The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

omega2xx said:

There is no evidence of that. What could possibly cause a mountain to rise 30,000 ft"

Click to expand...

Plate Techtonics over millions of years caused the mountains to rise up. These processes are documented as even occurring today at a incremental rate. The fossils are in the rocks and inside the mountains and these deposits were laid down in seas and folded and faulted in the uplift.

The problem with all the physical events we see occurring in geologic history is 'thermodynamics.' The Biblical account and your stoic believe violates basic thermodynamics of Physics. The energy of these events occurring in a short time, ~10,000 years is physically impossible.

Polymath257 said:

Continental collisions.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence for that, and it is very unlike a continent could move fast enough to cause land to rise 30,000 ft.

Satans_Serrated_Edge said:

You poor fellow..what have they done to you.

Click to expand...

They have not deceived me like your name sake deceived Eve.

The set me free fro pseudo science. That is what truth does.

BTW your serrated edges need to be sharpened.

shunyadragon said:

Plate Techtonics over millions of years caused the mountains to rise up. These processes are documented as even occurring today at a incremental rate. The fossils are in the rocks and inside the mountains and these deposits were laid down in seas and folded and faulted in the uplift.

Click to expand...

That is the usual evo talking points. To bad it is speculation and not based on facts. Plate techtonics may cause some earth to shift, but there is no evidence they can cause a 30,000 foot mountain.

The problem with all the physical events we see occurring in geologic history is 'thermodynamics.' The Biblical account and your stoic believe violates basic thermodynamics of Physics.

Click to expand...

Which ones and how?

The energy of these events occurring in a short time, ~10,000 years is physically impossible.

Click to expand...

Then you have no real evidence.

omega2xx said:

That is the usual evo talking points. To bad it is speculation and not based on facts. Plate techtonics may cause some earth to shift, but there is no evidence they can cause a 30,000 foot mountain.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, there is *plenty* of evidence of such. Among other things, look at where the boundaries are for the tectonic plates and where mountains are. Look at the 'skid marks' of the Indian sub-continent as it collides with the rest of Asia and where the Himalayas are.

Again, you deny the mountains of evidence (literally) in favor of your myths.

Then you have no real evidence.

Click to expand...

Again, the denial of evidence isn't the refutation of evidence. the evidence is there and it is real. You just ignore it and deny it.

omega2xx said:

There is no evidence for that, and it is very unlike a continent could move fast enough to cause land to rise 30,000 ft.

Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of fast. The collision happens over rather long periods of time. The issue is how much energy there is in the collision. With the masses of the plates involved, the energies are immense. Earthquakes are one, small aspect of the overall collision. And they alone have more energy released than a stockpile of nuclear bombs.

omega2xx said:

They have not deceived me like your name sake deceived Eve.

The set me free fro pseudo science. That is what truth does.

BTW your serrated edges need to be sharpened.

Click to expand...

I believe that you actually believe that, and that nothing on this earth could change your mind.

Sad on the small scale, dangerous on the large.

Sad to see a young person clinging to long dead bronze age superstition, denying himself actual education.
Sad because the world is already full of mystery and wonder that you will never really see, dangerous because you would rather others not see it either.

omega2xx said:

There is no evidence for that, and it is very unlike a continent could move fast enough to cause land to rise 30,000 ft.

Click to expand...

Again, the continents move slowly and there movements can be measured. The incremental rise of the recent mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are being measured today. The objectively observed rates of ocean floor spreading, subduction zones, and uplift of mountains are thermodynamicaly balanced. To move fast, and for the events to take place rapidly as in the literal Genesis account would be a violation of the basic laws of thermodynamics.

The problem is you lack some basic physics on the high school level concerning thermodynamics and energy relationships. "Speed" is not a problem for Plate Techtonics. It is most definitely a problem for the Biblical account.

omega2xx said:

That is the usual evo talking points. To bad it is speculation and not based on facts. Plate techtonics may cause some earth to shift, but there is no evidence they can cause a 30,000 foot mountain.

Click to expand...

Yes, it can, and the observed rates of continental drift demonstrate this. Uniformitarianism is the only explanation that the vast amount of energy involved in the observed earth processes can take place and not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Which ones and how?

Click to expand...

