Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Originally posted by CalJust
Nobody can and should pontificate that they are RIGHT, and you are correct to say so. I don't either.

But that does not prevent us from approaching "Rightness" assymptotically, so to speak, by examining facts and evidence and drawing some conclusions.

My question to you was whether you are willing to pursue such an approach, and to see whether your statement that they would not change from one kind to another can be verified.

With respect to life going from a plant to animal, have you ever seen it done?
Have you seen anything to lead you to think it could go from animal to plant?
If common ancestors are true than things very close to that was going to have to occur.
A single life form would have to turn into male and female at or around the same time
in such a way the two sexes would be able to mate and have off spring. The host of
things that need to occur perfectly would beyond count for a common ancestors to be
true. It is a simple statement to suggest it would happen slowly through natural selection,
and putting you faith in that statement to me is no different that putting it in God's Word.

We have seen changes in a life form, but it always remains that lifeform. At least with what
I believe has been backed up with what we see, and not completely have to be taken on
faith.

Originally posted by divegeester
But the disciples [b]ONLY baptised in Jesus name, this was their understanding from Christ and they ALL did it, EVERY time, without exception.

Clearly it was important to Christ for them to use his name (Jesus) and to associate his oneness of deity with the three TITLES (father, son and holy ghost) of his revealed godhead.
...[text shortened]... saying it OK for you to provide an new interpretation onto Christ's instruction to his diciples?[/b]

We don't really know that the disciples ONLY baptised in Jesus name. The New Testament scriptures do not say that. You are making an assumption based on little evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to life going from a plant to animal, have you ever seen it done?
Have you seen anything to lead you to think it could go from animal to plant?
If common ancestors are true than things very close to that was going to have to occur.
A single life form would have to turn into male and female at or around the same time
in such a way the two se ...[text shortened]... t
I believe has been backed up with what we see, and not completely have to be taken on
faith.

Keep up the good work.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
We don't really know that the disciples [b]ONLY baptised in Jesus name. The New Testament scriptures do not say that. You are making an assumption based on little evidence.[/b]

I'm pointing out scriptural facts to you. You are making an assumption that the disciples used another formula of Father, son and Holy Ghost. You are adding this to scripture when it didn't happen.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to life going from a plant to animal, have you ever seen it done?
Have you seen anything to lead you to think it could go from animal to plant?
If common ancestors are true than things very close to that was going to have to occur.
A single life form would have to turn into male and female at or around the same time
in such a way the two se ...[text shortened]... t
I believe has been backed up with what we see, and not completely have to be taken on
faith.

All I asked you at this stage was whether you would be prepared to hold a proper discussion on the terms that I suggested earlier.

A simple: OK, let's do it, or: No, I don't feel like it would suffuce.

You immediately jumped in with what you believe and what you think, but I still don't know whether you agree to what I said.

Originally posted by CalJust
All I asked you at this stage was whether you would be prepared to hold a proper discussion on the terms that I suggested earlier.

A simple: OK, let's do it, or: No, I don't feel like it would suffuce.

You immediately jumped in with what you believe and what you think, but I still don't know whether you agree to what I said.

Yes sure okay good to go.....

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes sure okay good to go.....

Good, looking forward to it.

Can we just confirm the ground rules again: any party can use any reference work or website for info, but no Youtube or website link may be posted, rather the issues raised should be condensed and summarised as good as possible.

So right at the start I would like to determine what kind of world is postulated to have existed at the flood, and how the continents looked like for the animals leaving the Ark. (There are conflicting postings in another thread on the fact that the mountains were raised during the flood event.)

Are you familiar with the theory of Continental Drift, and Plate Tectonics?

Briefly, here is the conventional pov.

Ortelius, in 1596 first noticed that the continents fitted together like a jig-saw puzzle, and postulated some original super-continent. (Gondwana). This was almost universally ridiculed, but in 1915 Wegener and (a South African) Alex du Toit described the mechanism by which this could have happened, and Plate Tectonics is now universally accepted as an explanation of this phenomenon. The rate was also determined (about 50 mm, or two inches) per year.

It was also determined that new ocean floor is continually being created, as the continents move apart, and the interesting aspect is that nowhere is the ocean floor older than 200 M years, whereas the continents are mostly > 2 bn years.

