Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Here is a picture of a cave painting that is over 17,000 years old:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for and against young earth creationism.
- Thread starter Brian Schuh
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
You are merely speculating. In another word, it's BS.
The evidences would be everywhere, and it would destroy every land plant life, if the flood was global and everything was underwater for more than 150 days, and Genesis say that they were in the Ark for the whole year.
It would destroy plant life because of the water pressures. The deeper the water, the more crushing is the water pressure. And Genesis say that the water covered the highest mountains. A large part of of the Himalayas is above 6000 above sea level, with Everest peak being more than 8km.
Now even we are assuming that it was only a regional flood and not a global one. But you would have to ask yourself how did the Ark get to the peak of Mount Ararat? Mount Ararat is over 5km high.
At 10 metres depth, the pressures around 14psi. With every 10 metre, water pressures increase exponentially. At 300 metres, the pressures are about 440psi.
The deepest possible dive for modern nuclear submarine 490 metres; if the sub was to dive deeper, the hull would eventually reach critical and would face imminent collapse at 730 metres.
If submarine would collapse at depth of less than 3/4 of a kilometre, then imagine what it would do to land plants, at the depth of 4 to 5 km. No land plants could survive such depth, let alone any olive tree, which was sign that the dove brought back to Noah.
Also water don't appear out of no where, and disappeared afterward, especially if it were deep enough to cover Ararat.
Furthermore, if the earth was cover for the length of time as suggested by Genesis, then the soil would be overly saturated, and it wouldn't be possible for most plants to grow with such saturation.
The olive trees are one example where it required more drier environment for them to grow. Where would a dove find a twig from the olive tree. More often than not, you won't find olive trees naturally growing above 2000 metres, above sea-level. That's because frost would cause damage to olive trees, at suc attitude. So if prolong cold temperature is very bad for olive trees, then can you imagine if the trees were underwater with constant cold temperature, 2 to 3 thousand metres deep. And finally, you would have to remember soil that are over-saturated with water would cause olive trees to rot or suffer from diseases; prolonged over-saturated soil would also cause excessive soil salinisation.
Normally I would talk about the animals, with regarding to Noah's Flood. I thought I would tackle the plants, for a change.
Genesis Flood is simply a distortion and exaggeration of Ziusudra-Atrahasis river flood.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, I agreed.
Do you have sources or actual evidences to support such claim, Brian?
You are just speculating again.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are right about that.
gnostic
The Lost One
More evidences against YEC.
I have already mentioned Uruk and Akkad, with regarding to predating the flood.
As to older cities, older than 3777 BCE (or 5777 years ago).
Again, Uruk; its earliest foundation at 5000 BCE.
Jericho (9000 BCE), Byblos (5000 BCE), Damascus (9000 BCE) and Aleppo (4300 BCE) are cities in the Levant that are older than 3777 BCE.
Jericho (9000 BCE) have the earliest fortified wall around the city, at 6800 BCE.
I have already mentioned Uruk and Akkad, with regarding to predating the flood.
As to older cities, older than 3777 BCE (or 5777 years ago).
Again, Uruk; its earliest foundation at 5000 BCE.
Jericho (9000 BCE), Byblos (5000 BCE), Damascus (9000 BCE) and Aleppo (4300 BCE) are cities in the Levant that are older than 3777 BCE.
Jericho (9000 BCE) have the earliest fortified wall around the city, at 6800 BCE.
You are welcomeI want to know more about that Godobeyer.
2:30
https://quran.com/2/30
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
Some the scholars interpretation about this verse it's was talking about ex-human, because angels mentionned about something happened before the creation of Adam (pbuh) and Eve ="corruption" and "sheds blood" ,
the angel in Islam view don't know what will happened in future. but they may know what happened in past.
So it's like angels said to God : "Again ?".
The next 2 verses , God tell us that He improve the brain of human to educate (had ability to learn and memorize,and speak) so that's probably the old version one don't had.
check here:
https://quran.com/2/33
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The great commentator Rashi said that Adam and Eve were created around high noon on a Friday, and that one of the first things they did was have sex. Eve got pregnant with Cain and gave birth to him around sundown the same day! Around about that time, a cluster of grapes ripened and fell off the vine and fermented within several minutes! This can all be found on www.chabad.org where the entire commentary of Rashi on the Tanakh can be found on the internet.
gnostic
The Lost One
And this is somehow evidence for young earth creationism?
