Questions on Genesis From Croker

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@In-the-begginning

The hydroplate theory explains so much but is not compatible with your theory. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Regardless of whether you agree or otherwise, hydroplate theory defies basic physics such as thermodynamics and conservation of energy, and even were some miracle to annul the laws of nature, it is clear from geology that naught like that has ever happened, so it “explains” nothing. As @CrisprCAS9 stated, it is not a plausible explanation. It fails before you make it through first principles.

Walter Brown’s hydroplate Flood model is an imaginative but woefully deficient model of earth history, flying in the face of many lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, biology, cosmology, and physics. It has not been published in rigorous peer-reviewed papers, and is not supported by any conventional scientists, or even most young-earth creationists with backgrounds in relevant fields.
Walter Brown’s “Hydroplate” Flood Model Doesn’t Hold Water

[CrisprCAS9]

@In-the-begginning

but is not compatible with your theory.

It isn’t compatible with reality.

@In-the-begginning

So we will have to agree to disagree.

If you are looking to be wrong without correction, you’ll not enjoy your time here.

[Witchdoc]

@CrisprCAS9

@In-the-begginning

but is not compatible with your theory.

It isn’t compatible with reality.

For @In-the-begginning

Walt Brown claims the fountains of the deep released 5000 trillion 1 megaton nuclear bomb’s equivalent of energy.

When you consider that the surface area of the earth is 510 trillion square metres, that is ten one megaton nukes per. square. metre. of the earth. Lol.

Reference 3 of

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes31.html

For reference, Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima was 15kt.

10 megatons per square metre is equivalent to 667 Hiroshimas per square metre.

[Michael_Okoko]

@In-the-begginning

All I have to go on is Gods word, which you don’t accept?

My acceptance of the Bible as God’s word is irrelevant. What’s important is whether the historical claims in it according to a YEC interpretation are correct. Spoiler: they aren’t.

@In-the-begginning

You do not accept it, yet thousands of years ago his word knew about people who would be wise in their own eyes and not accept there was a God.

How long ago the Bible or parts of it was written is irrelevant to whether it is what Christians say it. There are far older religious texts that make similar statements as the Bible, but that doesn’t make them true.

I am asking you for evidence to support the claims you are making. Since you admit you don’t have any, that pretty much settles it because any further discussion will wade into theology which I have no intention to venture into.

@In-the-begginning

You claim God did not make us. We are the clay! This was written thousands of years ago before evolution was even a theory.

There is no evidence for the direct creation of man by some deity, but there is powerful evidence for the descent of man (an ape) from ape ancestors. Divine creation of the earliest life forms is still an option but it hasn’t received any empirical development in contrast to other models for the origin of life like the metabolism-first hypothesis.

@In-the-begginning

This was written thousands of years ago before evolution was even a theory.

So? You are committing a fallacy here. Being older doesn’t make you correct or true. The ancients held many beliefs for thousands of years, but which turned out be false due to the rigorous science we have today.

In addition, ideas about evolution existed long before the Bible was written. Here is a link for you:

History of evolutionary thought

@In-the-begginning

We are here and exist and are conscious of our uniqueness. What’s your explanation? Or evidence?

We are conscious because we have a brain. That brain wasn’t wished into existence by some deity, it developed into its present form after thousands of years of evolutionary modification as seen in the fossil record.

How consciousness arose during our evolution is an interesting problem and it is being worked on, so if you need more info on current models for this consult the relevant experts.

However, just know that our consciousness is contingent on our brains, and those brains evolved first.

@In-the-begginning

Do other organisms just function or are the able to think and reason as we do as humuns?

Which world are you living in? Yes animals with brains think and reason as well, but not at the same level as humans. Of course, animals cannot reason about morality or science, but they can sure reason on how to get their next meal like we humans do. If they had brains like ours, maybe it would have been a different story today.

@In-the-begginning

The laws you all work with are constant, precise which all points to design

It seems you are unfamiliar with the “laws” or rules of biology which are not as predictive and sometimes messy compared to the laws of physics.

It seems you also confuse the laws of physics with the constants of the universe. The constants of our universe are pretty precise, but the laws of physics, though mostly better than those of biology, are not fixed or set in stone. Newton’s law of gravity, for example, breaks down at the quantum level or when we approach relativistic speeds. @dga471 might help you out here.