All of them.

example: First example concerning evolution, and more to follow.

From: Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE

"Creationism's claim for the Second Law of Thermodynamics
For many years numerous creationists have cited the second law of thermodynamics as fundamental evidence that the scientific account of the cosmos evolving from the big bang in general, and biological evolution in particular, cannot occur. They argue that since the operation of evolution is towards higher and higher levels of organization and complexity, evolution violates the second law and thus fundamentally cannot occur. For example, a prominent creationist site declares [SecondLaw2011]:However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.It goes on to quote Duane Gish, a prominent creationist, as follows:The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.
For many readers, not schooled in the intricacies of thermodynamics and physics, this is an impressive-sounding argument. Is this indeed an effective refutation of evolution?

Scientific background on the Second Law
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, namely that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value [Wikipedia2009]. At a fundamental level, this is really a statement about probability, because it is equivalent to saying that any system will, with very high probability, tend to a "disordered" state. For example, if billiard balls are placed on a billiard table in the triangle frame, and then scattered by a cue, it is overwhelmingly more likely that when they all stop moving they will be in a rather "random" configuration, rather than, say, in a highly ordered configuration such as all in one corner. The reason for this is pretty simple -- the number of "random" configurations of billiard balls on a billiard table are vastly more numerous than the number of highly ordered configurations.

The creationist argument's fallacy
A key condition of the second law is that the system being described is a "closed system," in particular one that has no influx or outflow of energy [Patterson1983]. Unfortunately for creationists, this is where the application of the second law of thermodynamics to evolution breaks down: the earth's biosphere is most definitely not a "closed system." To the contrary, every day for several billion years the earth has received solar energy in the amount of 10,000 times the total daily energy consumption of the entire present-day human civilization. Indeed, biology can be seen as a process that extracts energy from the environment to create order and complexity. This was perhaps best expressed by physical chemist Ira Levine back in 1978 [Levine1978, pg. 123-124]:Increasing entropy means increasing disorder. Living organisms maintain a high degree of internal order. Hence once might ask whether life processes violate the second law. ... The statement [that entropy cannot decrease] applies only to systems that are both closed and thermally isolated from their surroundings. Living organisms are open systems since they both take in and expel matter; further, they exchange heat with their surroundings. ... The organism takes in foodstuffs that contain highly ordered, low-entropy polymeric molecules such as proteins and starch and excretes waste products that contain smaller, less ordered molecules. Thus the entropy of the food intake is less than the entropy of the excretion products returned to the surroundings. ... The organism discards matter with a greater entropy content than the matter it takes in, thereby losing entropy to the environment to compensate for the entropy produced in internal irreversible processes.
Conclusions
In short, the "thermodynamics argument" against evolution is completely groundless. Some creationists have discontinued using this argument, but it is promoted at length in the 2000 printing of Morris' Scientific Creationism [Morris2000, pg. 38-46], and it is also featured prominently in the museum of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California.
One can certainly fault creationists for continuing to use an argument that they know (or should know) is fallacious. But, as John Patterson has observed, the scientific community is also at fault: "It is a sad testimonial to the community of professors, engineers, and scientists that so many have ignored their professional responsibilities in failing to expose the creationist thermodynamics apologetic." [Patterson1983]. "

From: The great continental demolition derby – NZ Skeptics

"Continental Drift is a big issue for creationists. If all land animals are really descended from a single boatload that landed on a mountaintop in eastern Turkey, then explaining how they all got to their current locations takes some doing. How did kiwi and moa get to New Zealand? Or lemurs to Madagascar, or sloths to the Amazon? The problem looks slightly less insuperable if, at the time of the Flood, all the world’s land masses were joined. The 1000-plus landsnail species found only in New Zealand could then simply have crawled here, being careful not to leave any relatives along the way. Several creationists have therefore tried to come up with scenarios in which rapid, post-Flood continental movement may have occurred.

