A new perspective on Genesis 1

[Wingnut]

There are at least 4 witnesses to the glory of God.

1) The Bible

2) The heavens or Cosmology.  Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

3) The earth "...and the firmament sheweth his handywork" or palaeontology.

4) Science such as biology, microbiology.

Some Christians only take the first witness or the Bible to formulate their beliefs.

I take all 4 witnesses seriously and allow the last three to compliment my theology.

 

I do not believe one should flippantly disregard good and reputable science.  Cosmology is a very credible science, and is as simple as looking back further and further into the past.  This is easy enough to understand.  And cosmologists say that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, and they have the photographs through Hubble to prove it.

 

As I explained previously, I believe there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.  If science says that gap is 13.75 billion years, I don't have to argue with science.  And if science says that the universe started from a singularity the size of a pinprick which consisted of pure energy which gradually changed to matter, which coalesced into galaxies, again I do not have a problem with this.  Why?  Because Einstein's E=mcc says the same thing, that energy E  (the invisible) changes into matter m (the visible) in line with Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I want to focus on the 3rd witness, palaeontology.  The record in the rocks tells of multiple mass extinctions, followed by entirely new biomes.  I do not believe in evolution.  Instead, I believe there were multiple mass extinctions followed by God replenishing the earth with completely new sets of plants and animals.  And He did this many times, including to wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and replace these with mammals.  Palaeontology calls this the KT extinction.  This destruction of the dinosaurs was supposedly caused by a meteorite or comet.  This comet brought large amounts of the metal iridium, forming a worldwide layer between the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event.

No human remains have ever been found below this iridium layer or KT boundary.  Human or hominid skeletons are found only in the topmost or youngest layers of earth.  Modern man or Homo sapiens was only created and placed on earth in the form of Adam and Eve, 6000 years ago, in a literal creation week.  Earlier hominids are found in older layers.  These include Neanderthals and Homo erectus.  I believe God was playing with these proto-humans in anticipation of creating man.  Then He wiped out Neanderthals and H. erectus and all the earlier hominids in a mass extinction which left earth "without form and void" Gen 1:2.  Palaeontology calls this the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary.  The Holocene now is the age of Adam and his descendants.

 

I feel no need to fight palaeontology.  The record in the rocks conforms with with my belief in an ancient universe, a relatively old earth (5 billion years old) and the creation of man 6000 years ago.  Both cosmology and palaeontology reveal a glorious God working patiently and resolutely over aeons of time.  Each fossil animal was painstakingly created by God and instills in me admiration for His handiwork.  T. rex and his buddies declare the glory of God, every bit as much as the smallest diatom alive today.  Study any plant or animal down to its molecular level, and it is a marvel.  Biology is the 4th witness which declares the glory of God. 

 

[jbal7]

Wingnut, you bring up some very interesting variables I hadn't considered before. I don't suppose animals can sin, I guess theyre collateral damage. Also I agree we shouldn't disregard good science. I believe the devil is hard at work leading some science in the wrong path to directly oppose God's truth. However I also feel there are genuinely good scientist simply revealing what their studies find. Math dosent lie. Some of these "secular" discoveries must fit into our belief in some sort of fashion. 

[jbal7]

I was googling this topic and came across this site, http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

Maybe you've read before, if not I encourage you to (its not too long). It brings up some valid points I think. I'm not advocating against it or in favor of it. I just thought it was relevant so I wanted to share it.

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, jballew7 said:

I was googling this topic and came across this site, http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

Maybe you've read before, if not I encourage you to (its not too long). It brings up some valid points I think. I'm not advocating against it or in favor of it. I just thought it was relevant so I wanted to share it.

Thank you for this reference.  The more I read him, the more I understand why his criticism of the "Gap-theory" is invalid.  It boils down to preconceptions the writer has about God, which I feel are wrong.

"

Is the Gap Theory Scientific?

The reason why geologists will not accept the gap theory is that it contradicts their assumption that the past is continuous with the present. There is no room in their naturalistic approach to science for a global cataclysm that would destroy all life and then require a new creation of plants, animals, and people such as the gap theory proposes.

