ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Post Flood Animals Vary

EGW wrote this: "Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."
What does this mean?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Cluny on 12/22/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



Warwick:

You said: I defend what I, on solid grounds, believe Scripture says

I, on the other hand, defend, on solid grounds, what Scripture actually says, and do not make dogmatic claims about what it doesn't.



jerry6593:

You asked: Axey: So what is your real name?

I first used Mark but changed when I saw someone else also using it.

I respect you by calling you by the name you choose to use on these blogs. Why can't you do the same?

Also, I am not pushing "long age gradualism" which "contradicts the rest of scripture". I merely show that scripture DOES NOT SAY how long creation days were. I don't say how long they were either.
---StrongAxe on 1/18/12


//If your "spirit guide" leads you in a direction contrary to scripture (and it does), then it is a false spirit.

You should take your own advise and not follow those who have a spirit guide. Anyone reading Ellen White knows that she often spoke of her "accompanying angel" and what is that if not a spirit guide?

Yes, there are many today that buy into the belief that we need to seek spirit guides and they sometimes quote Hebrews 1:14 "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
---lee1538 on 1/18/12


Au contraire StrongAxe my experience is that people today love liars as long as they tell them what their itching ears want to hear!

I defend what I, on solid grounds, believe Scripture says. Others are free to disagree, and I am free to point out what I see as their errors. However when some others (and I am not referring to you) hurl abuse I know my understanding of Scripture is correct.
---Warwick on 1/18/12


Axey: So what is your real name?


---jerry6593 on 1/18/12


Warwick:

Persecution and opposition are no guarantee of truth. Those who speak obvious lies or untruths (whether deliberate or not) are also universally reviled. Try going down the street in broad daylight screaming "the sun is dark!" and see how many friends you get.
---StrongAxe on 1/17/12




StrongAxe you initially had a very different demeanour than Lee but you have morphed somewhat. As Lee has appeared on these pages in a number of guises (including femele) I began to wonder if you were another part of his (?) interesting psyche.

BTW I am never bothered by those who disagree with me. God's word is very clear that any who defend His truth will be in the minority and will be opposed. Remember it was the religious who killed the prophets.
---Warwick on 1/17/12


Nature itself does teach you, that birds of a feather flock together.
---Eloy on 1/17/12


Warwick:

You asked lee1538: BTW is StrongAxe another of your many names? He is getting to sound more and more like you.

I have always used the nickname StrongAxe on these blogs (except for the first few weeks, but someone else was using the same nickname I used, so I changed mine.)

There have been several times when I have disagreed with lee1538 on these blogs, while I have agreed with him at other times.

Finally, if you look at the style of our prose, it would be fairly obvious that our posts are written by different people.

Is it so inconceivable to you that more than one person could possibly disagree with you?
---StrongAxe on 1/17/12


Lee: "Maybe we have the same Teacher - God's Holy Spirit"

Perhaps you should

"...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:" (1Jn 4:1)

If your "spirit guide" leads you in a direction contrary to scripture (and it does), then it is a false spirit.


---jerry6593 on 1/17/12


Axey: (This name will remain until you reveal your real name.)

Your desperate attempt to subvert the scripture to allow for long age gradualism in creation contradicts the rest of scripture. Perhaps your real name is LEE!


---jerry6593 on 1/17/12




Warwick //BTW is StrongAxe another of your many names? He is getting to sound more and more like you.
---
Maybe we have the same Teacher - God's Holy Spirit.

You really should give it up as your cannot win against the truth.



---lee1538 on 1/16/12


Lee you wrote "Until Adventists come into the knowledge of the truth, they will continue to honk their horns at other Christians." Now that is quite humorous coming from you, one who regularly derides Christian brothers. I meant to keep a list of all the names you have called me over the months but why bother.

BTW is StrongAxe another of your many names? He is getting to sound more and more like you.
---Warwick on 1/16/12


Eloy:

FYI, the word is species with an s. One species, two species. Not one specie, two species.

There is a different word specie that mean (in) kind. For example, such treachery should be repaid in specie, and is frequently used with kinds of coins.

The use of specie to indicate the singular of a biological species by back-formation is non-standard usage.
---StrongAxe on 1/16/12


The underlying problem here is that the Adventists feel they must defend whatever may pertains to the Jewish Sabbath. In this case the indefensible view that all the creation days had to be of 24 hours duration.