Fischer argues the energy of an incoming meteorite triggered the continents to slide up to 9000km (in the case of Australia) over a period of 26 hours. Yes, that’s right. Australia must have averaged a speed of almost 350 km/hr; given that accelerating and decelerating a continental landmass must take a while, the maximum velocity must have been considerably greater. How was this achieved? Fischer suggests a phenomenon called acoustic fluidisation may be involved. In this process vibrations from landslides, earthquakes or meteorite impacts “fluidise” loose debris so that it flows like a liquid. It’s a real phenomenon, and has been used to explain the effects of some earthquakes, or the long distances landslides sometimes flow across plains from their points of origin. Here then is Fischer’s scenario:

“The giant meteorite explodes, penetrating the continental crust. The force pushes up low mountains, and the landmass slides away like a ship on water, fluidizing the contact layer. Behind the landmass, a surface layer of oceanic crust is melting and cooling to form the mid-ocean spreading ridge with transform faults, pulled open by the landmass.
“When the leading edge loses enough energy, the contact layer at the leading edge solidifies. The momentum of the landmass carries it forward like a car hitting a wall, piling up high mountains. The formerly fluidized contact layer in front is a Benioff zone, called subduction zones in Plate Tectonics.”

Strictly speaking a Benioff zone is a deep, active seismic area within a subduction zone, but we know what he means.
One thing he doesn’t explain is why other meteorite impacts didn’t produce the same effect. And this is a problem, because Fischer invokes lots of big meteorites. The Flood was brought about by a whole swarm of meteorite strikes. As these struck the ocean they raised enormous splashes, which Noah interpreted as “the fountains of the deep” (Fischer differs from other creationists in asserting that the Flood story is an eyewitness account written by Noah, rather than divinely authored). They also unleashed the enormous volcanic event of the Siberian Traps (generally regarded as 250 million years old) and collapsed the waters above the heavens referred to in the first chapter of Genesis (Fischer calls the waters a “vapor canopy”), the ultimate cause of the Flood. This is an interesting one, because according to Psalm 148, those waters are still there:

“Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
“Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded and they were created.

“He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.” (KJV)

So we have the ultimate irony: in order to uphold the literal truth of one part of the Bible, Fischer piles absurdity on absurdity, and in the end only succeeds in contradicting another part. (The vapour canopy, by the way, is pretty much standard creationist doctrine these days; few creationists ever seem to read anything in their Bibles beyond Genesis.)

But Fischer doesn’t stop there. The Flood kills off the dinosaurs, which are on a different landmass – people only live on Mesopotamia, or possibly East Antarctica, where dinosaur remains have not been found. I’m not sure how the landmasses can be undivided and yet there are two of them. Successive waves of ocean water deposit massive amounts of sediment, forming the geological column and fossil record. After the Flood the Chicxulub meteorite (generally credited with the demise of the dinosaurs) hits the Earth, but doesn’t seem to do much except spread around some iridium and shocked quartz.

The Flood survivors spread and multiply for several hundred years. Then the Shock Dynamics meteorite scatters the continents, raises all the mountain chains (the landmasses used to be low-lying; the Flood story describes how the tops of the mountains could be seen as the waters receded, but I think we can assume they were only little mountains) and wipes out many large mammal species. The force of the impact is enough to speed up the Earth’s rotation, so that the number of days in a year increases from 360 to 365.2. All those sliding continents heat the oceans, which causes massive evaporation, which in turn causes cooling, bringing on the Ice Ages. You’d think the Chinese, the Egyptians, and the other civilisations of the time would have noticed."

adrian009 said:

This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.

Click to expand...

These stories were composed thousands of years ago in a social environment much different from our own, and the mistake that many people make is to view them as if they came out of a 21st-century mind.

The ancestors of the Jews, namely the Sumerians, lived in Mesopotamia where many geologists believe a heavy deluge did come down which destroyed large areas and killed many thousands of people. Many of the peoples of ancient Mesopotamia have stories similar to the story of Noah because that devastating event left a deep impression on the racial mind. The Hebrew story of the Flood, as all the Hebrew stories of Genesis, are meant to convey didactic lessons, and the lessons are more important than the literal stories - so whether the stories are actual fact or not is not the issue.

