Young earth v. old earth

This morning, another type of creation advocate sent me a message at the domain of the Creation Science Hall of Fame. Some advocates choose not to dispute the conventional wisdom that the earth is old. However old the earth might be, they say, is still not long enough for evolution to take place unless God guided it. Opposed to this “old earth” view is the “young earth” view: that the earth is not nearly so old as conventional scientists insist.

Greg Neyman holds to the old earth view. He began a ministry, that he called Answers in Creation, but now calls Old Earth Ministries. (Obviously he must distinguish his ministry from Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis.) This morning he wrote:

According to your motto, Honoring those who honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis,” that would include people like myself (an old earth creationist), and Dr. Hugh Ross, another old earth creationist, as we literally interpret Genesis as meaning billions of years. Not all old earth creationists interpret Genesis literally, however. Will you honor old earth creationists who also interpret Genesis literally?

A reasonable question demands a reasonable answer. Here is that answer.

Does the old earth view interpret Genesis literally?

Greg Neyman thinks it does. In this article he tries to answer that question directly:

The Bible does not say, “Thou shalt believe in a young earth.” The fact is, no verse in the Bible makes any claims as to the age of the earth. All the so-called verses that young earth proponents point to can be interpreted by the reader to mean old or young. Also, the key doctrines of the Bible are not affected by either interpretation.

But how? Neyman goes on to say:

  • Death and disease predated sin.
  • God does not care about time, or how much of it passes.

But where is his evidence? In fact, all his evidence comes from conventional, uniformitarian geology. He assumes the earth is 4.5 billion years old, only because conventional scientists told him it was. And he never held converse with any scientist smart enough to show him any different. He is honest enough to admit that radiometric dating techniques do not always yield the right answer. He insists that the full body of dating evidence supports an old earth. Other articles on his site discuss how fast a stratum can form, and whether the remnants of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil show that it’s fresh. (That’s not to say that Answers in Genesis, for example, cannot give back as good as he sends. See their article about the Cretaceous or “Chalk” Stratum.)

But the body of Greg Neyman’s work has the same flaw he says he finds in young earth work. To wit: he refuses to accept either a young earth, or that the most violent event the earth has ever known happened far more recently than he might find comfortable to contemplate. So he accuses young earth advocates of refusing to accept an old earth.

The young earth view: more evidence

Greg Neyman has a weak argument because he has never looked into the question beyond the obvious sources. All he seems to know about young earth creation advocacy, comes from the two largest young earth ministries. They are Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. As comprehensive as they are, they don’t hold all the evidence for a young earth, either separately or between them. This is why the Creation Science Hall of Fame exists: to show people all the other young earth creation ministries and laboratories around the world.

One such ministry is Walter T. Brown’s Center for Scientific Creation. If Greg Neyman were to visit that site, he would learn all about why radiometric dating gives the wrong answer for the age of the earth. He would learn the most detailed theory that any young earth advocate has ever advanced for where radioactive elements on earth came from. That lesson would also solve the carbon dating problem: Walt Brown shows that the vast amount of carbon-14 on earth did not all come from cosmic rays, but instead from cluster decay of the newly formed deposits of uranium, thorium, and so on. And he would also learn how the Global Flood played out, and where all that chalk (and all that limestone) came from.

This is the best example that the Creation Science Hall of Fame knows about, but is not the only one.

Young earth advocates have a problem, too. Sadly, they often work at cross purposes. And never have all young earth creation scientists decided to work together, and build academies that could compete with conventional university departments in advancing a world view. The Creation Science Hall of Fame hopes that, someday, enough young earth workers, workers of courage, will do just that. (That is, if the Lord tarries. But that’s off-topic here.)

What does the Bible say?

James Ussher, the Annalist, believed in a young earth, not an old earth.

James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Portrait: Sir Peter Lely; National Portrait Gallery, London, England, UK

Greg Neyman insists that the Bible never says how old the earth is. But the Bible is an assembly of family annals and king lists, and sometimes defines large historical intervals. And one can find the year of the creation of the earth by totting up those intervals, along with various patriarchal ages and lengths of reign.