However what they absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that the New Covenant was not a rehash of the Old. And they hold that the church erred when they decided at the Jerusalem council that believers had to convert to Judaism. Acts 15

Until Adventists come into the knowledge of the truth, they will continue to honk their horns at other Christians.

Their denominational scruples really overrule the Bible.
---lee1538 on 1/16/12


She surmises that the world is a closed system not allowing any new creations to be made from the Creator himself, but she speculates that the current vast diversities of man and beast seen today is merely a result of interbreeding among species. This is nontruth, for it is a rarety occurrence that a particular kind of specie will leave their kind in order to go breed with another kind. Adults bearing offspring is only one way of repopulating the world. Yet God is the Almighty Creator whom can daily at any time create a new creature not yet known to man, "so that not from things visible the seen have come into being."
---Eloy on 1/16/12


jerry6593:

You said: Lev 23:32 .... from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

If you'll notice, the time from sundown to sundown is approximately 24 hours. No one has "nitpicked" the seconds.


To the contrary. There is nowhere here (nor in any other verses you have quoted), ANY mention of "24" or "hours". ONLY "from even to even" - evenings, same as mentioned in Genesis 1, but are not defined here.

If you substitute "sundown" as you do, that is still MEANINGLESS when there was no "sun" to go "down".

Besides, Leviticus was written to humans, which were created AFTER the sun was, so any anomalous days would not apply anyway.
---StrongAxe on 1/16/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Axey: "God did not give us sufficient information to nit-pick exactly how many seconds long the first few creation days were."

Yes He did!

Lev 23:32 .... from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

If you'll notice, the time from sundown to sundown is approximately 24 hours. No one has "nitpicked" the seconds.


Your name: CN Blogger Instruction #7 says "Use Penpal User Name" That's what I do. Why don't you? And yes, my real, given name is Jerry. I will gladly call you by your real name. What is it? And don't say StrongAxe, 'cause I won't believe you.


---jerry6593 on 1/16/12


jerry6593:

God did not give us sufficient information to nit-pick exactly how many seconds long the first few creation days were. Did it ever occur to you that the reason he did not do so was that perhaps he did not INTEND to do so, that he didn't consider it important enough for us to worry about? He didn't tell us the color of Adam's hair, probably for the same reason.

Also, why do you keep flippantly calling me "Axey"? I always address you by the name you choose to use on these blogs. Why don't you have the courtesy to do the same?
---StrongAxe on 1/15/12


StrongAxe, Scripture says the creation days were ordinary earth-rotation days. Not even a hint they were otherwise. Exodus 20:8-11 God commanded the Israelites to work for six days, rest the seventh. Why? "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day...."

Now for you to be right God (the maker of days) was using "six days" with two completely different meanings but forgot to tell them this. Would God do this?

He also said "You shall not commit adultery" but in your reasoning what did He mean? Can we reinterpret "adultery" to suit ourselves, as you are doing with six days? A different interpretation could be very popular!
---Warwick on 1/15/12


Axey: You do injustice to the English Langage. What is there about the phrase "For in six days" that would imply that the the first three were in some way different? How on earth are we to count six days and rest the seventh if the the first three may be millenia in length? More importantly, what is your motive for trying to force-fit long-age gradualism into our religion?


---jerry6593 on 1/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


jerry6593:

You said: The only possible understanding of these words is six days of equal lengths of approximately 24 hours duration each.

In other words, you agree with me that the Bible does NOT actually say this, but rather, you understand what it means.

Your "only" claim is obviously false, as many understand it your way, while many understand it differently - AT LEAST two possible understandings.

What the Bible does not say - nor does it anywhere imply - is that the first three days of creation were extremely long.

Agreed. But it doesn't say they are short either. Any dogma about the lengths of creation days must necessarily be based on assumption.
---StrongAxe on 1/13/12


Axey: "the Bible does NOT actually say this."

This is what the Bible says:

Exo 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.

The only possible understanding of these words is six days of equal lengths of approximately 24 hours duration each.

What the Bible does not say - nor does it anywhere imply - is that the first three days of creation were extremely long, and species of animals were generated spontaneously by random genetic mutation.


