Creation vs Evolution

[Rosenritter]

RR, thank you. Your reply suggests several details that I wonder about, but I think for now I will focus on just a couple of points. First is a minor point when you say



And you leave it off just where I wanted to see what you would say about this energy from external sources. Can you flush out what you would have said to complete that sentence?

But more significant is this:



For this to be true, our sun would have to be almost the only significant source of cosmic rays that cause the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere. On what basis do you make the claim that non-solar cosmic rays are a) so rare as to be negligible, or b) ineffectual in the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere?

I am not sure where you are going with this. Do I understand that you are claiming that our sun is has an insignificant role on the formation of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere? Can you explain to me how a breakdown of solar vs. extra-solar radiation ratios would be relevant, considering that the context we are considering is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and "In six days God created the heavens and the earth?"

You can assign the source of cosmic rays from Pluto for it matters in this scenario. According to the model up for consideration, Pluto (and the rest of the universe) came into existence at the same time, give or take a day or so.

 

[6days]

The Bible only speaks of death as evil in regards to man.
It doesn't say anything about death in the animal kingdom.

The Bible speaks of a perfect time with these words "In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all." Is. 11:6.

Do you think God created lions to eat a baby zebra while the mom stands by wailing? Do you think God would call that "very good"?

Do you believe God created right whales with an elaborately designed feeding / filtering system to feed on plants?
Do you believe God created ant eaters with a long sticky tongue to root out mushrooms from the earth?

Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

 

[Jonahdog]

The Bible speaks of a perfect time with these words "In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all." Is. 11:6.

Do you think God created lions to eat a baby zebra while the mom stands by wailing? Do you think God would call that "very good"?

Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

Did invertebrates die before The Fall? Plants die before The Fall?

How much time was there between that 6th day and The Fall?

 

[redfern]

I am not sure where you are going with this.

Back when you challenged Jose Fly, one of the things you did was to ask him to:

…Explain carbon dating please. List the necessary assumptions made in the methodology….

Just like you asked Jose to demonstrate a credible level of understanding, I thought you should be held to the same standard. Do you feel you are qualified to discuss C-14 in some level of detail?

Do I understand that you are claiming that our sun is has an insignificant role on the formation of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere?

No you do not understand that, because I never said it. I am focused on your repeatedly saying it is the sun (with no mention of other sources of cosmic rays) that causes C-14 in the atmosphere.

Can you explain to me how a breakdown of solar vs. extra-solar radiation ratios would be relevant…

Sure. In summary, I think you made an unambiguous (and erroneous) claim about the sun being almost solely responsible for the buildup of C-14 in the earth’s atmosphere. Specifically, you (several times) spoke only of the sun as being responsible for the C-14 buildup in the earth’s atmosphere. For example:

You failed the test. Apparently you lack practical application of the C14 dating science. The mouse and the rib would both come back as "old" past the "50,000 year" mark. Go back and read what you wrote earlier. It measures radioactive carbon. FORMED BY THE SUN. Now read Genesis 1. How long has a sun shined on this world?...

(The use of capital letters emphasizing “FORMED BY THE SUN” was from you , not me. Did you capitalize those words for no particular reason?)

And later:

Where does C14 get absorbed from Jose? It has to come from somewhere. When Adam submitted his rib, the earth had only received sunlight for barely over 365 days. Do you have any idea how long it would take a system the size of the earth to receive enough sunlight for Carbon-14 to reach equilibrium in the environment?

(Here you specifically mention sunlight as causing C-14) (BTW, it is NOT sunlight that is involved in making C-14.)

So when I recently asked about your “repeated babble” (my phrasing) on saying it was the sun that made the C-14, it was because you don’t even hint that C-14 in the atmosphere might come from non-solar causes. When I asked about your repeated claims that C-14 was formed by the sun, you could have simply clarified that the sun is probably the primary source of the cosmic rays that are involved in C-14 production. But instead I was surprised when you doubled-down on your solar only claim for C-14 when you said:

Remove the sun and after a few carbon half lives you wouldn't have measurable C-14 levels anymore.