@In-the-begginning

The house across the road to you had a a planner and builder, do you know him? Did you see him build it? Probably not! Does he exist? Of course he does.

Our universe is nothing like a human house and no one knows how it came into existence. If I saw a house along the road, I would know it was designed by a human because humans build houses. If you saw little pebbles by the side of the house, would you conclude they must have put there by the builder without verifying?

@In-the-begginning

We all live in a house that has been furnished for human habitation, have you met the builder?

It appears you are so cooked up in fantasy. We live in a universe that wants to kill us. The radiation from the sun gives people melanomas or skin cancers, tornadoes and hurricanes continually batter human settlements, asteroids drop onto our planet surface killing life forms unfortunate to be around when they hit, viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are always present and waiting to jump into immunologically naive human populations. Wake up from your slumber, our planet or the universe doesn’t care about you or me, but evolution equipped us with the tools to adapt and survive in it.

@In-the-begginning

theoretically we should all be seeing real life forms evolving and happening all the time in front of our eyes because every day is aeons away from the beginning of life.

We are watching evolution happen in real-time. For example, SARS-CoV-2 is currently evolving as we speak.

@In-the-begginning

What animals are evolving into another type right now?

One example is unicellular organisms evolving multicellularity:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595&ved=2ahUKEwj4x6fX__zuAhXlyYUKHabJBCIQFjANegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw1h47JJ0lA7C9BTSQ0HCQ5q&cshid=1613979996847

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/amp

@In-the-begginning

Have you ever considered the Bible was written a long time before we discovered a lot of the science that is actually written in its pages

And as I said earlier, ideas about evolution predated the writing of the Bible and the birth of Christ. Since you think something being older makes it true, do you accept evolution as true since ideas about it existed prior to the Bible?

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@Michael_Okoko

There is no evidence for the direct creation of man by some deity

If there had been a de novo creation that happened once in the context of an evolving creation, what evidence would you expect to be able to find for that now, so many many years later? You’ve read the GAE, right? Could you prove a de novo creation did not happen?

@Michael_Okoko

Divine creation of the earliest life forms is still an option but it hasn’t received any empirical development

What empirical development could show one way or another whether a deity made the first cell?

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@In-the-begginning

I believe scripture is inspired yet also believe that man has added and taken away from it literally as well as in doctrinal interpretation.

I would be more than happy to be corrected with any insight you have?

What is your belief as regards a young earth?

The science of geology, astronomy and biology all point to a universe and an earth that are very very much older than 6000 years. The Bible is not a science textbook, but a theology textbook. So the Genesis story is important in the theological claims that it makes: that God created the universe and created people in His own image, which gives humanity great dignity and value. God made people to be stewards of the earth to take good care of it. God expects us to live by the moral values that He set up, as well, which promote the flourishing of life and the well being of humanity. There are many types of interpretations of the Genesis account (not just Walton’s) that allow for a historical understanding of Genesis, but do not require a 6000 year timeframe, including day-age, workday/analogical day, literary framework, gap theory.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@John_Harshman

Most of the creationists here think that the snake in question wasn’t a snake at all, just Satan in disguise. Not you?

No, I believe that Adam had dominion initially over the elements and animals as the second Adam did (Christ). He was God like with his God given abilities and used the serpent to deceive. He as his absolute power corrupted him as to him thinking he deserved to be God. He was the one who convinced the serpent thinking God won’t know.
The whole point of the tree of G&E was to let him know that despite his power, he was still subject to the created and not the creator. Basically don’t let it go to your head.
When disobedience happened, he was not only naked physically, he was naked in ability and no longer had dominion in the sense he had it before. He was going to have to survive by the sweat of his brow. There we have ancient man starting from scratch.

@John_Harshman

But it’s millions of years ago, not thousands.

Did it take millions of years for us humans to evolve technology and the ability to destroy ourselves, or has that just over the past century? As time has passed we as humans invent something to save time and effort on a specific task, something we label as progress. The more things we have invented collectively to save time has give us more time to do another task supposedly, then we invent something else to save time on that other task, we have repeated this process so so much that we have not enough time to for what really matters. That being genuine care for humanity, has been replaced with lack of understanding of the reality.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

Among a lot of problematic statements, this stood out:

@In-the-begginning

500 years ago a man said that he was going to build a ship and fly it in the sky. Everyone laughed at him and said it was not possible, it was not a idea to be entertained.