Quick note: Of course, the millions of years are up for dispute, and for the moment I want us to ignore the actual figures. Of interest is the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE between the ocean floor and the continents, which is measurable, even if the radiometry is challenged.

So as a first item I want to ask you: was the globe at the time of the flood basically as we have it now, with the various continents in the positions that we are all familiar with, or did Noah land in Gondwanaland, with all the continents still connected, and did the continental drift happen AFTERWARDS, i.e. very, very fast during the past 6000 years or so?

It is important to sort this question out first, before we study how the animals from the Ark could have dispersed themselves over the then ancient world.

Originally posted by CalJust
Good, looking forward to it.

Can we just confirm the ground rules again: any party can use any reference work or website for info, but no Youtube or website link may be posted, rather the issues raised should be condensed and summarised as good as possible.

So right at the start I would like to [b]determine what kind of world is postulated to have exi ...[text shortened]... study how the animals from the Ark could have dispersed themselves over the then ancient world.

I believe the land was different than it is now before the flood.
Hard telling how high mountains were back then or even where they were.
The Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics...
There was a reference in the OT about a massive earth quake...Was that splitting of the
land masses? If it was it was only a blub in text.
Did any of it happen while the earth was underwater?

Difficult to know, what we do know is the rate of movement now is small. Was that always
the case, was there a event like a massive earth quake that could have sped up the
process? Possible, but we will not know for sure. I would think it would have had to have
happen quickly at some point for the dispersion of animals, after the flood.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe the land was different than it is now before the flood.
Hard telling how high mountains were back then or even where they were.
The Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics...
There was a reference in the OT about a massive earth quake...Was that splitting of the
land masses? If it was it was only a blub in text.
Did any of it happen while the e ...[text shortened]... d have had to have
happen quickly at some point for the dispersion of animals, after the flood.

I must admit that I am not really sure what you are saying here.

Do you accept at least that continental drift happened, splitting the original huge landmass into the five continents, without in any way attaching a time scale to it? There is enormous geological evidence for this, and if you have any doubt on that matter, I would happily mention just one or two key issues.

The height of the mountains is not really an issue at this stage of our discussion.

But if you say the land WAS different, how different do you think it was, in what way, and how did it change? For example, if you suggest that continental drift could have speeded up since the flood, you should be able to show how that could habe happened. Do we see any evidence of that?

We should keep in mind that the Flood Event was of a relatively short duration, around a year or so. Everything that we postulate that happened (and that includes the possible earthquake, the deposition of drowned animals in mud thus creating fossils, as well as the subsequent erosion) must take place within that time span. Because both BEFORE the flood, as well as shortly AFTERWARDS, we cannot have any huge catastrophes, because then the animals would not have been able to get to and from the Ark respectivly.

But for now we have not yet established what the earth looked like. Either it was Gondwanaland, or basically current geography, or fairly close to it, and each of these possible alternatives presents different problems for Noah's animals, as you will certainly appreciate.

Which option should we discuss further?

Originally posted by CalJust
I must admit that I am not really sure what you are saying here.

If the land was different, how different? Was there a continuous landmass (like Gondwana) or was the geograohy basically the same as tody? The height of the mountains is not really an issue at this stage of our discussion.

But if it WAS different, how did it change? For example, if you s ...[text shortened]... for Noah's animals, as you will certainly appreciate.

Which option should we discuss further?

Recognizing that no one speaks for KellyJay, the Institute for Creation Research has this to say:

http://www.icr.org/article/continental-drift-plate-tectonics-bible/

quote

...The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continental splitting, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question. ...

...Conclusion

The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and underthrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapid processes, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism. Noah's Flood, as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes and provides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continental separation may have occurred.

unquote

Originally posted by JS357
Noah's Flood, as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes and provides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continental separation may have occurred.

Could you perhaps translate this into understandable English?

For example, what shift happened during the year of the Flood event? The entire Gondwana-to-today event, or only partial?

What did Noah see when he left the Ark - the modern ME landscape, or the Gondwana landscape?

Originally posted by CalJust
Could you perhaps translate this into understandable English?

For example, what shift happened during the year of the Flood event? The entire Gondwana-to-today event, or only partial?

What did Noah see when he left the Ark - the modern ME landscape, or the Gondwana landscape?