That is a pretty unambiguous claim, and one that I don’t think you can defend. Here is what wiki says about cosmic rays:

Cosmic rays are immensely high-energy radiation, mainly originating outside the Solar System. (my emphasis)

​

If you would like, we can get into a discussion of the energy of solar cosmic rays versus extra-solar cosmic rays, and how that affects the creation of C-14. But in summary, since (as a number of late posts in the Cadry thread showed) C-14 levels are routinely measured at 5 or more half-life levels, then if even 3% of the earth’s atmospheric C-14 is due to non-solar cosmic rays, then your claim that

Remove the sun and after a few carbon half lives you wouldn't have measurable C-14 levels anymore.

Is palpable nonsense. Can you show that less than 3% of the C-14 is created by non-solar cosmic rays?

… considering that the context we are considering is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and "In six days God created the heavens and the earth?"

You can assign the source of cosmic rays from Pluto for it matters in this scenario. According to the model up for consideration, Pluto (and the rest of the universe) came into existence at the same time, give or take a day or so.

Wow, way to move the goalposts. When asked to provide the backing for your very clear claim about the sun and C-14 production, rather than admit to your error, you suddenly want to retreat to a much more generic and defensible “well God created it all at the same time, no matter where the radiation comes from” stance? You are tacitly admitting your claim about no sun means no C-14 was just bluster.

If the bland “universe was created at the same time” is the position you have decided to retreat behind, then that engenders some other relevant questions. You sure you wanna go that route?

 

[Ben Masada]

Are you saying Jesus was not a genetic Son of David?

The geneology of Jesus says differently.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke was written by Hellenist former disciples of Paul. Jesus could have been genetically of the lineage of David if he was a biological son of Joseph but, since you bake your cake and want to eat it too, you have turned Jesus' genealogy into a paradox.

 

[Rosenritter]

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke was written by Hellenist former disciples of Paul. Jesus could have been genetically of the lineage of David if he was a biological son of Joseph but, since you bake your cake and want to eat it too, you have turned Jesus' genealogy into a paradox.

Ben, your grand conspiracy theory lacks evidence and is unable to be proved. You may not believe Old or New Testament, but the participants of these forums usually accept both as authoritative. What's the point of you popping in every 10th post with your traditional "The bible is faked" message?

 

[Rosenritter]

Did invertebrates die before The Fall? Plants die before The Fall?

How much time was there between that 6th day and The Fall?

In the scope of scripture, plants are not considered living things that experience death. That is, they are a food source, not something that is a living soul. If you were to speak of a plant "living" or "dying" it would be in a different sense.

 

[Rosenritter]

What a damp, dark, dreary, dismal world that must have been. Does this mean that the pre-flood world you envision was governed by a substantially different set of laws of physics and chemistry than is in operation today? Water (mist) is opaque to IR frequencies, yet IR is the frequency at which most heat from the earth is radiated into space. This is why cloudy evenings are typically warmer than clear-sky eves. So you want some visible sunlight to penetrate, heat the earth a bit, but like an enclosed black-body, just get hotter and hotter? Did Adam live on a Venus hot-house type planet?

Condensation into rain didn’t happen? Really? The rivers just magically were continuously filled from some divine spigot? Does that mean evaporation didn’t happen as well?

And I am not a botanist, but I would be surprised if a lot of plants could not survive if deprived of a much broader spectrum of sunlight than a mist is likely to allow.



But it appears those assumptions should encompass some other things as well. For example, ice core dating, isochrons, dendrochronology, varves, corals, speleothems, plate tectonics, etc.



Nor is it a problem for the scientist who understands the factors that enter into C-14 dates. Real scientists are not afraid to study the world without religiously dictated preconditions. In the old thread (Post 20,604) I itemized a number of factors that can make a measured C-14 date unrealistically recent. You have not responded to that post.