Any cataclysm that would leave the earth "without form and void" (or "a shapeless chaotic mass" as The Living Bible expresses it), with "darkness on the face of the deep" everywhere, would require a worldwide nuclear or volcanic explosion that would effectively disintegrate the whole crust of the earth. All pre-cataclysm mountains would be blown into the sea and billions of tons of rocks and dust blown into the atmosphere, leaving the earth covered with "the deep" everywhere and "darkness" covering the deep everywhere.

Such a cataclysm would disintegrate any previously deposited sedimentary deposits with their fossils and thus obliterate all evidence of any previous "geological ages." Thus the gap theory, which is supposed to accommodate the geological ages, requires a cataclysm which would destroy all evidence for the geological ages."

 

This is such bad science.  It depends on the cataclysm.  A volcano would destroy the local area as would a meteorite striking earth.  But everywhere, and at all time, something of the past is preserved.  The fossil evidence is everywhere.

Where most geologists and palaeontologists go wrong is to not believe in God, hence not believe that He could replenish earth multiple times after each mass extinction.  Instead they HAVE TO invoke evolution to account for new mammals say after the dinosaurs.  We believers are at an advantage there in that we KNOW all things were created by God, past and present

 

Is it Theologically Sound?

The gap theory is also unsound theologically. The God of Creation is an omnipotent and omniscient God, and is also a God of grace, mercy, and love. The very concept of the geological ages, on the other hand, implies a wasteful and cruel "god," and therefore probably no god at all.

The supposed geologic ages are identified in terms of the fossils found in the earth's sedimentary rocks, and there are multiplied billions of them there. But fossils speak of death—even violent death. The preservation of dead animals requires rapid burial if they are to last very long. There are many regions, for example, where there are millions of fossil fish preserved in the rocks. There are dinosaur fossil beds on every continent, as well as great beds of fossil marine invertebrates practically everywhere. These may indeed speak of cataclysmic death and burial, but not a cataclysm operating slowly over billions of years, as the geological ages imply. If the gap theory were valid, it would mean that God had instituted an ages-long system of suffering and death over the world, before there were ever any men and women to place in dominion over that world, and then suddenly destroy it in a violent cataclysm. Why would an omnipotent, merciful God do such a wasteful and cruel thing as that?

Do you see here how this dying jars with his theology, not with any facts.

But why does he not open his eyes and watch National Geographic channel and see how dog-eat-dog say the sea is.  Nothing dies of old age in the sea (except a few apex predators).  Everything small gets eaten by everything bigger all the way up the food chain AND GOD MADE IT SO.  And what we see happening in nature today is what we see happened in the fossil record at all times in the past.

 

Thus our hippie cutesie preconceptions about "why oh why would God allow Bambie to be eaten by Simba?" are just that - our PETA-compliant false ways of looking at God and theology.

 

A fish lives happily, and if it is unlucky that day, it gets eaten and endures a moment of limited suffering (how much understanding do they have, how much pain do they feel, who says God is against pain and suffering?).  5 seconds suffering for a lifetime of enjoying swimming around the beautiful coral reef.  I will take that, please God.  And its not as if fish have any future eternal life.  The fish, if it could, would worship God and thank Him from the deepest recesses of its gills, for every beautiful day on earth that God had given it, rather than focusing on the 5 seconds of suffering that our tree-hugging theologian will point to.

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

On 11/27/2015, 10:06:59, Wingnut said:

There are at least 4 witnesses to the glory of God.

1) The Bible

2) The heavens or Cosmology.  Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

3) The earth "...and the firmament sheweth his handywork" or palaeontology.

4) Science such as biology, microbiology.

Some Christians only take the first witness or the Bible to formulate their beliefs.

I take all 4 witnesses seriously and allow the last three to compliment my theology.

 

I do not believe one should flippantly disregard good and reputable science.  Cosmology is a very credible science, and is as simple as looking back further and further into the past.  This is easy enough to understand.  And cosmologists say that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, and they have the photographs through Hubble to prove it.