Did you not find the answers at the link? According to it, the whole thing, whatever-to-today, happened during the flood. The author cited Biblical support for a pre-flood single ocean, and infers from that a single land mass. That inference is weak, IMO, but the conclusion s stated is catastrophic geological shifts in any case.

My point is that there is "orthodox" creationist belief in the catastrophic shift. It's a bit of a concession by the creationist side.

Originally posted by CalJust
I must admit that I am not really sure what you are saying here.

Do you accept at least that continental drift happened, splitting the original huge landmass into the five continents, without in any way attaching a time scale to it? There is enormous geological evidence for this, and if you have any doubt on that matter, I would happily mention just one ...[text shortened]... for Noah's animals, as you will certainly appreciate.

Which option should we discuss further?

I accept that the land masses were connected in some way some how. I believe the land
masses have under gone changes, with all the water coming up during the flood as well
as going down. I believe there was a huge earth quake that was more than likely very
huge, and what occurred during that quake could have been a splitting of the land masses.

The flood and everything that it occurred afterwards was God positioning everything and
everyone where He wanted them. Like I said earlier, if DNA had built in processes for
change moving around land masses that were put together so they could be moved
seems like a little thing to me.

Pick an option, I don't care.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The flood and everything that it occurred afterwards was God positioning everything and everyone where He wanted them. Like I said earlier, if DNA had built in processes for change moving around land masses that were put together so they could be moved
seems like a little thing to me.

Pick an option, I don't care.

You already broke our agreed rule - no saying goddidit. We agreed to examine the current evidence and then see how that could be accommodated in a Young Earth hypothesis.

But let me proceed just a little further. My own speciality is coal and coal research. As you will know, coal is made up from decayed plant material, and the constituents of coal are called macerals, just as the constituents of rocks are called minerals.

Coal is found in seams sometimes several meters thick, with layers of shale and sandstone between the layers. This means the plant material (which must have been deposited at the bottom of swamps over very long periods of time) was covered by sand and then compacted before a new growth of plants was formed, grew, decayed and was covered. This also takes a long time, (but I will not use the word millions of years.)

Here's the really interesting part: the coals of the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, China) are totally different in both composition and layering as those of the Southern Hemisphere (South Africa and Australia.) but the coals in India are identical to those in South Africa - same macerals, same seams and interstitial sandstone.

This proves conclusively that the Indian sub-continent was once part of the landmass of what is now Southern Africa, and that it moved Norther and East until it collided with the Asian continent. The fact that this movement still continues, is evidenced by the major earthquake in Nepal recently.

Now the formation of the coal seams cannot have happened during Creation Week, although it could obviously have started then, since plants did appear then. But the process must have taken place over a very long time indeed, combined with huge geological upheavals, which buried the seams a thousand feet underground.

Also, it could certainly NOT have happened during the Flood Year, because then it would not have been hard enough and washed away by the deluge.

Much, much later than the coal seam formation, Indian declared independence from Africa and moved off. Granted, the rate of movement could have been more than the 2 inches per year being measured today. But how much faster is actually possible?

If you say that this happened DURING the Flood Year, as a result of the upheavals the Bible talks about, then that speed must have been substantial, and most likely physically impossible.

But let's assume that the geography and geology of the earth was in Flood Year basically the same as today.

Now the first question is: what kind of animals existed then in the various corners of the earth before they went on their pilgramage to the Middle East? Were there already then kangaroos in Australia, lemurs in Madagascar, lions, elephants and hippos in Africa? And if so, how did they get to the Ark?

www.Answersingenesis says: God said so in the Bible, so he must have had a way to do it. But we agreed to look beyond that. Would you like to speculate how?

And if the original animals in the Ark were not species known today, could you suggest what "kinds" came from were?

Originally posted by JS357
Did you not find the answers at the link? According to it, the whole thing, whatever-to-today, happened during the flood. The author cited Biblical support for a pre-flood single ocean, and infers from that a single land mass. That inference is weak, IMO, but the conclusion s stated is catastrophic geological shifts in any case.

My point is that there is "o ...[text shortened]... reationist belief in the catastrophic shift. It's a bit of a concession by the creationist side.

JS, I said that I would not be checking any links or YouTube posts in this thread.

Imh it is not enough to say: "It happened during the flood" without showing some mechanisms by which this could have occurred.

Geologists have described very credible mechanisms, and it is up to creationists to refute them.