I am asking because I really don't know what to do with this information.
You have given a source, which leads to more questions than answers.
Last edited:
Forgive me for this off-topic post, but I'm curious as to why you wrote (pbuh) behind Adam's name but not Eve's. Was this an oversight or intentional? Or did you implicitly intend for (pbuh) to apply to both?
Sorry It's was just typo error, I forget to type behind Eve(pbuh).
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
I have come back to check on my thread. It is obvious that if there is a Creator, that he created the laws of nature (including physics.) Now evolution and also mainstream science ASSUMES uniformitarianism all the way back to the Big Bang. Traditional Judaism, in this point only believed by the ultra-orthodox, states that God actually changed the laws of nature at the time of the Flood. So we as ultra orthodox can only assume uniformitarianism back to the time of the Flood.
Now one might say, how can you believe in a trickster God who created fossils of dinosaurs? Well, I ask, how do you not know that God isn't a psychopathic maniac who can't wait to throw you into eternal hell fire?
I need evidence more than traditional dating methods. If you know the current amount of radioactive carbon, and you know the rate of decay, you also must know how much radioactive carbon was present when God created it. But you might say, "God is not a trickster God!" How can a scientist tell a theologian what God might or might not be?
Now one might say, how can you believe in a trickster God who created fossils of dinosaurs? Well, I ask, how do you not know that God isn't a psychopathic maniac who can't wait to throw you into eternal hell fire?
I need evidence more than traditional dating methods. If you know the current amount of radioactive carbon, and you know the rate of decay, you also must know how much radioactive carbon was present when God created it. But you might say, "God is not a trickster God!" How can a scientist tell a theologian what God might or might not be?
People forget our genetic earlier modern ancestor Cro-Magnon Man the first modern human ancestor who go back with ample enough cultural evidence with a site dating back 30,000 years ago and there is evidence less precise going back 100,000 years and genetic evidence and anatomical studies place them as our direct ancestor. Far before any YEC dates.
Science has already dated everything as science has decided to date everything. How are you going to use science to change science? But, I personally can't see any reason against a young earth and creation just as the bible says. A great flood explains a lot about extinction of species, fossils of aquatic animals found on mountain tops, possibilities science seems to ignore.
Just a little question. Did the ark float at nearly 9000 meters above (today's) sea level? I ask because the top of mount Everest is composed of fossil bearing marine limestone.
By the way, what do you mean with the great flood explaining a lot about the extinction of species? Not enough space in the ark for everyone?
Ciao
- viole
Yeah possibly only the animals that God wanted to survive went into the ark. and after the flood the animals were changed so that they feared man.
Somewhere I read that God lowered the mountains. Noah was closed in the ark and all the windows were closed so he couldnt see what was happening outside, surviving by miracle. So it's possible the entire landscape was changed during the flood. mountains lowered and raised up again.
What? Lowering the mountains and raising them again? Why? I don't see any scriptural evidence of that.
You made it up, didn't you?
Ciao
- viole
There are a lot of them, some seem to prophesy of the last day, but the last day is compared to the days of Noah and the flood, so they might also indicate that too.What? Lowering the mountains and raising them again? Why? I don't see any scriptural evidence of that.
You made it up, didn't you?
Ciao
- viole
Nahum 1:5 Mountains quake because of Him And the hills dissolve; Indeed the earth is upheaved by His presence, The world and all the inhabitants in it.
Amos 9:5 The Lord GOD of hosts, The One who touches the land so that it melts, And all those who dwell in it mourn, And all of it rises up like the Nile And subsides like the Nile of Egypt;
Well, that is a stretch.
It does not say anywhere that the mountains were lowered during the flood and raised after that. With this level of rationalizations I could prove that Mother Goose exists by interpreting my doctor's prescriptions.
So, back to my second question. Why do you think that the flood explains mass extinctions? Not enough place in the ark?
Ciao
- viole
It makes sense that the mountains were lowered rather than enough rain falling to cover all the mountains, Then raised back up again which explains the various mountain regions we see today. Seeing that God does that during his destroy the earth moments it seem reasonable enough that it happened during the flood.
The flood could explain mass extinctions since the intent was to destroy all life on earth which existed before the flood..except what made it into the ark. Give or take a few survivors for exceptions to the rule.