In the story of the Flood, a man who is "righteous in his generation" is chosen to receive word from his Deity that He finds His creations corrupted morally [It repenteth Him that He has created them]. "All flesh has become corrupted before Me."
The God is unhappy with the way His creatures are acting. So He will destroy them all except for the Righteous Noah and his kin. All flesh has become corrupt, both human and animal alike. What their sin is is not detailed but the later rabbis claim it was the sin of the bestiality of all flesh. The story teaches us that the God intended to create morally responsible creations but that his plan has become foiled.and now he wants to start over with the best of His creations that He can find. So He appoints Noah to save his own family and beasts that apparently have not "sinned".
In the end, we learn that even the most righteous are only righteous "in their generation". Noah is righteous but he is not as righteous as Abraham - so he only deserves the merit to become the father of humanity but not father of the Jewish people - as the rabbis say, Had Noah lived in the generation of Abraham, he would have been "nothing." Noah did not plead for humanity the way Abraham pled for Sodom. Noah became drunk and involved his sons in a scandal. And even the source of corruption which inspired creation to sin - the desire to become gods - did not disappear. That took the incident of the Tower of Babel to fix.

As to the story of Adam and Eve, it is the quintessential tale of mankind as a newly created infant. People are created as blank slates with the power to become divine once they mature. That is because they are created in the God's image, as godlings. The other creatures apparently are created in a state of maturity, and the Serpent beng the most mature, or completely open about who he is.
"Now the serpent was the most AROM of all creatures. Bibles usually translate this Hebrew word as "subtle" or "crafty" but that is not exactly correct. The real translation is something like "naked". That is, what you see is what you get. And being AROM, he is very much like Adam and Eve who were ARUMIM and did not not know it. The same Hebrew word that describes the snake also describes the people.
The Serpent recognizes the inner divinity of Adam and Eve. He tells Eve that the reason that the God does not want them to eat the sacred fruit is that if they do, they will become like God Himself. And when they do eat, how does the Bible describe God's reaction? "God said, Behold, they have become like one of US" but only SOMEWHAT like Him - for - "and now if they eat of the Tree of Life, they will become truly like Us and be immortal."
Human childhood has come to an end and now the mature children must leave home and establish themselves as an ethical race of beings - while animals are to be reduced to lesser creatures by removal of sentience and speech.
Thus, the Bible writing Jews considered humanity's origin.
All the stories of Genesis have a moral tale to tell, preparing the world for eventual reunion with the God in a new agreement [Covenant]

omega2xx said:

The bigger fool is the one who thinks saying something and attaching an unsupported date is evidence. How were all of these dates determined?

Click to expand...

Oh, look. That's ignorance flowering from you, omega.

It is funny how when part of the bible does match with history and archaeology, dates are great.

But when dates from history and archaeology don't match with some parts of the bible, then the dates are wrong.

History is not like that.

You don't get to choose what is history and what isn't history. You would know that if you stay in school or at the very least do a little research.




From the books of Kings, it is possible to get a fairly precisely estimated of timeline from the fall of Jerusalem (587 or 586 BCE), by calculating backward, calculating the reigns of each ruler of Judah, and each ruler of Israel, from the fall of Samaria, in 722 BCE.

The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple are date-able, because of we have independent records and inscription Babylonian records of reigns and military campaigns of Nabopolassar, and then of Nebuchadnezzar II.

We know Nabopolassar was responsible for taking over the Neo-Assyrian empire, after the fall of Nineveh, and other Assyrian cities.

We know a lot about Neo-Assyrian history, because they kept detailed records of most of the Neo-Assyrian kings, and they more or less agree with reigns of their contemporary kings of Judah and Israel, when they are in contact.

If the years of reigns of kings of Judah and Israel are accurate, then we can calculate all the ways up to the foundation of Israel split from Judah.

Now I am not saying Saul, David and Solomon are mythological figures, but they are certainly legendary figures, whose history were distorted by the authors of books of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings (about Solomon).

omega2xx said:

That is the usual evo talking points.

Click to expand...

The study of tectonic plates have nothing to do with biology or with evolution, fool.

It is earth science and palaeo-geology. Even vulcanologists accept the science of tectonic plates.

Why do you think the Himalayas have frequent earthquakes and tremors?

The Indian subcontinent tectonic plate is still pushing into Euroasian tectonic plate, and the mountains are still slowly each year.

Mount Everest is rising upwards about 4mm per year. It is also northeast between 3mm to 6mm.

The Indian plate is still moving 15 cm each year, but was moving faster than this before the collision, 38 million years ago, the plate was moving at 15 cm per year. The collision caused what was the seabed, to thrust-fault and fold into range of mountains.

