The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Of course a flood wouldn't logically drown Aquatic creatures!

Well, to be fair, a freshwater flood would kill off most of the marine life, and vice-versa. A brackish flood would kill off both the marine and freshwater life. In fact, unless Noah took all the marine and freshwater creatures with him, and reseeded all the marine/freshwater environments afterwards, then the post-Flood biota would be essentially that found in estuaries (brackish waters with a lot of suspended sediment), followed by a massive die-off of this biota as conditions normalised.

Oh, and also every lake on Earth would show evidence of having been saltier, such as a layer of salt-rich sediment, since any hollow that can become a lake would be filled by floodwaters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

estebancambias

I really think it is doubtful any such thing ever happened. Surely there would be some evidence of a flood so big in size. I was watching a programme a while back, called 'finding Noah's ark'' or something along those lines, but I did not watch the end''. Something tells me that they did not find the arc.

JimiTime

pH wrote:

Wicknight, obviously you are not a bible scholar, nor did you attend 'Theology 101' - Where the bible contradicts itself simply choose the part that supports your argument and ignore the other one, it's not a case of being half right and half wrong - it's a case of being 100% right and "What other bit? Nah - can't see that! - see this bit here! that's what I'm talking about! - that bit? nah can't see that - hey have I shown you this bit right here ...."

Snigger, snigger, look at those silly christians.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote:

Snigger, snigger, look at those silly christians.

Obviously, not all Christians think like that. Just literalists.

Havermeyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Gen 6:17-19
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

Every thing alive under the heavens that is not in the Ark will perish.

That is as plain as one can get. All life, under the heavens, will be destroyed except those in the ark. There were supposed to be 2 of all living creatures on the Ark, that includes fish and insects (and bacteria one would imagine). And I think we both agree that isn't possible.

Face it JC. It didn't happen.

It certainly DID happen, whatever about the nitty gritty details that you are 'hung up' on.......and we have the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth to PROVE it!!!!!

Billions of dead things buried in rocks?! That's your proof that there was a 'Great Flood'? Firstly if it was a great flood, all of those "dead things" would be all on the same layer of rock, and not the layers that you have stated. The reason there are fossils found in layers and layers of rock is simply down to the millions upon millions of years animals have been living and dying on this planet. To believe in a story as far fetched as the great flood on the evidence of dead things found in rocks is absolutely insane.

And, the nitty gritty details?! Would the misconception that god told noah to bring two of each animal on board the ark be one of them? Was it not "of every clean animal take five, and of every unclean animal take three" or something like that? Do you even know what you are believing in or defending?

P.s.

Has anyone EVER had, or heard of, any solid proof that would lead one to believe that there is a god?! Cos I haven't. Is it not strange that this is now the 335th page of a thread, on a subject, that I have no doubt that there is not one half decent argument in favour of there being a god, other than "you have to have faith".

Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Obviously, not all Christians think like that. Just literalists.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I think. Moderate Christianity involves equally glaring contradictions (universal word of God, given to one small group of people) that are glossed over, frequently with reference to a convenient verse or two.

As to the sniggering - well, Augustine (I think) did ask Christians more than a millennium ago not to do the kind of things regularly attempted on this thread, on the basis that it made Christianity look silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, to be fair, a freshwater flood would kill off most of the marine life, and vice-versa. A brackish flood would kill off both the marine and freshwater life. In fact, unless Noah took all the marine and freshwater creatures with him, and reseeded all the marine/freshwater environments afterwards, then the post-Flood biota would be essentially that found in estuaries (brackish waters with a lot of suspended sediment), followed by a massive die-off of this biota as conditions normalised.

Oh, and also every lake on Earth would show evidence of having been saltier, such as a layer of salt-rich sediment, since any hollow that can become a lake would be filled by floodwaters.

Even today, fish like Salmon and Eel commute to and fro between saltwater and freshwater with ease........and a combination of Speciation and NS rapidly sorted out the situation of different fish varieties between sea and river after the Flood.

Please ALSO bear in mind that there are many Kinds of aquatic organisms today with BOTH Freshwater and Seawater varieties.......Oysters, Mussels, Snails, Crayfish, Lobster, Trout....to name but a FEW!!!:D :cool:

'Salt flats' in arid regions are the dried out remains of salt-lakes that weren't washed out by rainfall following the Flood......and the Dead Sea is an example of a greatly contracted salt-lake remnant from the Flood.....with an equally concentrated level of salt in it's waters!!!