 

As I explained previously, I believe there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.  If science says that gap is 13.75 billion years, I don't have to argue with science.  And if science says that the universe started from a singularity the size of a pinprick which consisted of pure energy which gradually changed to matter, which coalesced into galaxies, again I do not have a problem with this.  Why?  Because Einstein's E=mcc says the same thing, that energy E  (the invisible) changes into matter m (the visible) in line with Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I want to focus on the 3rd witness, palaeontology.  The record in the rocks tells of multiple mass extinctions, followed by entirely new biomes.  I do not believe in evolution.  Instead, I believe there were multiple mass extinctions followed by God replenishing the earth with completely new sets of plants and animals.  And He did this many times, including to wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and replace these with mammals.  Palaeontology calls this the KT extinction.  This destruction of the dinosaurs was supposedly caused by a meteorite or comet.  This comet brought large amounts of the metal iridium, forming a worldwide layer between the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event.

No human remains have ever been found below this iridium layer or KT boundary.  Human or hominid skeletons are found only in the topmost or youngest layers of earth.  Modern man or Homo sapiens was only created and placed on earth in the form of Adam and Eve, 6000 years ago, in a literal creation week.  Earlier hominids are found in older layers.  These include Neanderthals and Homo erectus.  I believe God was playing with these proto-humans in anticipation of creating man.  Then He wiped out Neanderthals and H. erectus and all the earlier hominids in a mass extinction which left earth "without form and void" Gen 1:2.  Palaeontology calls this the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary.  The Holocene now is the age of Adam and his descendants.

 

I feel no need to fight palaeontology.  The record in the rocks conforms with with my belief in an ancient universe, a relatively old earth (5 billion years old) and the creation of man 6000 years ago.  Both cosmology and palaeontology reveal a glorious God working patiently and resolutely over aeons of time.  Each fossil animal was painstakingly created by God and instills in me admiration for His handiwork.  T. rex and his buddies declare the glory of God, every bit as much as the smallest diatom alive today.  Study any plant or animal down to its molecular level, and it is a marvel.  Biology is the 4th witness which declares the glory of God. 

 

I'm not understanding what you're wanting to do here.  I've heard of two options:

1.Accept that there was a world-wide flood, and interpret the geological record taking that into consideration.

2.Reject there was a world-wide flood, and interpret the geologic record that way.

1 leads to a young age, in the thousands of years, for created things.  2 leads to long ages.

You're suggesting long ages, but without evolution.  I've never heard this idea.  If you're going to reject evolution, what do you need long ages for?  Science doesn't teach this.  It appears to me that you're suggesting a hybred which neither agrees with science (to clarify, when I say "science" in this post, I mean the general consensus scientists present), nor Scripture, but something new under the sun (congrats for that, btw; not easy to do).

Also, what do you do with the flood?  Just guessing; this was one of the many mass extinctions?  This would be new too; long ages, plus the Noaich flood.  You can have your cake and eat it too!

Btw, I liked the question about stepping on the bugs.  I've assumed before there was sin, there was no death, and that sin didn't happen until Eve sinned.  I wonder about bacteria.

[jbal7]

Pnattmbtc, what do you mean about bacteria? The bible says death and sin go hand in hand. You can't have death with out sin. This is the main issue I have with wingnuts idea. If we believe sin came about around adam and eves time how could there be mass extinctions? This "supposed" gap of time takes place before the verses of the fall. Therefore sin would have come about after these long ages. So, if it takes place afterwards how can we have death before? Also, I believe science confirms a young earth. Those that say otherwise I think simply interpret the results to fit their model.

[Wingnut]

14 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

I'm not understanding what you're wanting to do here.  I've heard of two options:

1.Accept that there was a world-wide flood, and interpret the geological record taking that into consideration.

2.Reject there was a world-wide flood, and interpret the geologic record that way.

1 leads to a young age, in the thousands of years, for created things.  2 leads to long ages.