The marine fossils found are not 3000 to 4000 years old. They are tens of million years old.

shunyadragon said:

The problem like all ancient scripture, the Bible is no exception, they contain many accounts for which there is no historical nor archaeological evidence, and they contain mythical miraculous accounts such as a world flood and spreading the Red Sea that are virtually impossible. Noah and Moses may be based on real persons, but not factual accounts. Based on this there is no reason to accept these accounts as factual. The evidence is clear, the writings of the Pentateuch are edited compilations beginning as earlier Babylonian, Ugarit and Canaanite sources.

In ancient cultures and even more recent cultures folk tales, myths and legends are common that are accepted as 'lessons in life,' symbolic and the product of oral history. Read Joseph Campbell's anthropology books on this, and it is an excellent source.

Click to expand...

Do you have any comments on: "Do any of the other religions, as practiced and believed today, have the truth?" from post #311? The religion most pertinent to this discussion is of course Christianity. Since the "Bible-believing" Christians do take the events in Genesis as real, historical events, then, I assume, Baha'is don't believe they have or teach the truth. So then, one step further, did Christianity ever have or teach the truth... since they always believed Genesis to be factual?

Baha'is sound very much on board with evolution. Years ago I was told that the Baha'i answer was that, although humans might have looked different, I assume that meant like some type of animal, they were always destined to be man. Is that true? If true, then that pre-human animal had a genetic code within? That at a certain time was triggered to cause the change to take place rather than some random mutation? Or, do you have some other explanation?

Polymath257 said:

On the contrary, there is *plenty* of evidence of such. Among other things, look at where the boundaries are for the tectonic plates and where mountains are. Look at the 'skid marks' of the Indian sub-continent as it collides with the rest of Asia and where the Himalayas are.

Click to expand...

That is not evidence plate tecdtonics pushed that much earth over 30,000 ft.

Again, you deny the mountains of evidence (literally) in favor of your myths.

Click to expand...

Again, you offer no evidence making your belief a myth.

Again, the denial of evidence isn't the refutation of evidence. the evidence is there and it is real. You just ignore it and deny it.

Click to expand...

Hint: you saying something is true without any evidence makes your theology a myth.

adrian009 said:

I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.

Click to expand...

May peace be with you Adrian, and seekers of truth,

The truth is not always what we've been led to believe in this age, and therefore, hard to accept when it's presented. The following is best approached with an open mind, one that prayerfully asks our Lord and Creator to help us recognize the truth.

I will discuss your stories #1 and #3.

It will be helpful to review what I've shared in another thread that speaks about the divine plan in nature that evolves life from its earliest stages to a final, imperishable form in the orbit of the Morning Star-- Post #52 in the “"New Heavens and New Earth" - Why Destroy the Old?” thread ("New Heavens and New Earth" - Why Destroy the Old?)

The Book of Genesis's recounting of the seven days of creation is symbolic of the Earth's journeys through seven past orbits at which times of transition new species were created, adapted to live in their new environs. Our fossil record records the various forms of life that existed in these earlier stages of development-- each one a “day” in the Book of Genesis. Science, acknowledging the fossil record, has put forth a theory, called “Punctuated Equilibrium,” that accounts for the long periods of equilibrium of species, followed by the sudden appearance (punctuation) of new species in relatively short periods of time. This theory agrees with what I've presented.

Native Americans and other peoples that have kept knowledge from ancient times, tell us that the Earth is God's kiln, where life progresses up an evolutionary ladder to a perfected, imperishable form in the orbit of the Morning Star, the place Jesus spoke about-- his kingdom that “is not of this world.”

“...I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star...” (Rev. 22:16)

The six-pointed Mogen David (Star of David) worn by Jewish people represents the Morning Star.

As recounted in the earlier thread, at periodic cycles, the Earth and all her sister worlds of our system go through a process moving them an orbit closer to the sun, when new species are created to live in their new conditions. The Earth is next in line to ascend to the crowning place of our system-- the orbit of the planet we know as Venus, the Morning, Evening, Day Star.

The story of Noah and his family represents an earlier cycle when the Earth changed orbits, ending physical life, while preserving its individuality to be reborn in its newest forms closer to the sun.