Other salt lakes in high rainfall areas, had all of their salt rapidly flushed out by rainfall......and they are now freshwater lakes......and because salt is soluble in water we wouldn't expect to find any salt in the sediments of these freshwater lakes today......and that is what we do find!!!:D

......and very large remnant bodies of water (like the Caspian Sea) with relatively small rainfall flushing, in comparison to their total water volumes.....continue to remain salty to this very day!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
..... and IF there is a 'third way' ........please tell us what it is!!!

Fanny Craddock
As mentioned in another post: theistic evolution.

Ok, Fanny……….Please provide Chapter and Verse of where it says in Genesis that God used Evolution!!!:eek:


The Mad Hatter
Where, then, did the other 995,000 species come from? Did they spontaneously appear after the flood? Did they pull themselves up by their bootstraps to create a million various predatory and defence characteristics

They SPECIATED ………using pre-existing genetic information!!!!:D

.....and therefore NO bootstraps were required!!!:D


The Mad Hatter
you're just making stuff up.

Touché!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
It certainly DID happen, whatever about the nitty gritty details that you are 'hung up' on.......and we have the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth to PROVE it!!!!!

The Mad Hatter
Er...all that they prove is that they died.

It proves that BILLIONS of creatures were drowned and rapidly buried in a world-wide water-based catastropy……..AKA Noah’s Flood!!!:D


Passive
okay... I don't see how you can ignore this.

"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"……….

OK let us look at Genesis AGAIN!!!

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
God states that He will bring Flood WATERS onto the DRY LAND of the Earth thereby causing the death of LAND-BASED creatures…….please note that it is IMPOSSIBLE to flood the seas or to drown aquatic creatures……..so marine fauna was NOT included in God’s FLOOD condemnation.

God then further clarifies that the intended target of His wrath are all creatures of ‘flesh’ that ‘breathe’……..i.e. all of the land-based Mammals, Birds and Reptiles……..so Plants, Insects and Micro-Fauna are also NOT included in God’s condemnation.......because they are NOT 'flesh' and they DON'T actively 'breathe'........they passively transpire / respire!!!!!


Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
God then promises to exempt Noah and his family ……..as well as all Mammals, Birds and Reptiles OF FLESH on the Ark from His general condemnation.


Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
God knew that scoffers would come in the latter days……….and so to avoid any ambiguity He confirmed that the target of His wrath was all KINDS of Birds, Land Mammals and Reptiles (as exemplified by Fowls, Cattle and ‘Creeping Things’).


Gen 7:7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
God’s Word than confirms for a SECOND TIME that representative pairs of the particular categories of animal that were the target of God’s wrath in the Flood (Land Mammals, Birds and Reptiles) went on board the Ark…….in order to be saved.


Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
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.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
God then clarified that the Flood started when Noah was six hundred years old.


Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
Because God knew that the type of scoffers who would come in the latter days………..would be a particularly stubborn lot…….He repeated for a THIRD TIME that the creatures on the Ark were “flesh, wherein is the breath of life” and further clarified AGAIN that this means every KIND of Land Mammal, Reptile and Bird.


Gen 7: 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
This confirms that ALL dry land was covered to a minimum depth of 15 cubits or about 6 metres.


Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
To put it beyond all doubt for even the most stubborn of scoffers ….……..God repeated for a FOURTH TIME that the creatures not on the Ark that died in the Flood were all flesh, “in whose nostrils was the breath of life” and further clarified AGAIN that this meant every KIND of Bird, Land Mammal and Reptile………and again clarified that the judgement of the Flood was visited upon ALL dry land (and it’s Avian, Mammalian and Reptilian fauna).


Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
...and to put it beyond all doubt, even for scoffers in total denial (and with a stubborness of Garganuan proportions) ……..God repeated for a FIFTH TIME that the target creatures not on the Ark that died in the Flood were Land Mammals, Reptiles and Birds (as exemplified by Man, Cattle ‘Creeping Things’ and Fowl)!!!!

.......and finally, could I say that the Bible is silent on the fate of Invertebrates, Aquatic Creatures and Plants (as these organisms weren't the direct targets of God's wrath)........but we know from the Fossil evidence that they suffered considerable 'collateral mortality' as a result of the Flood as well!!!!!:D :eek:

J C

pH wrote:

it's not a case of being half right and half wrong - it's a case of being 100% right and "What other bit? Nah - can't see that! - see this bit here! that's what I'm talking about! - that bit? nah can't see that - hey have I shown you this bit right here ...."

The best example of Evolutionist half-baked, 'here a bit / there a bit / nowhere a bit' argument that I have seen for some time!!!!:eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Even today, fish like Salmon and Eel commute to and fro between saltwater and freshwater with ease........and a combination of Speciation and NS rapidly sorted out the situation of different fish varieties between sea and river after the Flood.