You're suggesting long ages, but without evolution.  I've never heard this idea.  If you're going to reject evolution, what do you need long ages for?  Science doesn't teach this.  It appears to me that you're suggesting a hybred which neither agrees with science (to clarify, when I say "science" in this post, I mean the general consensus scientists present), nor Scripture, but something new under the sun (congrats for that, btw; not easy to do).

Also, what do you do with the flood?  Just guessing; this was one of the many mass extinctions?  This would be new too; long ages, plus the Noaich flood.  You can have your cake and eat it too!

Btw, I liked the question about stepping on the bugs.  I've assumed before there was sin, there was no death, and that sin didn't happen until Eve sinned.  I wonder about bacteria.

Hi Pnatt

Yes this is a hybrid of young earth and old earth, taking good science and rejecting bad science, as well as getting science and theology to talk to each other to tell one story.

I do believe that Ps 104:30 tells us that Genesis chapter 1 is a renewing of earth after a mass extinction.

Good science tells us that earth had many more past extinctions.

The Bible speaks of a few mass extinctions such as Noah's flood and the 2nd Coming.

So mass extinctions are a part of earth's history and future.

Good science tells us that after each ancient mass extinction event, completely new biomes appeared suddenly.

Science does not really have an answer for this.

But Genesis gave us the answer.  God creates the new biome after each extinction event.

I believe that in earth's ancient past e.g. the era of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, food chains existed just as the do today.  Nothing has changed.  God is the same today as back then.  God is good today, and God has always been good.  The seas teemed with fish on the 5th day.  Fish eat other fish.

Folks have misunderstood Paul to say that NO death was in the world before Adam's sin.  As you mentioned, bacteria digest rotting food and get eaten by microscopic animals like paramecium, which in turn get eaten by earthworms which in turn get eaten by moles etc. since creation.

 

Paul wrote, "the wages of sin is death"  (Rom 6:23) which is similar to the OT idea of Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,.."

What if I said that these writers were not commentating on food chains, but rather on what happens when one sins?

Neither writer was thinking biology when he wrote this.  He was thinking human condition.  But then it became a doctrine that no death can occur without sin - which is not the idea either writer was trying to convey.

 

Let's have our cake and eat it too.  Let science tell us all it can.  And let theology tell us all it can too.  Let's take the best of both and form a synthesis where both agree rather than insisting that either have all the answers.  There are some things science cannot answer.  And there are some things which the Bible has no interest in addressing, such as ancient history of the earth.  But together both tell one unified story.

 

Evolution is obviously an example of bad science.  But it need not give all science a bad name.  Palaeontology has been totally tainted by evolution, so one has to sift through the science. Cosmology has not been tainted by evolution.  It is an honest and scientific attempt to put all the clues together.  It has no axe to grind.

 

The layers of earth tell a story of ancient animals which lived, ate each other, and died long before Adam.  This was no different than we see today.  The movie Jurassic Park probably is scientifically accurate.  Visit Africa today and see animals eating each other, just on a smaller scale.  

Animals were eating each other from day one after creation.  Only on earth there was a land called Eden.  And on the East of that land was a [small] garden where Adam and eve were placed.  Like your back garden, nothing dangerous existed there.  Like your garden, no thorns grew there.   This was a small island of paradise where Adam and Eve lived till they were thrown out into the rest of the dog-eat-dog earth with its thorns and dangerous animals.

[Gregory Matthews]

Whether one agrees with it or not, Wingnut is presenting a view   that is  held by other Adventists.

 

NOTE:  On a personal basis, I agree with some of what he is saying and do not agree with some of what he is saying.

[Gregory Matthews]

We, today, have defined the term "death" in a manner that would not have been understood by the Biblical writers.

It should be obvious that if Adam and Eave were created in any kind of a likeness to us in the normal digestive process of eating, elimination, and the breakdown of such refuse and their return to products useable by plant and animal life, death occurred.  The problem probably lies with us and how we define death.

Our consumption of some plant life results in the death of a living plant being.