---jerry6593 on 1/13/12


Job 19:25-27 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth: And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, [though] my reins be consumed within me.
--Israel understood right well about afterlife.
--Job was well before Moses.
---micha9344 on 1/12/12


SDhould not the same understanding of God's Word transcend time?
It wuould be interesting to here some specifics ofsome ofthe knowledge we have today that would make us not believe in a six-day, 24 hour creation.
If the Word says it and God can do it, why not just believe it?
---micha9344 on 1/12/12


Shop For Church Seating


micha9344:

Israel also initially "understood" that there was no afterlife (until much later than the time of Moses). Such "understandings" are assumptions, and not necessarily correct ones.

As I keep pointing out, the Bible does not say how long the creation days are. We can assume they were 24 hours long all we like, but these are merely assumptions.

What information do we have today that they didn't have 4000-2000 years ago? We have better understandings of physics and biology, among other things.
---StrongAxe on 1/12/12


The Hebrew day (one revolution of the Earth) was broken into 2 segments, day(daylight) and night.
These in turn were broken into 4 segments of 3 hours each.
These segments were called watches.
No matter how long the hour was, depending on season, there were still 12 in the day and 12 at night.
Israel understood God when He said that He created the heavens and the Earth in six days to be 24 hour days.
Israel understood that one evening and one morning meant one day(revolution of the Earth).
What information do we have today, that Israel did not have, to change our understanding of these passages compared to how Israel understood them 3500 years ago?
---micha9344 on 1/12/12


micha9344:

You asked: Why would somone have faith in man's ideas over God's Word?

This whole argument is about words that are NOT ACTUALLY in God's Word.

jerry6593 keeps arguing that the creation days MUST NECESSARILY have been 24 hours long. I keep point out that the Bible does NOT actually say this. That's all. Anyone can happily prove me wrong by pointing out somewhere where The Bible ACTUALLY mentions 24 hour days during the creation week, but they can't, since it doesn't say so anywhere.

So, instead, jerry6593 argues that the days MUST HAVE BEEN 24 hours long, which does not in any way contradict my assertion that the Bible doe NOT actually say how long they were.
---StrongAxe on 1/11/12


Axey: I find your thesis illogical. You are saying the earth which didn't yet exist was without form and void. How can that which "was" not have existed?


---jerry6593 on 1/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


So it wasn't a planet until the dry land *appeared*?
And the rotation of the Earth, which aids in gravity, cannot happen unless dry land is noticeable?
I'm with Jerry, what information is out there that would lead one to believe that the universe was not created in six literal days, as it is written?
Why would somone have faith in man's ideas over God's Word?
---micha9344 on 1/10/12


jerry6593:

Genesis 1:

1. God creates the heaven and the earth (summary of the chapter)
2. Earth was without form, and void
6-8. God creates a firmament, and calls the waters above it "heaven" (second day)
9-10. God makes dry land appear, and calls it "earth" (third day).

If 1:1 chronologically precedes the rest of the chapter (rather than being a summary), why did God need to create both heaven and earth twice?

Or, if God really meant to represent two different concepts, why did he use the same words each time? And the same applies to heavens as well.

Even if what you claim WERE true, how can something with no form rotate?
---StrongAxe on 1/10/12


Axey: "On the day 1, there was no earth to rotate, as it was created on day 2."

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2, 5 And the earth was without form, and void, .... And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I think that you are confusing "earth" the planet (day 1) with "earth" soil or dirt (day 2).

Again:

There is not even a hint of anything other than a 24-hour day in the biblical account of Creation. So where does this idea come from?

---jerry6593 on 1/10/12


jerry6593:

You said:Then why did God assign a day number and an evening/morning to the first three days?

He has some definition not dependent on earth's rotation.

The implication is (as confirmed in Exo 20:11) that all seven days of the week are alike.

So you admit what I say all along, the Bible never explicitly states how long these days are. Exodus 20:11 mentions no length, only number.

Otherwise, our week is meaningless.

Our days are all 24 hours long.

The first 3 days were necessarily measured by the earth's rotation rate relative to God.

On the day 1, there was no earth to rotate, as it was created on day 2.
---StrongAxe on 1/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Axey: "The mechanisms by which we measure days and nights (i.e. earth's rotation with respect to the sun) were meaningless during those days."

Then why did God assign a day number and an evening/morning to the first three days? The implication is (as confirmed in Exo 20:11) that all seven days of the week are alike. Otherwise, our week is meaningless. There is not even a hint of anything other than a 24-hour day in the biblical account of Creation. So where does this idea come from?