Ah, I'd forgotten you're OK with speciation now - I just can't keep track. Even so, the species that can cope with both are limited - there aren't many more than the examples you've given, and as a proportion of all aquatic species they are insignificant.

J C wrote:

Please ALSO bear in mind that there are many Kinds of aquatic organisms today with BOTH Freshwater and Seawater varieties.......Oysters, Mussels, Snails, Crayfish, Lobster, Trout....to name but a FEW!!!:D :cool:

Well, yes, I was bearing that in mind - brackish water kills both kinds, you see.

J C wrote:

'Salt flats' in arid regions are the dried our remains of salt-lakes that weren't washed out by rainfall following the Flood......and the Dead Sea is an example of a greatly contracted salt-lake remnant from the Flood.....with an equally concentrated level of salt in it's waters!!!

No, it's OK, we know why the Dead Sea is salty.

J C wrote:

Other salt lakes in high rainfall areas, had their all of their salt rapidly flushed out by rainfall......and they are now freshwater lakes......and because salt is soluble in water we wouldn't expect to find any salt in the sediments of freshwater lakes!!!:D

Well, no, we would, you see, because sediments laid down underwater are laid down full of water (one of the reasons lithefaction takes quite a long time), and sediments laid down in salty water contain tiny residual pockets of salty water. Once your layer of salty sediment has been buried under a new layer of mud or two, it is no longer in contact with the water of the lake, and there is no way of washing the salt out of it.

You should actually do some research. Or thinking, whichever suits you better.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

J C wrote:

The Mad Hatter
you're just making stuff up.

Touché!!!:D

Confession! Or is this one of those unintentionally hilarious gaffes instead? Either way, it deserves a few smiley faces -->

J C wrote:

Fanny Craddock
As mentioned in another post: theistic evolution.

Ok, Fanny……….Please provide Chapter and Verse of where it says in Genesis that God used Evolution!!!

Please provide the specific chapter and verse that confirms any of your increasingly bizarre claims and conjecture. For someone who respects the authority of the Bible you seem to have no problem with adding generous portions of your own makey-uppy speculation.

Where in the Bible does it say that God didn't use evolution?

J C

2Scoops wrote:

Where in the Bible does it say that God didn't use evolution?

The SHORT answer is .....
Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Ex 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest:


The (somewhat) LONGER answer is....

Lets examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation being EONS of Evolutionary Time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis 1 account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.

If the FIRST DAY of Creation was actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!

The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while Evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust – with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process).

The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and life started with MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants – while Evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.

The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and the Stars were created, i.e. AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while Evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.

The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic life (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while Evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because Evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’ and land mammals weren’t created until the SIXTH DAY according to Genesis 1.

The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the SAME day as all of the other land-based animals.

I hasten to add, as a scientist, that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF Evolution is TRUE
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

IF God WAS the guiding force behind the postulated Conventional Evolutionary Sequence then when He came to provide an account of His activities in Genesis 1, He didn’t just merely become ‘metaphorical or allegorical’ – He completely ‘lost the plot’ and gave such a ‘mixed up’ account that even a 10 year old Evolutionist would reject it.

I fear that many “10 year old Evolutionists” and indeed some considerably older ones, no longer trust the veracity of the Bible for this very reason.
Indeed, if a plain reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?

The idea that Genesis was a ‘simple account of Creation for a simple people’ is also patently preposterous – the people who built the Pyramids in Egypt were certainly NOT ‘a simple people’.
The fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of Evolution but cannot identify the location of Iraq on a map of the World, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been well within the abilities of even a so-called ‘simple people’ to understand.
Equally, the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any difficulties understanding the concept of Evolution – so why would the Israelites have any difficulties comprehending it either – if it was TRUE?

Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.

In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a rational, coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and of Mankind.

As Christians we have a choice – to believe that ‘pond scum (spontaneously) evolved into Man’ over billions of years – or to accept the fact that the Sovereign Creator God DID create the Universe and all life in SIX DAYS just like He said He did in Ex 20:11 (and Genesis 1).

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

I hasten to add, as a scientist,

Contested, and never backed up in the slightest. Disputed by all those here who are conventionally trained scientists, all of whom who are willing to state their degree and major.

JC wrote:

that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF Evolution is TRUE
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above

Well, with one possible interpretation of Genesis 1.

JC wrote:

– so somebody must be WRONG.

Finally, something unequivocally true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah, I'd forgotten you're OK with speciation now.....