Which man was this? The Montgolfier brothers built their balloon less than 300 years ago, zeppelins were more recent and the Wright brothers were only about a century ago.

So who are you talking about?

Thanks for looking at it. I will try and find another math guy to double confirm it’s nonsense.

Ahem. Maths guy here. It’s nonsense.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

@Roy

So who are you talking about?

It was no one specific, I was just pointing out a mindset of mankind that what appears to be impossible to believe at certain points in our brief history. When it is PROVEN that the perceived impossibility can actually be a reality, The wisdom of the world has no alternative, but to accept it.

I believe that even though you don’t believe in a intelligence our creator, and think it ridiculous to even suggest it, what is impossible for you to accept at present will be accepted eventually by the wisdom of the world.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Michelle

If there had been a de novo creation that happened once in the context of an evolving creation, what evidence would you expect to be able to find for that now, so many many years later?

I am surprised you asked me this considering I was responding to a YEC who rejects common descent. He believes humans were specially made and are not part of the tree of life linking all extant organisms.

Of course, that’s wrong when we look at genome sequence data. The data supports common ancestry.

@Michelle

You’ve read the GAE, right? Could you prove a de novo creation did not happen?

No I could not disprove a miraculous de novo creation of man, but neither can you demonstrate this could have happened. Based on available data, we know what really happened: Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis and Pan troglodytes are descendants of a common ancestor.

GAE affirms the common descent of Homo sapiens as well, and posits that the progeny of the de novo created A&E interbred with people outside the garden. However, the GAE doesn’t push its de novo A&E as actual historical people, but that their existence wouldn’t clash with what is known about human evolutionary history.

[John_Harshman]

@In-the-begginning

He was the one who convinced the serpent thinking God won’t know.

Well, good luck convincing any other creationist of that story.

@In-the-begginning

Did it take millions of years for us humans to evolve technology and the ability to destroy ourselves, or has that just over the past century?

Millions of years. Hey, we didn’t even have opposable thumbs until 60 million years ago or so.

[T_aquaticus]

@In-the-begginning

No I am saying I can’t believe that life just appeared without reason or intelligence behind it.

That’s not what you said. You said that you can’t wrap your head around the idea of the cell coming from nothing, and yet that is what you believe, is it not?

@In-the-begginning

If you do not believe in a creator, it is you who believes something came from nothing.

If abiogenesis is true, then life came from something, not nothing.

@In-the-begginning

I have only heard that experiments are conducted and no validated proof of a living cell has been created.

Where are the experiments with validated proof demonstrating that cells are created by supernatural deities?

@In-the-begginning

All the laws of exist, so how unless a intelligence set the boundaries of them all just so we could exist within them and contemplate our existence?

Where is the evidence that any laws or universes were created by a supernatural deity? Sorry, but it is bad reasoning and bad logic to conclude magic just because no one else has a proven answer.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@In-the-begginning

@Roy

500 years ago a man said that he was going to build a ship and fly it in the sky. Everyone laughed at him and said it was not possible, it was not a idea to be entertained.

So who are you talking about?

It was no one specific, I was just pointing out a mindset of mankind that what appears to be impossible to believe at certain points in our brief history. When it is PROVEN that the perceived impossibility can actually be a reality, The wisdom of the world has no alternative, but to accept it.

So you made it up. You don’t actually know whether people said flight was impossible, you’re just assuming they did because you want that to be the case.

I believe that even though you don’t believe in a intelligence our creator, and think it ridiculous to even suggest it, what is impossible for you to accept at present will be accepted eventually by the wisdom of the world.

That would require us to forget all the things learnt since the time when that was the accepted view.

I suggest you stop believing in a regression to the 18th century and start investigating what we’re discovering in the 21st.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Michelle

What empirical development could show one way or another whether a deity made the first cell?

That’s something for ID proponents or YECs to decide, not me.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

I believe in a young earth creation based on prophecy in the first sentence of the Bible marrying up with the history we have now lived and know about as a collective. We, if you accept the inspiration of the txt are on the cusp of 6000 years from Adam. Soon to enter the day of rest. This all takes place on earth. First we face calamity like never before seen on the face of earth. The day of rest which is a 1000 year time period where we all get to know there is a loving creator.

The only people in the garden were A&E. Adam directly created by God and Eve taken from Adam via his rib. Perhaps our creator is the scientist with all the answers you are looking for?

All other flesh was created via God too, so I do expect to see the same signature of creation exist in all life forms.