The first 3 days were necessarily measured by the earth's rotation rate relative to God (the light source), since they had evenings and mornings.

---jerry6593 on 1/9/12


jerry6593:

I didn't say the days were eons in length. I keep saying The Bible does not say how long the first days were. The mechanisms by which we measure days and nights (i.e. earth's rotation with respect to the sun) were meaningless during those days.

Also, earth did not need to experience any angular rotation change, since there WAS NO EARTH to rotate in the first place. How much traumatic angular momentum changes happened during Joshua's Day (when there WAS an earth)? Can you answer that one?

Besides, WE don't need to count the length of the days. WE weren't alive then. All we need to do is read what happened. God didn't give us specific scientific details. I guess he didn't think it was important to tell us.
---StrongAxe on 1/8/12


Mrs. White was not only a plagiarist, she sometimes repeated the stupid uninformed opinions of general heathens. There was once a racist belief that some people (like the aboriginal Australians)were human - animal hybrids, this from a faulty understanding of Genesis 6:1-6.
p.s.The Lutherans have apologized for some of Martys comments, the Southern Baptists have apologized for Slavery ... And the Seventh Day Adventists?
---Glenn on 1/8/12


Axey: If the first three days were indeed eons in length, what possible meaning does their inclusion of "evening and morning" have? Please explain how the vegetation of day three survived eons of darkness and eons of light. How did the earth withstand the instantaneous angular acceleration associated with the transition from eons to 24-hour days? Also, how are we to count the days of the week and rest the seventh day (as commanded) if the first three days of each week is eons in length?

---jerry6593 on 1/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Warwick:

We have never been arguing about how many "days" God created everything in. What we are arguing is about the LENGTHS of those days. You claim the Bible says how long the first creation days are. I claim it does not.
---StrongAxe on 1/6/12


Warwick, you said,
"Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
That passage contradicts nothing. All it is saying is that there was eveneing and there was morning on the sixth day. Yes, everything was good but when the beginning started (v.1) it was not very good. It was all water, darkness and void. God would quickly (in 6 days) decorate His initial creation. I'm just explaining to you from Scripture for what it's worth.
---Mark_V. on 1/5/12


StrongAxe:

Scripture interprtets and confirms Scripture:

Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,..." He says He made it all in six days. If He didn't why did He say this?

The beginning of creation is "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth..." And the ending of creation week is "And there was evening and there was morinng-the sixth day."
---Warwick on 1/4/12


Genesis 1:
1. Heaven+earth created "in the beginning"
7-8. Heaven created. Day 2.
9-13. Earth created. Day 3.
14-19. Sun+moon+stars created. Day 4.
27-31. Man created. Day 6.

Mark 10:6/Matthew 19:4
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Hebrews 1:10
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands"

Heaven+earth were created on days 2+3. "In the beginning" in verse 1 is just a summary of following verses. NT verses say things created on days 3+6 as "in the beginning". So "beginning" does NOT mean "day 1".
---StrongAxe on 1/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Warwick 2: Then after He tells us of the beginning and how it was, then He says
"Then God said, Let there be light and there was light" From that moment on we can assume a day had started since one day is light day and darkness night. But that was not said in verse one. And who can speculate how much time was in between? Another thing to remember is that God is outside of time. Yet He reminds us that He divided the darkness into day and night and (v,5) "God called the light day and the darkness night. So the evening and the morning were the first day" Nothing like that was mentioned in the very beginning. There was an order of things explained through the verses. Anything we add is speculation.
---Mark_V. on 1/4/12


Warwick, Gen. 1 clearly states, "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep." And the Spirit of God was hovering over the fact of the waters".
That's how the beginning started. We know there was no land yet, darkness was on the face of the deep for the earth was covered with water, there was no form for it was void. And we are not told for how long a period of time that was. You can speculate it was one second, 1 hr, or a thousand years. If God had said, "In the beginning of the first day I created the Heavens and the earth" we would know the day had started. But there was no light until (v. 3).
---Mark_V. on 1/4/12


StrongAxe my Bible says the earth and light was created on day 1. All that is necessary for a day is a fixed light-source and a rotating earth. That these were there is shown in Genesis 1:3-5.