 

Folks have misunderstood Paul to say that NO death was in the world before Adam's sin.  As you mentioned, bacteria digest rotting food and get eaten by microscopic animals like paramecium, which in turn get eaten by earthworms which in turn get eaten by moles etc. since creation.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Whether one agrees with it or not, Wingnut is presenting a view   that is  held by other Adventists.

I think this only true in a general way.  That is, there are Adventists who believe in long time periods, but those that do also believe in evolution.  Wingnut is the first person I've come across, whether Adventist or not, who does not believe in evolution, but does believe in long time periods.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Gregory Matthews: It should be obvious that if Adam and Eave were created in any kind of a likeness to us in the normal digestive process of eating, elimination, and the breakdown of such refuse and their return to products useable by plant and animal life, death occurred. 

I don't think this is obvious.  I think the original creation was much different than what we know, and it is extremely difficult for us to know exactly how the original creation would have been.  I'll mention two examples:

1.Apparently animals such as lions were not carnivores.

2.Adam and Eve were 12 feet tall.

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I don't think this is obvious.  I think the original creation was much different than what we know, and it is extremely difficult for us to know exactly how the original creation would have been.  I'll mention two examples:

1.Apparently animals such as lions were not carnivores.

2.Adam and Eve were 12 feet tall.

Aren't these 2 items "Ellen White -isms" rather than scriptural?  Personally, I don't think the garden (or the animals therein) represented the state of the whole planet.  There had to be a wild place already in existense for God to throw Adam and Eve into when He threw them out of the Garden.  Outside of the garden, animals were probably like they are now.  The only time a lion ate grass was when he was consuming the stomach of a sheep he had just killed.

Nowhere I have seen in scripture that andeluvian humans were 12 feet tall; although I do believe it is possible ...

[pnattmbtc]

2 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Aren't these 2 items "Ellen White -isms" rather than scriptural?  Personally, I don't think the garden (or the animals therein) represented the state of the whole planet.  There had to be a wild place already in existense for God to throw Adam and Eve into when He threw them out of the Garden.  Outside of the garden, animals were probably like they are now.  The only time a lion ate grass was when he was consuming the stomach of a sheep he had just killed.

Nowhere I have seen in scripture that andeluvian humans were 12 feet tall; although I do believe it is possible ...

The first item is from the Bible, the second Spirit of Prophesy. (repeating items for reference)

1.Apparently animals such as lions were not carnivores.

2.Adam and Eve were 12 feet tall.

[pnattmbtc]

I should explain the carnivore comment.  The Bible speaks of the lion and the lamb (Isa. 11:6) and the following:

Quote

and the lion will eat straw like the ox (Isa. 65:25)

The idea is that this reflects the original creation, from which we may infer that lions were not carnivores.

[Wingnut]

23 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I should explain the carnivore comment.  The Bible speaks of the lion and the lamb (Isa. 11:6) and the following:

The idea is that this reflects the original creation, from which we may infer that lions were not carnivores.

Or maybe there were no lions in the Garden.  The Garden was a small part of Eden.  Eden was a small part of Earth's landmass.

The only question then becomes, "Did God bring all animals to Adam to name, or just the few dozen/hundred in the garden?"

And another question I have is "Why did God get Adam to name animals?"  The reason which springs to mind is that God was parading past Adam pairs of animals, from which he deduced, "Where is my partner?".  The need having been created, God put Adam to sleep and cloned a woman.  And this all occurred on day 6.

[pnattmbtc]

The point I was raising is that things were different.  For example, lions ate straw.  Whether they were in the garden or not wouldn't seem to matter as far as the point I was raising is concerned.

However, you and I are operating under different paradigms.  Actually you are operating under a different paradigm than anyone else, I think.

[JoeMo]

11 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

you and I are operating under different paradigms.  Actually you are operating under a different paradigm than anyone else, I think.

Not quite anyone else,  I may not agree 100% about what Wingnut is saying; but I agree with most of it.  But I admit to operating under a different paradigm (or reality) than most.