Centuries before the time of Moses, at a time when the world was filled with violence and corruption, the LORD singled out Noah and entered into a contract with him:

“...And God looked upon the earth, and saw it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them, behold, I will destroy them with the earth...” (Gen. 6:12-13)

“...With you will I establish my covenant...” (Gen. 6:18)

To complete our development we must maintain our part of God's covenant, always holding fast to the Earth our Lord has given us, no matter what fears or temptations are used to steal us from her.

The most avid reader of Genesis can overlook the fact that during the creation of everything, God also created time and numbered the days 1 through 7. Therefore, in the process of creating substance he created the seven day week; He gave us Time, and with it a covenant for us to always remain within the calendar time given to us upon the earth.

You may ask: what other option do I have, but to remain in the earth's time?

(Daniel 7:25) “...He shall speak great words against the most High and think to change time and laws...”

We are in our last evolutionary cycle, after which those who faithfully trust in the Earth, unafraid to die upon her soil, being the best people we can be, will inherit the eternal life promised to us down the ages.

Do not fall prey to false promises, nor the deceptive appearance of perfection away from the Earth that will soon be broadcast around the world. Hold fast, cling tightly to the Earth that you may become the perfection.

Let the words of Yeshua, echoing down the ages, speak to us today:

"...and he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star..." (Rev. 2:26-28 KJV)

Polymath257 said:

It isn't a matter of fast. The collision happens over rather long periods of time. The issue is how much energy there is in the collision. With the masses of the plates involved, the energies are immense. Earthquakes are one, small aspect of the overall collision. And they alone have more energy released than a stockpile of nuclear bombs.

Click to expand...

Earthquakes tear down, they do not build up and you have no evidence plate tectonics have that much energy.

MJFlores said:

The thing I want to drive at is the Bible could be relied upon for its historic truths and prophetic truths.

Click to expand...

So no relevance to the discussion then....

MJFlores said:

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

Click to expand...

The OP question eludes to reconciling religion and science.

MJFlores said:

Why? They just realized they are the ones LEFT BEHIND. They refused to listen, learn and believe when they had the chance.

Click to expand...

Like the YECs who try to contort science to fit an ancient myth.

Satans_Serrated_Edge said:

I believe that you actually believe that, and that nothing on this earth could change your mind.

Click to expand...

Anyone not willing to change their mind, is a fool. Over the years I have changed my mind several times. Have you?

[Sad on the small scale, dangerous on the large.

Click to expand...

What qualifies you to make such determinations?

Sad to see a young person clinging to long dead bronze age superstition, denying himself actual education.
Sad because the world is already full of mystery and wonder that you will never really see, dangerous because you would rather others not see it either.

Click to expand...

You and your namesake have it backwards as usual. The Bible is full of spiritual mysteries that non-believers will never see. An education that does not include spiritual truth is not a complete education. Most Christians are as well educated as you are and many far more educated than you are.

It is never dangerous to help others see the REALITY of spiritual truth and it is foolishness to label a belief superstitution, without being able to prove it.

Her is some spiritual truth for you to chew on:

You are of your father the devil.....for he is a liar and the father of lies. Jn 8:44

We speak God's WISDOM in a mystery, the hidden WISDOM which God predestined before the ages to our glory.

If you ever come to understand the mysteries of God, you will also understand that it is what you believe that is the real superstitution.

shunyadragon said:

Again, the continents move slowly and there movements can be measured. The incremental rise of the recent mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are being measured today. The objectively observed rates of ocean floor spreading, subduction zones, and uplift of mountains are thermodynamicaly balanced. To move fast, and for the events to take place rapidly as in the literal Genesis account would be a violation of the basic laws of thermodynamics.

The problem is you lack some basic physics on the high school level concerning thermodynamics and energy relationships. "Speed" is not a problem for Plate Techtonics. It is most definitely a problem for the Biblical account.

Click to expand...

And you lack evidence that plate techtonics have that much energy and certainly thermodynaics does not offer evidence they do.

Nothing in the Bible is a problem without evidence and you have none.

shunyadragon said:

Yes, it can, and the observed rates of continental drift demonstrate this. Uniformitarianism is the only explanation that the vast amount of energy involved in the observed earth processes can take place and not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

When you have some evidence, get back to me. It seems that the evos think saying something they believe is evidence---think again.
All of them.

example: First example concerning evolution, and more to follow.

