairly easy to do.

- There should be evidence for an acceleration of plate tectonics, and an explanation for it that fits the usual laws of nature.

- Fossilisation can happen within months - that needs to be demonstrated. With such a time frame, it should be possible to do.

- Sedimentary rock can form within a year - that needs to be demonstrated. Again, with such a short time frame, this should be possible.


Creation science has to explain observations made today within its framework, or it isn't a scientific theory. Continued divine intervention invalidates the theory - because it cannot be proven or experimented with.

---
- Firlefanz

Reading: Anthology Stories
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
16/Oct/04, 10:35 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 


Add Reply






You are not logged in (LOGIN)