But in the earth sciences “uniformitarianism” does not mean “that the earth today is as it always has been”. Obviously with plate tectonics, magnetic field changes, evidences of catastrophic meteor/comet impacts, etc. the earth is a dynamic place. Uniformitarianism simply means the slow geological processes we see in operation today are sufficient to explain most of the observed geology.

If you ask me what exactly the pre-flood world was like, there is a limit to what I can speculate as to the mechanics. Here is what I do have as given:

1) There was night and there was day
2) The sun shone by day and the moon and the stars by night
3) It did not rain, but a mist watered the earth
4) The normal human lifespan was in the scope of approaching 1000 years, rather than the 100 years of today.
5) Humans did not require clothing for purposes of warmth or protection from the sun
6) There were giants in those days (men and/or animal)

As such, I don't think it was damp, dark, or dreary. Genesis isn't written for the purpose of describing world-building mechanics, and as such only some of the elements of that world described. Whether this that world was created with differences in magnetic fields or atmospheric ice, it was different in some way.

 

[Jonahdog]

In the scope of scripture, plants are not considered living things that experience death. That is, they are a food source, not something that is a living soul. If you were to speak of a plant "living" or "dying" it would be in a different sense.

6days wrote "Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

So my dogs have souls, fish have souls? But invertebrates and plants are not "living creatures"?

 

[patrick jane]

6days wrote "Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

So my dogs have souls, fish have souls? But invertebrates and plants are not "living creatures"?

plants are not living creatures

 

[Jonahdog]

plants are not living creatures

Then what are they? They exhibit characteristics of living creatures, they metabolize, they grow, they respond to certain stimuli. they are alive, no? so your issue must be with the "creature" wording.
OK, but how about insects and other invertebrates, did the curse affect them as well? Are they living creatures?

 

[jamie]

6days wrote "Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

So my dogs have souls, fish have souls? But invertebrates and plants are not "living creatures"?

A "soul" requires a brain and a spirit.

 

[6days]

Then what are they? They exhibit characteristics of living creatures, they metabolize, they grow, they respond to certain stimuli. they are alive, no? so your issue must be with the "creature" wording.
OK, but how about insects and other invertebrates, did the curse affect them as well? Are they living creatures?

Before you present any more strawmen arguments, you should read Genesis and see how words are defined.

 

[6days]

If you ask me what exactly the pre-flood world was like, there is a limit to what I can speculate as to the mechanics. Here is what I do have as given:

1) There was night and there was day
2) The sun shone by day and the moon and the stars by night
3) It did not rain, but a mist watered the earth
4) The normal human lifespan was in the scope of approaching 1000 years, rather than the 100 years of today.
5) Humans did not require clothing for purposes of warmth or protection from the sun
6) There were giants in those days (men and/or animal)

As such, I don't think it was damp, dark, or dreary. Genesis isn't written for the purpose of describing world-building mechanics, and as such only some of the elements of that world described. Whether this that world was created with differences in magnetic fields or atmospheric ice, it was different in some way.

Possibly one more thing for your list.
Humans and animals were vegetarian at the beginning.
Gen. 1:29 "Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Much later, after the flood, God gave permission to eat meat.
Gen. 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything"

 

[Rosenritter]

6days wrote "Physical death was part of the curse to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

So my dogs have souls, fish have souls? But invertebrates and plants are not "living creatures"?

If you are using the Bible for the definition of the word, soul also includes men, cattle, donkeys, and sheep. It means a "living thing."

Numbers 31:28 KJV
(28) And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the as ses, and of the sheep:

An invertebrate (like an octopus or a squid) would be a living soul by the same application, but plants are never included in that definition. For example, Revelation speaks of waters turning to blood and living souls of the sea dying as a result. Whether you believe the prophecy or not is not the point, I am just establishing the definition by context.