This table shows eight different ways to calculate the age of the earth from:

  1. The lives of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Joseph,
  2. Whether the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 began with Jacob’s entry into Egypt or 215 years earlier (see Galatians 3:17),
  3. The interval between the Exodus and the founding of the First Temple of Jerusalem, and
  4. The synchrony of the reigns of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern after the death of King Solomon.

The best anchor event, when Nebuchadnezzar II died, fell on 562 BC. Working backwards in time from that event, one finds that the world began in one of eight years BC from 3899 BC (the most recent) to 4219 BC (the furthest in the past).

So the Bible, if you read Genesis literally, does say the earth is only 6000 years old (give or take two hundred or so). It does not say that in a simple sentence. But it implies that from the other records it holds.

What is the old earth mistake?

Old earth advocates make this key mistake: they want conventional science to interpret Scripture. They should let Scripture interpret Scripture, as young earth advocates do. To interpret Genesis chapters 1-11 in light of conventional “dating” is to make as great an error as Paul of Tarsus criticized the Corinthians for (chapter 6). Recall what those Corinthians did: they laid doctrinal disputes before secular courts. Consider carefully how Paul argues against this:

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?

Indeed. Or does Greg Neyman, or Hugh Ross, lend credence and respect to men of “science” (actually, scientism, the worship of something called “science”) who are the very enemies of the faith? For the secular scientists, with their conventional (usually uniformitarian) theories, vowed to destroy the faith. They vowed this vow a hundred fifty years ago, or earlier. James Hutton. Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin. And Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Eugenie Scott today. Lend credence to such as these? Mé genoito, as Paul of Tarsus would say. (Translation: “may that never be!” Or as Patrick Henry might say, “Forbid it, Almighty God!”)

Conclusion

The Essenes at Qumran surely believed in a young earth.

The village at Qumran, where the ancient Essenes lived and worked. Photo: Terry A. Hurlbut

Even men of good will can make mistakes. Young earth advocates sometimes make mistakes, too. For instance, some of them multiply miracles without enough reason; William of Occam would never approve. But like the Sadducees of old, old earth advocates end up denying the Divine. They think they’ll make the creation model more “respectable” that way.

People will either respect the creation model, or not, as God Himself knew and even decided ahead of time. (See Romans 8:28.) John Calvin could tell you that. And so long as the Lord tarries, the Creation Science Hall of Fame will honor the young earth view. It will stand, not like the Sadducees or the Pharisees, but like the Essenes who prepared the best archives that modern Biblical scholarship now knows.


 

57 thoughts on “Young earth v. old earth

  1. “But like the Sadducees of old, old earth advocates end up denying the Divine.”
    -Old Earth Creationists don’t deny the Divine.
    They believe God could have created the world in 6 24-hour days, 3 micro-seconds, or 100 Trillion years.

    “Old earth advocates make this key mistake: they want conventional science to interpret Scripture”
    -The above can’t be true since Old Earth Advocates don’t believe what conventional science teaches about Evolution (they don’t believe it at all.)

    I will keep you in my prayers. God bless.

    • I stand by my statement aht OEC interpret Scripture in light of conventional science, in that they accept, without independent judgment or evaluation, the conventional theory behind radiometric dating.

      Ask yourself what happens to the OEC argument, if the “science” behind radiometric dating proves false.

      As several of our honorees have directly shown. See Larry Vardiman, for example.

      • A wise man once told me:
        “Know your opponent’s argument well enough that you could defend their position before you show them wrong”

        I was born and raised as a YEC. I’ve probably studied YEC more than i have studied OEC. However, I have found that there are many scriptural reasons to reject most YEC theories (even if they are correct on the age).

        But as for science, we have several independent measurements to give us an accurate age of the earth (besides radiometric dating). Are you familiar with all of them?

        1 Thessalonians 5:21

        May the Holy Spirit guide us both to find the truth in these issues.

        • I am familiar with the other methods that purport to concord with radiometric dating. But I suggest to you that they each make their own particular assumptions that are no safer than those that underlie radiometric dating. I further suggest to you that conventional scientists have “fudged” such concordance as they pretend to demonstrate.

          Do I accuse secular scientists of lying? As the Lord liveth, I do. I can show motive, opportunity and means.