I make no assumnption at all, I trust God's word.

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day" Genesis 1:31

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day...."

If I spoke of 6 six days you would not ask how long are your days. God says just that and you won't believe Him! This is not faith:".... ... For all that is not of faith is sin" Romans 14:23.
---Warwick on 1/4/12


Axey: "... there are lesser values on either side of the peak - i.e. that fossils were also created both before and after it."

No, no, no! The values on either side of the peak are ERRORS in the measurement accuracy - not valid dates.

Have you considered the disasterous physical consequences of the earth suddenly changing rotation rate?

When God writes that He created the earth in six days and rested the seventh (and commands you to work six and rest the seventh), what would lead you to believe that some of those days are of much different length? I sense that you are very close to accepting the straightforward truth of six-day Bible Creation. The evolutionary academics are certified hoaxters - not God.
---jerry6593 on 1/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Warwick:

Where you live (and indeed where most of us live), light and darkness follow in 24 hour cycles BECAUSE the earth rotates once every 24 hours with respect to the sun.

However, you cannot personally witness to the fact that is has always done so, in particular, during the first two creation days, when there WAS no earth to rotate, nor a sun to compare to. You can make assumptions all you like about those first few days, but that's all they are - assumptions.
---StrongAxe on 1/3/12


StrongAxe, God created the earth, then the light "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Surely

Where I live light (day) followed by darkness (night) and evening and morning constitute one ordinary 24hr day.

'Day' is used with a number throughout Genesis 1. It is used as a singular or plural with a number 410 times outside of Genesis always meaning ordinary day.
'Evening' and 'morning' are used together without 'day' 38 times outside Genesis 1 always indicating an ordinary day etc.. 'Evening' or 'morning' are used 23 times each with day outside Genesis 1 and it always means an ordinary day.
---Warwick on 1/3/12


jerry6593:

The very term "sharp statistical peak" implies that there are lesser values on either side of the peak - i.e. that fossils were also created both before and after it.

I also never said the Bible was not true. I merely dispute the dogmatic assertions that certain specific INTERPRETATIONS of it "must necessarily be true".

Warwick:

Defining a day as "evening and morning" is a far cry from "24 hours". A day is 24 hours NOW that we have both an earth and a sun, but in the beginning, earth and sun could not be used to define evening and morning, since neither existed.
---StrongAxe on 1/3/12


Axey: "How do you know that all the layers the fossils in were laid down suddenly, in a short period?"

Have you forgotten our discussion about the sharp statistical peak of C14 fossil dates corresponding to the date of the flood?

Why fight it Axey? The Bible is true - all of it. Embrace it!

---jerry6593 on 1/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


StrongAxe, you are arguing because Scripture does say how long the days of creation are:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

But God's word is not good enough for you. Even that inscribed on stone by the very finger of God.
---Warwick on 1/2/12


jerry6593:

How do you know that all the layers the fossils in were laid down suddenly, in a short period? You can assume that this was because of the Flood, but that is a mere assumption, and as such, can't be used to "prove" other assumptions wrong.

Besides, you should remember that I have not been continuously arguing here that "Creations days were eons in length". As I keep pointing out to Warwick, I am just saying "the Bible does not say how long they are".
---StrongAxe on 1/2/12


StrongAxe, It is not difficult to understand that all the breeds of dogs are descended from the one original dog kind because all can breed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore Noah would not have to take representatives of different breeds of dogs (assuming such existed then) but a mating pair of the original dog kind. The one whose great variety of genetic information allowed for the variety of dogs we see today.

What gives you the idea that what you call 'young-earthers' do not believe in variations or speciation? News to me.
---Warwick on 1/2/12


Warwick:

The reason I use "species" is because that word has a specific meaning, and we can estimate how many species there are on the planet now.

The word "kind" does NOT have a specific meaning in this context, so we cannot count how many "kinds" of animals are on the earth. It's hard even in other contexts (for example, in the prohibition of breeding animals of different "kinds").

However, regardless of just what "kind" ACTUALLY means, I suggested three different possible interpretations of it in my last post, and the issues I mentioned still exist, regardless of which word you happen to choose to use.
---StrongAxe on 1/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


**************

Axey: "Only the rarest few end up in freakishly unnatural conditions that end up being preserved as fossils."