[pnattmbtc]

3 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Not quite anyone else,  I may not agree 100% about what Wingnut is saying; but I agree with most of it.  But I admit to operating under a different paradigm (or reality) than most.

The thing that's different about Wingnut's perspective is the combination of long time periods but no evolution.  I've not come across that before.

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

The thing that's different about Wingnut's perspective is the combination of long time periods but no evolution.  I've not come across that before.

Evolutionary theory hates changes such as the K-T change from Cretaceous to Tertiary or dinosaurs to mammals because the change appears sudden and complete.

The famous extinction of the dinosaurs is followed in the fossil record by completely new animals viz. the mammals and the complete absence of dinosaurs.  Its like a curtain came down on one scene, and the curtain rose to display a completely different set.

 

Evolution has no explanation for this, how one fossil layer can be covered by the next layer of completely different flora and fauna.  Where are evolutions missing links?  Every single new animal demands that there be a gradation of missing links to some ancient ancestor.  But our relatively small mammals today are completely different from reptiles, let alone those massive dinosaurs.  What I am saying is Jurassic Park was closed one day, and the next day Kruger National Park opened (a South African game park).  This so points to creation rather than evolution.  

 

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

44 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Evolutionary theory hates changes such as the K-T change from Cretaceous to Tertiary or dinosaurs to mammals because the change appears sudden and complete.

The famous extinction of the dinosaurs is followed in the fossil record by completely new animals viz. the mammals and the complete absence of dinosaurs.  Its like a curtain came down on one scene, and the curtain rose to display a completely different set.

 

Evolution has no explanation for this, how one fossil layer can be covered by the next layer of completely different flora and fauna.  Where are evolutions missing links?  Every single new animal demands that there be a gradation of missing links to some ancient ancestor.  But our relatively small mammals today are completely different from reptiles, let alone those massive dinosaurs.  What I am saying is Jurassic Park was closed one day, and the next day Kruger National Park opened (a South African game park).  This so points to creation rather than evolution.  

 

 

 

Suggestions have been made, such as punctuated equilibrium, and other ideas, to explain the fossil record.  However, if there was a world-wide flood, that itself would explain the fossil record, so there wouldn't be a need for long ages.  This is something I'm finding odd.  There are young-earth creationists who use the flood as an explanation for the fossil record, and there are evolutionists who reject this idea, and opt for long ages, but I've not come across the idea that there was a world-wide flood, *and* long ages of life too.

I've come across similar ideas to what you are suggesting in regards to the creation of Adam and Eve, but always in conjunction with evolution.  I've seen this:

 

1.Young earth (not the earth itself, necessarily, but life on earth)

2.Flood

3.Adam and Eve created, before which, there was no sin or death.

and this:

1.Old earth with eons of death, and evolution

2.No flood

3.Adam and Eve created (maybe "created" would be better).

but not a mixture of these.

 

[Wingnut]

29 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Suggestions have been made, such as punctuated equilibrium, and other ideas, to explain the fossil record.  However, if there was a world-wide flood, that itself would explain the fossil record, so there wouldn't be a need for long ages.  This is something I'm finding odd.  There are young-earth creationists who use the flood as an explanation for the fossil record, and there are evolutionists who reject this idea, and opt for long ages, but I've not come across the idea that there was a world-wide flood, *and* long ages of life too.

I've come across similar ideas to what you are suggesting in regards to the creation of Adam and Eve, but always in conjunction with evolution.  I've seen this:

 

1.Young earth (not the earth itself, necessarily, but life on earth)

2.Flood

3.Adam and Eve created, before which, there was no sin or death.

and this:

1.Old earth with eons of death, and evolution

2.No flood

3.Adam and Eve created (maybe "created" would be better).

but not a mixture of these.

 

Suppose there had been only one flood in earth's past, and during that flood animals got covered with mud and fossilised.