          • Sure there are secular scientists who lie. I grant that. They say “there is no God” and they lie in their heart. They believe there is no evidence of design in our universe. They believe we got here by accident through natural selection and random mutations…. all from a common ancestor.

            An OEC believes none of those above things.

            An OEC believes in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
            An OEC believes that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on a cross for our sins, was placed in a tomb and rose again.
            An OEC believes believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a “God-breathed” revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.
            An OEC believes that In the universe Had a Beginning.
            An OEC believes that God made everything in the Universe.
            An OEC believes that God didn’t do everything at once, but over 6 periods of (“days”).
            An OEC believes tn OEC believes that Adam and Eve were real people living who lived only thousands of years ago… and all people came from the two of them.

            An OEC belives that Christ will come again for His Church.
            An OEC believes in the future new heaven and new earth.

            An OEC agrees with the Apostles Creed.
            An OEC agrees with the Nicene Creed.
            etc…

            I believe you agree with everything in the above list.

            God Bless.

          • Of course people have disagreements on some issues.

            In the essentials Unity, in non-essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

  2. “So the Bible, if you read Genesis literally, does say the earth is only 6000 years old (give or take two hundred or so).”

    Based on your summary of the Biblical chronology analysis, the conclusion I would draw is that *humanity* is roughly 6000 years old, not that the *earth* is 6000 years old. While the old-earth perspective allows for humanity to be older than this, it does not require it, so it’s not valid to conflate the two ages in making this argument.

    • True, as far as it goes. The Annals of Adam, Annals of Noah, Annals of Terach, King Lists, and so forth, establish an age of humanity, beginning with Adam and Eve. They mark humanity as special.

      There’s just one catch. “In six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”

      Death did not occur until the Fall of Man.

      If it did, that would not be in keeping with a “very good” creation. (By the way: the Hebrew expression rendered “very good” means “absolutely excellent and incapable of improvement.”

      • Even if you are right about “very good” means “absolutely excellent and incapable of improvement.”… that only happened on the 6th ‘day’ after he made Humanity.
        The 1st day = “good”
        the 2nd day = “no mention of ‘good’ ”
        3rd-5th day = “good”.
        6th day = “very good”

        An OEC perspective can say that after the creation of man, it was very good.. but before Adam and Eve were created, it definitely wasn’t “very good”. In fact, before Eve was created (yet after Adam) God says:

        Gen 2:18 KJV – And the LORD God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

        So, prior to this point, you can’t say that creation was: “absolutely excellent and incapable of improvement.”
        unless you don’t take the Bible literally.

        • “Very good” means something more than you’re missing. It means, “Finished.” It serves as an Artist’s signature.

          Before that, “Good” means “Ready to move on to the next step.”

          The second day started a process that did not finish until the third day. Notice that on the third day, the word for “good” appears twice.

          The big thing you’re missing is that Creation Week described an intricate process that took six days to run. Evening and morning: day one, day two, and so on.

          If you search the archives of “Creation News” on this site, you’ll see the descriptions. Search for the phrase “Creation Day.”

          • For some reason i cannot reply to your last post, but it lets me reply here.

            Yes these things don’t prove an OEC, just like they don’t prove a YEC. The Bible doesn’t give an age of the earth.

            And says nothing about animal death before Human sin either. YECs usually argue that Romans 5 says otherwise. So…

            Lets change Romans 5 to fit the YEC interpretation of “no death of animals or humans before sin”. Saying: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin”.. they say that this is talking about both human and animal death (and not “the world” as in humanity).. So lets test that assumption. To do this we must assume that Romans 5 would really be saying something like:

            ———————-
            Rom 5:12, 14-21 NIV – Therefore, just as sin entered the world [of humans and animals] through one man, and death [of humans and animals] through sin, and in this way death came to all men [and animals], because all [humans and animals] sinned– … Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those [humans and animals] who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many [humans and animals] died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many [humans and animals]! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation [to humans and animals], but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification [to humans and animals]. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those [humans and animals] who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men [and animals], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men [and animals]. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase [to humans and animals]. But where sin increased [in humans and animals], grace increased all the more [to humans and animals], so that, just as sin reigned in death [of humans and animals], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life [to humans and animals] through Jesus Christ our Lord.
            —————-

            The above does not seem to coincide with Scripture. Animals don’t sin, they aren’t saved by Believing in Jesus. And Christ didn’t die for them.