From: Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE

"Creationism's claim for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Click to expand...

For many years numerous creationists have cited the second law of thermodynamics as fundamental evidence that the scientific account of the cosmos evolving from the big bang in general, and biological evolution in particular, cannot occur. They argue that since the operation of evolution is towards higher and higher levels of organization and complexity, evolution violates the second law and thus fundamentally cannot occur. For example, a prominent creationist site declares [SecondLaw2011]:However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, .It goes on to quote Duane Gish, a prominent creationist, as follows:The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.
For many readers, not schooled in the intricacies of thermodynamics and physics, this is an impressive-sounding argument. Is this indeed an effective refutation of evolution?

Click to expand...

That is pure nonsense. First of all there is no evidence for a BB. Second you have no scientific explanation for how the matter that went bang originated and finally life can't originate from lifeless elements. Give me an example of a complex, ordered arrangements becoming simpler and more disorderly with time. Then give me an example of an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Then explain how evolution has an ever increasing order and complexity of anything.

Scientific background on the Second Law

Click to expand...

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, namely that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value [Wikipedia2009]. At a fundamental level, this is really a statement about probability, because it is equivalent to saying that any system will, with very high probability, tend to a "disordered" state. For example, if billiard balls are placed on a billiard table in the triangle frame, and then scattered by a cue, it is overwhelmingly more likely that when they all stop moving they will be in a rather "random" configuration, rather than, say, in a highly ordered configuration such as all in one corner. The reason for this is pretty simple -- the number of "random" configurations of billiard balls on a billiard table are vastly more numerous than the number of highly ordered configurations.

Click to expand...

There is also some debate on if we have a closed system and neither side can prove what they say. Our system has not become a "disordered" state. The original, God's created process, work the same today *** they did when they were created.

The creationist argument's fallacy
A key condition of the second law is that the system being described is a "closed system," in particular one that has no influx or outflow of energy [Patterson1983]. Unfortunately for creationists, this is where the application of the second law of thermodynamics to evolution breaks down: the earth's biosphere is most definitely not a "closed system." To the contrary, every day for several billion years the earth has received solar energy in the amount of 10,000 times the total daily energy consumption of the entire present-day human civilization. Indeed, biology can be seen as a process that extracts energy from the environment to create order and complexity. This was perhaps best expressed by physical chemist Ira Levine back in 1978 [Levine1978, pg. 123-124]:Increasing entropy means increasing disorder. Living organisms maintain a high degree of internal order. Hence once might ask whether life processes violate the second law. ... The statement [that entropy cannot decrease] applies only to systems that are both closed and thermally isolated from their surroundings. Living organisms are open systems since they both take in and expel matter; further, they exchange heat with their surroundings. ... The organism takes in foodstuffs that contain highly ordered, low-entropy polymeric molecules such as proteins and starch and excretes waste products that contain smaller, less ordered molecules. Thus the entropy of the food intake is less than the entropy of the excretion products returned to the surroundings. ... The organism discards matter with a greater entropy content than the matter it takes in, thereby losing entropy to the environment to compensate for the entropy produced in internal irreversible processes.
Conclusions
In short, the "thermodynamics argument" against evolution is completely groundless. Some creationists have discontinued using this argument, but it is promoted at length in the 2000 printing of Morris' Scientific Creationism [Morris2000, pg. 38-46], and it is also featured prominently in the museum of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California.
One can certainly fault creationists for continuing to use an argument that they know (or should know) is fallacious. But, as John Patterson has observed, the scientific community is also at fault: "It is a sad testimonial to the community of professors, engineers, and scientists that so many have ignored their professional responsibilities in failing to expose the creationist thermodynamics apologetic." [Patterson1983]. "[/QUOTE]

Conclusion. Experts disagree on if our system is closed. Evolution refutes the laws of genetics. There is no scientific way a dog leg can become a fin and a nose become a blowhole.

It is also absurd to think a land animal surviving quite well on land would have a need to become an seal creature and enter a more hostile environment. That actually refutes basic evo theology---natural selection.

You have a lot of work to do to present a scientific explanaion for that. lol