I have ALWAYS been OK with Speciation........using pre-existing genetic information!!!:D


Originally Posted by JC
'Salt flats' in arid regions are the dried out remains of salt-lakes that weren't washed out by rainfall following the Flood......and the Dead Sea is an example of a greatly contracted salt-lake remnant from the Flood.....with an equally concentrated level of salt in it's waters!!!

Other salt lakes in high rainfall areas, had all of their salt rapidly flushed out by rainfall......and they are now freshwater lakes......and because salt is soluble in water we wouldn't expect to find any salt in the sediments of these freshwater lakes today......and that is what we do find!!!

......and very large remnant bodies of water (like the Caspian Sea) with relatively small rainfall flushing, in comparison to their total water volumes.....continue to remain salty to this very day!!!

Quote Scofflaw
it's OK, we know why the Dead Sea is salty.

I'm glad you do!!!!:D

Interestingly, the Caspian Sea has an average salinity of approximately 1.2%, or about 33% of the salinity of seawater.

The salinity of the original 'Floodwaters' in the Caspian have been diluted by the inflow of fresh water from its tributary rivers.
The Caspian contains a very high percentage of fresh-water in its northern regions, where the Volga River provides most of the diluent fresh-water.
It is more saline on the southern Iranian shore where the influx of river water is least.:cool:

The Caspian Sea is an example of an endorheic salt-lake remnant from the Flood that has been expanded and diluted by the inflow of rainwater into it.........so that it now contains only ONE THIRD of the salt concentration of seawater.
On the other hand, the Dead Sea is an example of an endorheic salt-lake remnant from the Flood that has been greatly contracted and concentrated by evaporation .....and it now has a salt concentration that is NINE TIMES greater than the Mediterranean !!!!!!:cool:

2Scoops

J C wrote:

The SHORT answer is .....
Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Ex 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest:

This is easy: nowhere in the supplied passage does it say that God did not use evolution. In fact, the word evolution isn't even mentioned!!! :eek: You're not very good at this are you?:D :eek: :eek:

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The SHORT answer is .....
Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Ex 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

2Scoops wrote:

This is easy: nowhere in the supplied passage does it say that God did not use evolution. In fact, the word evolution isn't even mentioned!!! :eek: You're not very good at this are you?:D :eek: :eek:

I suppose, if life 'Evolved from Pondslime to Man' in ONE WEEK ......you might have a point!!!!:eek:

.....but the other substantial problems identified in my '(somewhat) LONGER answer' in my post #6703 above would still remain!!!:D:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

I have ALWAYS been OK with Speciation........using pre-existing genetic information!!!:D

It's certainly your privilege to make such a claim.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

J C wrote:

'Salt flats' in arid regions are the dried out remains of salt-lakes that weren't washed out by rainfall following the Flood......and the Dead Sea is an example of a greatly contracted salt-lake remnant from the Flood.....with an equally concentrated level of salt in it's waters!!!

Other salt lakes in high rainfall areas, had all of their salt rapidly flushed out by rainfall......and they are now freshwater lakes......and because salt is soluble in water we wouldn't expect to find any salt in the sediments of these freshwater lakes today......and that is what we do find!!!

......and very large remnant bodies of water (like the Caspian Sea) with relatively small rainfall flushing, in comparison to their total water volumes.....continue to remain salty to this very day!!![/I]

Quote Scofflaw
it's OK, we know why the Dead Sea is salty.

I'm glad you do!!!!:D

Interestingly, the Caspian Sea has an average salinity of approximately 1.2%, or about 33% of the salinity of seawater.

The salinity of the original 'Floodwaters' in the Caspian have been diluted by the inflow of fresh water from its tributary rivers.
The Caspian contains a very high percentage of fresh-water in its northern regions, where the Volga River provides most of the diluent fresh-water.
It is more saline on the southern Iranian shore where the influx of river water is least.:cool:

The Caspian Sea is an example of an endorheic salt-lake remnant from the Flood that has been expanded and diluted by the inflow of rainwater into it.........so that it now contains only ONE THIRD of the salt concentration of seawater.
On the other hand, the Dead Sea is an example of an endorheic salt-lake remnant from the Flood that has been greatly contracted and concentrated by evaporation .....and it now has a salt concentration that is NINE TIMES greater than the Mediterranean !!!!!!:cool:

Indeed. And its predecessor (Lake Lissan), whose sediments underlie the current lake, was only half as salty as the Dead Sea. It was preceded by a freshwater lake called Lake Gomorrah, whose sediments, in turn, are under those from Lake Lissan. Under that are the sediments from the cut-off piece of Mediterranean that originally formed Lake Gomorrah - sediments which overly the marine sediments of the Mediterranean.