          • Your argument assumes that animals were subject to death in the Garden of Eden. For that I find no Scriptural warrant.

            Your argument might possibly assume that all of Genesis is lock-step chronological. It isn’t. It is a collection of Annals, each of which treats a different period of history, and which overlap. We deal here with the Annals of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and the Annals of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a). The first tells the story from the Divine perspective, and you may imagine that God called Adam in “to take dictation,” probably before the Fall. The second part tells the story from Adam’s perspective, and is, in essence, his diary.

            You will observe that I accept the Tablet or “Toledot” Hypothesis and not the Documentary or “JDEP” Hypothesis of the Bible’s Higher Critics.

          • Your argument assumes that animals were NOT subject to death inside or outside of the Garden of Eden. For that I find no Scriptural warrant.

            “We deal here with the Annals of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and the Annals of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a)”

            ^ Yes, i completely agree with this.

            But there IS some information from both that we can put together.

            Gen 1:27 tells us that God made mankind male AND female on the 6th creation period (you say a 24-hour day).

            Gen 2:7 tells us that God first made Man (Adam).. so this is part of the 6th day.

            Then God planted a garden in the east and put Adam in it (2:8-15a).. still part of the 6th day since woman hasn’t been created.

            Then God charged Adam to tend the garden (15b)… still part of the 6th day.

            Then God gave Adam a commandment about what he can eat in the garden (16-17)…. still part of the 6th day.

            Then God said it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone (18)…. still part of the 6th day.

            Then God formed a bunch of Animals for Adam to name (19)…. still part of the 6th day.

            Adam names all the cattle/fowl/beats.. but finds no one suitable for himself (20)…. still part of the 6th day.

            Then God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep and takes a part of his side (or rib) and closes up the wound. (21) … still part of the 6th day.

            Then God forms Eve out of Adam’s side (22)… since Female now exists, technically this could end the 6th day.

            Then Adam wakes up, and meets eve (23)

          • The above discussion on Genesis 1 and 2 is one of the many reasons (from a purely biblical basis) why I doubt that the translation of YOM as a “24-hour day” is the only translation we should consider viable.

          • Against the above, you can search the Bible from cover to cover and you will not find any use of the Hebrew “yom” or “yowm” that definitely translates as anything other than a solar day.

          • <>

            That’s simply not true:

            2 Ch 21:19 “… after the end of two years..”
            - Where “YOWM” is translated ‘years’

            Gen 2:4b-5a “…in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field…”
            - Here, “day” (YOWM) is clearly summarizing the multiple of the creation days. (which even by your translation of Genesis 1, would make it several solar days).

            Deu 10:10a- “And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights;…”
            - here “time” (in this sentence referring to 40 days and nights) is the hebrew word “YOWM”. Again.. clearly not a solar day.

            Do you have access to a Hebrew Bible?
            There are several online.

          • In fact, I do have access to a good Hebrew Interlinear. Now what I do not see is any rendering of “yom” as the Greek aion, or eon. In fact, Genesis 2:4b-5a, which begins the Annals of Adam, that could refer to Day Three. For by then you had the first matter in the sky, and the formation of the earth’s crust, the supracrustal and subcrustal oceans, and the single continent that the Flood event would fracture.

            And here is where we differ the most: OEC’s do not accept the Flood event. Yet that narrative is the only one that makes good sense out of all we see.

          • “In fact, Genesis 2:4b-5a, which begins the Annals of Adam, that could refer to Day Three.”

            - So when it says “day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens…” you think that was on day 3?

            “Now what I do not see is any rendering of “yom” as the Greek aion, or eon.”
            - Earlier you said “You will not find any use of the Hebrew “yom” or “yowm” that definitely translates as anything other than a solar day.”
            I then show you to the contrary, and you change the argument?
            I honestly haven’t looked at how many times “YOWM” was translated into Greek “aion”. But i would argue that Greek translations have no bearing on the your original statement about the original Hebrew.
            Also, I don’t believe that Ancient Hebrew has a word “eon”, they just use some form of YOWM.