Exactly! Unnatural conditions like a massive flood coupled with earthquake-induced turbidite formation, to be specific. But this very fact negates Darwin's assumption that the fossil layers were layed down gradually, over millions of years. All the fossil layers were layed down quickly - over a short period of time - not over eons as required for Evolution. So why argue for the first three days of Creation being eons in length, when there is no evidence of gradualism, but only catastrophism?

******************

---jerry6593 on 1/2/12


StrongAxe, Scripture says "kind" and you use "species." Why not stick to Scripture? Do you know what the term 'dog kind' means? Just like humans, plenty of variety but still able to breed and produce fertile offspring. All the dogs being able to breed successfully means they are descended from the 1 original dog kind. Therefore Noah took on board 1 male and 1 female dog.

Some creatures have speciated enough from the original kind so they can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. But they were once the one kind.

Speciation/natural selection does not lead to evolution, i.e. one kind evolving into a different kind, but only to variety.
---Warwick on 1/1/12


Warwick:

It said that two of every KIND. We don't know what that meant. If it meant species (as we think of species today), the ark would not have been large enough to hold them. If it meant species, but there were fewer then than now, then somehow, most of the species today must have differentiated (i.e. evolved) AFTER the flood. Similarly if "kind" only meant prototypes (for example, one pair of oxen rather than one pair of each type of oxen). But this contradicts the commonly-held view among young-earthers, that individual species cannot be formed by evolutionary means.
---StrongAxe on 12/31/11


StrongAxe, where does Scripture say 'species' went on the ark?
---Warwick on 12/30/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


jerry6593:

99 44/100% (NOTE: a metaphoric, not factual number) of living creatures, when they die, get recycled by nature. Only the rarest few end up in freakishly unnatural conditions that end up being preserved as fossils. This is why the fossil record is so sparse - because most creatures (and, in fact, most entire species) never get fossilized.
---StrongAxe on 12/30/11


Axey: "Even if C14 dating is off by a factor of 4, it still puts it outside the "reasonable window" of a young earth."

It's statistical error spread, Axey. There are just as many fossil dates that are "too young" as there are those that are "too old". But the statistical peak is still at 4,500 years BP - the "correct" age. The important fact is that there are NONE that are millions of years old, as would be required for Evolution to have occurred.


---jerry6593 on 12/30/11


jerry6593:

Even if C14 dating is off by a factor of 4, it still puts it outside the "reasonable window" of a young earth.

Something just occurred to me based on larry's comment: Those who insist on a young earth also generally disbelieve evolution. With many more distinct species on earth than could possibly fit the Ark, one must accept one of the following:
1) The Flood did not happen
2) The Flood was not global
3) The Ark must have been MUCH bigger than described
4) The Ark species must have evolved into many more species
5) God must have woken up on day 8 after the flood, and done a whole bunch more creating
---StrongAxe on 12/29/11


Axey: As you know, C14 dating is the ONLY method of direct fossil dating, and is fraught with inaccuracies and variability for numerous reasons. Hence, a statistical review is in order, and such a view shows a strong statistical peak at ~4,500 years BP. (See R. Whitelaw, Time, Light and History in light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7 (1970): 56)

For Plate Techtonics, see:

Gen 7:11 ... the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,...


---jerry6593 on 12/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


jerry6593:

You said: The continental arrangement has changed greatly since the flood (plate techtonics). The age of ALL fossils has been proven with mass spectrometer C14 testing to be about 4,500 years ago - the age of Noah's flood.

First, what sources do you have for 4500 years? Many of the sources I have seen mention fossils dated to the 20000-30000 range.

Second, what do plate tectonics have to do with C14 dating? In fact, what evidence do you have that all the tectonic movement happened in the past 4500 years? Given the continental layout, and the speed at which continents are moving, it would seem like a LOT more time would have been needed.
---StrongAxe on 12/28/11


larry: "Secondly the 7 million species we now have blows a hole in the young earth theory."

No, it doesn't! The definition of "species" is an arbitrary, man-made construct. The "kinds" defined by God were much fewer in number.

The continental arrangement has changed greatly since the flood (plate techtonics). The age of ALL fossils has been proven with mass spectrometer C14 testing to be about 4,500 years ago - the age of Noah's flood.