It does not take a genius to tell what the strata would look like with fossils.  All animals that ever lived would all be jumbled up uniformly in a few strata,  One cannot even imagine there would be any sorting since big animals like dinosaurs would have the same density or specific gravity as small animals and trees.  Does this sound correct?

 

Yet what does the fossil record show?  The complete opposite.  Strata are sorted with ancient fossils in lower layers, never mixed up with younger species found in upper layers.  This "sorting" points to one inevitable conclusion.  Different species life at different times in earth's past.  There had to be multiple mass extinctions to "memorialise" each set of fossils.  Most mass extinctions include a flood or tsunami which covers the dead plants and animals with mud, allowing them to fossilise rather than decompose.

 

The Noah flood does leave its own evidence.  Modern animals are also fossilised.  How could this have happened if modern plants and animals were not subjected to at least one flood?

 

[pnattmbtc]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Suppose there had been only one flood in earth's past, and during that flood animals got covered with mud and fossilised.

It does not take a genius to tell what the strata would look like with fossils.  All animals that ever lived would all be jumbled up uniformly in a few strata,  One cannot even imagine there would be any sorting since big animals like dinosaurs would have the same density or specific gravity as small animals and trees.  Does this sound correct?

 

Yet what does the fossil record show?  The complete opposite.  Strata are sorted with ancient fossils in lower layers, never mixed up with younger species found in upper layers.  This "sorting" points to one inevitable conclusion.  Different species life at different times in earth's past.  There had to be multiple mass extinctions to "memorialise" each set of fossils.  Most mass extinctions include a flood or tsunami which covers the dead plants and animals with mud, allowing them to fossilise rather than decompose.

 

The Noah flood does leave its own evidence.  Modern animals are also fossilised.  How could this have happened if modern plants and animals were not subjected to at least one flood?

 

I don't know if this is the place to get into this.  This might merit its own thread, but I see some holes in your thinking here, specifically some circular reasoning.  But coming at this from a different perspective, many, many people have examined the evidence, and I'm not aware of anyone that has come to the conclusion you have here, which makes we want to take the comment beginning with "it does not take a genius" with a grain of salt.

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

I don't know if this is the place to get into this.  This might merit its own thread, but I see some holes in your thinking here, specifically some circular reasoning.  But coming at this from a different perspective, many, many people have examined the evidence, and I'm not aware of anyone that has come to the conclusion you have here, which makes we want to take the comment beginning with "it does not take a genius" with a grain of salt.

Why is it that everywhere around the world where fossils are found, Jurassic plants and animals such as dinosaurs are always found buried together, but are not found together with say Pleistocene plants and animals?  Dinosaurs are never mixed up with human fossils or wooly mammoth fossils.  Why?

 

If there was only a Noah deluge or one mass extinction, why are whole biome fossils buried together, and NEVER together with other biome fossils?

Do you have an explanation for this?

 

This is usually explained by saying that each biome lived together and died together, being covered by a layer of mud and fossilising.  

 

I add, then God created the next biome and these plants and animals lived and died together, being buried together at the next mass extinction.  This creates layers of fossils where one biomes fossils are NEVER mixed up with other biomes fossils.  This would be very hard to explain with only one mass extinction.

 

[Wingnut]

I feel it is important to respect some science and disrespect "science" which is not true science.

So how can one tell when science is respectable or not?

Is mathematics with its formulae respectable, and if so why?

Is cosmology respectable, and if so why?

Is being able to control nuclear reactions respectable science, and if so why?

Is electronics and being able to design circuits respectable science, and if so why?

Is being able to land a man on the moon respectable science, and if so why?

Is weather prediction respectable science, and if so why?

Is evolution respectable science, and if so why?

Is domestic science respectable?

Is biology respectable?

Is botany respectable?

Is palaeontology respectable?

 

What rule is there for determining the respectability of science?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The rule is this:  To understand the respectability of science one must understand the scientific process.

Why?  When you understand scientific process you understand the  boundaries and limitations of science.  In addition, you have the knowledge to evaluate whether or not a hypothesis has been properly tested and whether the conclusions reached by that testing are consistent with the scientific method.