So I'm sorry to say you're simply talking rubbish - your story is a complete fiction based on almost total ignorance, extrapolated entirely from the mere existence of a salty lake.

Nevertheless, I admire, in certain extremely limited ways, your willingness to concoct such fantasies, and your ability to scatter them with terms like 'endorheic' - although admittedly the term is more normally found on the websites of soap makers and psoriasis remedy peddlers...where I believe they serve the purpose of making the offerings look more scientific.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

If he didn't make the sun until the fourth day, what exactly were day's one two and three, can't really have a day without the sun. You say life was started with plants on the third day, before the sun ? plant life doesn't take too well to absolute freezing, water would also be frozen so you wouldn't be doing much dividing of it

Ekancone

J C wrote:

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!

How do you account for the fact that the universe is expanding?

The Mad Hatter

MooseJam wrote:

If he didn't make the sun until the fourth day, what exactly were day's one two and three, can't really have a day without the sun. You say life was started with plants on the third day, before the sun ? plant life doesn't take too well to absolute freezing, water would also be frozen so you wouldn't be doing much dividing of it

Oh, this is going to be good.

*on the edge of his seat, with popcorn*

bonkey

Nah. As with almost everything else at this stage, its a question which JC has already manufactured a response for on this thread.

zod

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
To put it beyond all doubt for even the most stubborn of scoffers ….……..God repeated for a FOURTH TIME that the creatures not on the Ark that died in the Flood were all flesh, “in whose nostrils was the breath of life” and further clarified AGAIN that this meant every KIND of Bird, Land Mammal and Reptile………and again clarified that the judgement of the Flood was visited upon ALL dry land (and it’s Avian, Mammalian and Reptilian fauna).

Apparently Gannets and Pelicans and other high diving sea birds do NOT have nostrils.

Why were they saved JC, why ?

Sapien

MooseJam wrote:

If he didn't make the sun until the fourth day, what exactly were day's one two and three, can't really have a day without the sun. You say life was started with plants on the third day, before the sun ? plant life doesn't take too well to absolute freezing, water would also be frozen so you wouldn't be doing much dividing of it

That's reallt quite simple. He determined from the outset that a day would be twenty four hours in duration. Twenty four is a holy number - it is the number of books in the Hebrew bible, and twice twelve - the number of Tribes of Israel and apostles of Christ. So the first three days came and went by God's will, and on the fourth day He created the Sun which, he had already determined, would rise and fall once in every day. So, the Sun follows the daily cycle, not vice versa, because it is the will of God.

Now, where the hour came from - that's a whole 'nother story.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

.......and finally, could I say that the Bible is silent on the fate of Invertebrates, Aquatic Creatures and Plants

You could say that, but if you did you would be lying.

ALL LIFE UNDER THE HEAVENS

Its pretty simple JC. "All life" means all life. "Under the heavens" means under the heavens.

See, simple.

So I suggest you don't say that the Bible is silent on the fate of invertebrates, aquatic creatures and plants, because that would be a lie and lies make baby Jesus cry

Ekancone

Sapien wrote:

That's reallt quite simple. He determined from the outset that a day would be twenty four hours in duration. Twenty four is a holy number - it is the number of books in the Hebrew bible, and twice twelve - the number of Tribes of Israel and apostles of Christ. So the first three days came and went by God's will, and on the fourth day He created the Sun which, he had already determined, would rise and fall once in every day. So, the Sun follows the daily cycle, not vice versa, because it is the will of God.

Now, where the hour came from - that's a whole 'nother story.

You honestly dont buy that do you?

The Mad Hatter

daithifleming wrote:

You honestly dont buy that do you?

Don't worry, J C's the only one who comes up with rubbish like that and actually believes (or alleges to believe) it.

Rumours from the distant past refer to one called Volfsbayne, who equally held the power of invented truth, but they have been lost to the annals of history*.







*That is, they're from pages and pages ago.

Asiaprod

The Mad Hatter wrote:

*on the edge of his seat, with popcorn*

Grab a cushion, this could take some time.

The Mad Hatter

bonkey wrote:

Nah. As with almost everything else at this stage, its a question which JC has already manufactured a response for on this thread.

Oh, I'm sure it is, but it's not one I've seen, and it's sure to be entertaining.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

To put it beyond all doubt for even the most stubborn of scoffers

I find 'scoffers' a little over-familiar, I must say. The 'most stubborn' I accept.

stubbornly,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

NOTHING is beyond doubt. I believe in evolution, however if some very good evidence (it would need to be a lot better than what has been posted here) contradicted the theory I'd be inclined to change my mind. Same goes for anything really. I believe the people who say they are my parents are telling the truth... but if DNA evidence said different...