Revelation 16:3 KJV
(3) And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.


As to whether any living things died before Adam's fall I am not absolutely sure one way or the other. That is, I could see how it could work either way. I think that the ancestors of today's predators did eat plants. I've seen my dogs eat plants before, and dog food has a decent amount of plant material. Or perhaps Paul was referring to "death entering the world" only in regards to the death of men. So where I am not sure I'm not adamant.

 

[Jonahdog]

A "soul" requires a brain and a spirit.

Define "spirit"

 

[jamie]

Define "spirit"

In a word intellect.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

James 2: 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[redfern]

If you ask me what exactly the pre-flood world was like, there is a limit to what I can speculate as to the mechanics. Here is what I do have as given:

Thanks again, RR. Just a couple comments:

…2) The sun shone by day and the moon and the stars by night.

I think it would be natural for a primitive people to try and explain the sun and moon that way – I think in Biblical terms the sun was to rule over the day and the moon over the night. But from a modern science perspective, we realize what we call “day” simply means the sun is shining on our side of this spherical planet. That means “day” is the term we use to define when the sun is up, it had squat to do with ancient conceptions of something in the sky ruling over the daytime.

As to the night, the situation is a bit more dire. In actuality, in addition to the day, the night is defined by the sun, not the moon. Night just means the sun is shining on the other side of our planetary ball, and the moon has no say in the matter. In fact, over many nights walk outside and see what percentage of them the moon is even visible (about 50%?). So the moon seems to be as unconcerned with conforming to supposedly divine commands as many humans are. Or we could simply admit we now actually understand orbital mechanics, and need only to use Kepler’s and Newton’s ideas to explain with great accuracy why the moon spends as much time “up” in the daytime as it does at night. Heck, we now know the moon doesn’t even make the light it does provide at night. Just like a rock in your garden, it simply reflects the light from the sun.

3) It did not rain, but a mist watered the earth

Okaaaaay, so you say the laws governing hydrodynamics have changed since the pre-flood days. Be truly fascinating to see those laws expressed in some coherent mathematical form.

Genesis isn't written for the purpose of describing world-building mechanics, and as such only some of the elements of that world described. Whether this that world was created with differences in magnetic fields or atmospheric ice, it was different in some way.

What you have mentioned is sufficient to show that the Genesis description of the pre-flood world is in conflict with well-established concepts in modern science. Since modern science and early Genesis “science” are not compatible, then it is ludicrous to pontificate on how modern science supports that ancient account (in spite of 6day’s mindless soundbites). If early Genesis is fact, then the laws of science in force then are not the laws science is governed by today.

But when we restrict ourselves to studying the real world without any pre-existing allegiance to ancient religious dogma, we have found no reason to conclude the laws of science have ever been different than they are now. Part of the enjoyment I have had in science is productively working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who hail from almost every religious background and culture, but who know that hobbling science with religiously-based preconditions is crippling to good science and a disservice to everyone.

 

[6days]

I think it would be natural for a primitive people.....

Primitive? Why do you think Adam is primitive? You believe early man is primitive due to your "pre-existing allegiance to modern religious dogma". That dogma continually leads evolutionists to wrong conclusions as in the case of Neandertals. Evolutionists assumed they were unintelligent, inarticulate etc. Those assumptions, now proven wrong by science, were not based on evidence but on religious dogma. Evolutionary dogma has a history of "hobbling science with religiously-based preconditions. Evolutionism is crippling to good science and a disservice to everyone."

 

[Interplanner]

It is unfortunate that the important question about the deluge always ends up on the location of Noah's ark. This happened as recently as last fall's 'search for Noah's ark' release. All the chips were on that play. The deluge is an ENORMOUS GEOLOGICAL event by comparison with that one question. To be consumed with the ark's location is like trying to find one painting that was on the Titannic and hinging all your belief about its sinking on the finding of that item.