---jerry6593 on 12/28/11


Well first, there's been no amalgamation of man and soul- less animals.
Secondly the 7 million species we now have blows a hole in the young earth theory. It would suggest Noah had 20-thousand or so original pairs that migrated to unique areas of the globe in just a few years. The argument does not support the land-based animal populations found only in Australia and Madagascar for example. The flood was probably about 40-50 thousand years ago during the time of Noah when the Persian Gulf was dry.
---larry on 12/25/11


I believe EGW used the wrong word and because of her lack of edcuation and science training she followed some words that science teachers in her day wrote.

I do not believe she was perfect and I know she was a sinner saved by grace.

Some attack the Bible because of Jacob use of sticks that it is false.
---Samuel on 12/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


"Well, EGW does seem to be saying that "certain race of men" (ethnic groups) are the result of hybridization (to use a nice word) of human and animals."

The euphemism you used Cluny is "hybridization". However, the far from nice & racist word EGW strongly implied is "bestiality" of which is definitely forbidden by God (Lev. 20:15-16).

Again, EGW had some very serious mental issues that significantly conflicted with Bible reality. The Bible plainly shows there is but one race, the hueman race, from Adam to present day humanity.
---Leon on 12/23/11


Ellen G. White was mistaken in her choice of words and understanding. I admit this freely. After all she did not have a good education like her critics who can look back from the modern standpoint and point out what we know today.

I have some atheist point out that placing striped sticks in front of animals does nothing and so the Bible must be wrong.

Very similar arguments.

Do you know that doctors in the early 1900's attended school less then a year and used Mercury, Strichnine and arsenic as medicene? Anyone know what th book Jungle by Simclair was about?
---Samuel on 12/23/11


Cluny: If you were at all interested in the facts, you'd visit the White Estate website where a good article on the subject of amalgamation can be found. The nineteenth century usage of "amalgamation" was generally "interracial" sex, but in the sense used by EGW was more the "sons of God (Seth's descendants) with the daughters of men (Cain's descendants)" as well as the children of Israel mixing with the children of Caanan.

Similarly, widespread animal mating brought forth the broad diversity of animal life (via mendellian genetics) we now see.

Note that she did NOT state that there was amalgamation BETWEEN man and animals, but amalgamation OF man and OF animals - no breeding with animals.

---jerry6593 on 12/24/11


I take literally that the word amalgamate means to blend together. Possibly EGW did not mean this in a literal but in a metaphoric sense. I would suggest that EGW is noting how God used a master blueprint for much of his animal creation and in the most advanced level for human beings.
---doug5887 on 12/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Cluny:

Her theory certainly seems to have merit when it comes to politicians...
---StrongAxe on 12/24/11


I find what EGW has said to be a paradox.

One one hand she used the word amalgamation which means to merge two or more and then on the other hand she describes the endless varieties of animals and races of men.

Which is it? Is it a merging or a diverging?

I find neither. I do not find new species being created but only strains within the species we already have. I find no merging of the races, because as we all know, we are all of the same race, the human race.

So all is as it was after the flood regarding human races and animal species.
---Mark_Eaton on 12/23/11


Well, EGW does seem to be saying that "certain race of men" are the result of hybridization (to use a nice word) of human and animals.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/23/11


"EGW wrote this: 'Since the flood there has been amalgamation [combination, mixture] of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.'
What does this mean?"


It is unfortunately the nonsensical, gobbledygook of a traumatically brain injured woman!
---Leon on 12/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Actually by my calculations the flood was probably closer to 4000 years ago. From Creation to Flood was 1656 years. About 2000 years from Flood to Christ's birth. 2000 years after His death. I realize there are probably some minor errors with the calendar we use today.
---yooper8 on 12/23/11


Who asked this? Cluny . . . ? asking instead of answering a question?? (c: lolol

Well, first I thought this blog could mean why are humans and animals becoming more and more alike, so that humans now are animals? Well, it does say,

"A man who is in honor, yet does not understand,
Is like the beasts that perish." (Psalm 49:20)

Humans can compete like evolution says animals do. So, this world's people can easily think humans are animals, too.

What she says could be understood to mean humans uniting with each other have produced greater variety of humans. Or, that humans with animals have produced now beings. She doesn't make herself clear, I think.
---Bill_willa6989 on 12/23/11


Yes, and according to the biblical chronology, the Flood took place less than 4400 years ago. That makes it all the more amazing! :)
---John.usa on 12/22/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.