A&E appearance and abilities changed after disobedience. So a genetic change that mutates based on a bad decision that introduced death to them and their offspring. So right there as they were put out of the garden we have the first change already in genetics. The command was don’t eat from the tree of good and evil. In that day you will die. Obedience would have never have produced death. So far we have 2 differences in markers that changed in the living cell. One that could live on without death and that marker changed after disobedience, and we introduced death to ourselves.

Next we have Cain and Abel both born outside the garden where A&E now were. Cain murders Abel and there is a Mark put on Cain so that no one murders him. There is now a second change from original in our genetics, maybe appearance and or functionality that would have put off anyone wanting revenge, (maybe the giant gene).

We now have the second change in the original human genetics, when Cain was removed from the presence of God. So appears to be 3 differences in human genetics.

Original, had potential to not die and could regen as Adam did after having rib removed.

2nd can no longer regen and their appearance and awareness changed after sin.

3rd Cain had a marker put on him to stop any from avenging Abels murder. Third change in appearance and genetics and maybe awareness.

Three ancestral changes in genetics before population growth.

The inter-relation happens when the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

Giants already existed before this flood and after this flood, they were men of old, from Cains line is my opinion, so already the gene pools were mixing. There you have three ancestral markers!

Now, after this over time all flesh had corrupted its way in the sight of God except Noah. Noah’s was faithful despite still being subject to death which we inherited. He was obedient in that he had reverence for our creator. His sons were of his bloodline, Noah’s bloodline obviously being of the promised messiah’s line despite being subject to death There were three wives of the sons of Noah that obviously were of the other changed markers in genetics.That’s maybe how giants existed after the flood. They would have carried markers of the three changes amongst them collectively.

Now I hear very loudly that you all say where is the empirical data to prove this. I equally say back to you all. You all agree you have no clue as to how life and the constant laws of nature manifested in the scientific world of current wisdom. You have no idea how and when? As previously stated I have always been about WHY we exist, if there is a God?
How we exist if there isn’t ?

I perceive there is a purpose to all we experience and death comes to a genius much the same as it does to myself a common man in our current cell formation. Can life be extended, yes other cells in animals evidence this. Some Tortoise can live to 200 years old is claimed.

You have all helped me recognise that. I cannot expect to understand or comprehend how our creator made everything in existence, the laws, life, consciousness of our being. No matter how intelligent, educated or uneducated I am, I am still finite. And unable to comprehend the infinite. God has a purpose in his creation that I can only see a glimmer of. He has been moving his creation toward his ultimate purpose. Maybe one day we will populate the universe when we know how to negotiate the elements of creation as Adam did before he sinned and as Christ did who did not sin. The whole point being Christ as a human was subject to death being born of a woman, yet death had no permanent hold over him as he did not sin. He conquered death and is coming with the keys to death and hades. This is the regeneration we are all lacking and trying to wrap our heads around as a collective. He will provide your empirical data! You will hear his voice and you will see loved ones again.

I perceive mankind wanting to explain their reason for existing, and totally dismissing a loving creator with a purpose. Other elements of mankind also trying to correct what God is doing, allowing or trying to give him advice, in effect trying to take on the role of God as all knowing. As if we as a collective know better than he does. I include myself , it is all vanity our our part.

I have come to the conclusion that it is so much better for me to simply trust him to do what he knows is best. Even when the world seems completely upside down and messed up to me.

I thank you all for your input in helping me come to my conclusion.

Yes, this can be perceived by you all as conjecture. I accept that and am not offended. At present I know we all live in a degenerating system of life and even though scientists hypothesis extract data at the peak of a experiment. After the peak the molecules etc degenerate.

Yet I live in hope for you all and the rest of humanity that will die and have died. We will all be regenerated by the generator of life is my hope in the pages of the book that explains why we die and how it was going to be fixed in the passage of a set time period.

G

[Dan_Eastwood]

Thank you for expressing yourself with so much clarity and detail.

[In-the-begginning (Gary Croker)]

Thanks @Dan_Eastwood.

[Michael_Okoko]

When you have something more substantive to present, then we can resume our discourse. I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole with you.

[Michael_Okoko]

@In-the-begginning

Thanks @Dan_Eastwood.

You are not the first to miss his sarcasm.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I’m not sure that I did … and there is much there I disagree with, but I’m pretty sure where he stands.