            “And here is where we differ the most: OEC’s do not accept the Flood event. Yet that narrative is the only one that makes good sense out of all we see.”
            - I know some OECs who do accept a global flood. But again, that has nothing to do with your argument about what “YOWM” means.
            Also, a Global flood would not refute an ancient earth.

            I personally believe that the entire planet was covered in water only ONCE:
            Gen 1:2 KJV – And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

            God talks about this to Job:

            Job 38:1, 3-4, 8-11 KJV – Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, … Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. … Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

            And the psalmist talks about it again:

            Psa 104:5-9 KJV – [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

            (most believe David wrote this, since it starts off “Bless the LORD, O my soul.” just like in Psalm 103)

            … all Biblical evidence against a global flood.

            Not to mention that the Flood account makes it clear that “the face of the whole earth” doesn’t imply ALL landmass on the planet:

            Gen 8:5, 9b KJV – And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. … But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth:”

          • One of our earliest living honorees, Walter T. Brown Jr., has shown definitively how the Flood event most likely took place.

            I suggest to you that the primary basis of your OEC belief is your unwillingness to believe that this disaster (a) took place, and (b) took place a mere 4400 years ago.

          • Not sure why you ignored all my arguments… but i’ll go ahead and address yours:

            “One of our earliest living honorees, Walter T. Brown Jr., has shown definitively how the Flood event most likely took place.”

            - I’ll try to look into it if i get a chance.

            “I suggest to you that the primary basis of your OEC belief is your unwillingness to believe that this disaster (a) took place, and (b) took place a mere 4400 years ago.”

            (a.1) I do believe that Noah’s flood took place. (a.2) When I first realized the faults of Young Earth Creationism, i still initially believed in a global flood (until i did more research into the rest of Scripture, and deeper analyzed the YEC arguments for a global flood are purely unbiblical ).

            (b.1) Some of the pyramids were built in 2700 B.C. So i don’t know how Noah’s flood could have been at roughly 2300 BC. Not to mention the Plazas built in 3500 BC in Peru. Or the Graves built around 4850 BC in France. I’ve actually been to Newgrange in Ireland which was built sometime between 3100-2900 BC.

            But id rather you actually address my scriptural concerns of the YEC model from my last post, instead of just accusing me of not believing some other issue that has no real bearing on the age of the earth.

          • Just one thing, because I’m busy doing other things:

            You said some of the pyramids were built in 2700 BC. I believe you are using traditional, over-expanded Egyptian chronology. Most scholarly source I have seen call Egyptian chronology “a rubber chronology,” stretchable or compressible to fit any paradigm to suit any investigator.

            The revised chronology of Down and Walker postulates that many of the ancient Manetho Dynasties ran concurrently, not consecutively. You can also push the Flood date back to 2563 BC if you assume a Long Sojourn, that is, that Exodus 12:40 means “from Jacob’s entry into Egypt to Moses’ exit from it was 430 years, to the very day.” There’s still a monumental dispute on that point, but I’ve talked to those who build a case, for example, to identify Joseph as Imhotep, the grand vizier during the Djoser regime, and Moses as Amenemhat IV. My analysis also depends on accepting Martin Anstey’s proposition that at least forty-five years of Assyrian history is missing, after Tiglath-Pileser III struck it from the annals to remove some Judaic influences. See Jonah chapter 3 for a source of that influence.

            Bottom line: you don’t have to assume that the Pyramids, or any of them, predate the Flood.

            The great mistake of Egyptology was to accept Manetho’s Dynasties as (a) true, (b) correct, and (c) consecutive. That caused James Hutton to reject the Flood, and allowed Charles Lyell to sell uniformitarianism to the scientific community. And without Lyell, there would have been no Darwin.

            But you should look at Walter T. Brown’s work. He gives the most comprehensive model I have seen yet to show that the Flood did happen, and did affect the whole world. Part of the mission of the Creation Science Hall of Fame is to educate the public, and the scholarly community (if they want such education), that scientific models for a literal six-day Creation, and a Flood occurring not much further back in history than forty-six hundred years Before Present, are viable.

          • For the sake of the argument, I’ll grant you all the points about Egypt’s pyramids.
            I’ll even pretend that you addressed all of the man-made structures that predate the Egyptian Pyramids.

            I won’t even bring up more archaeological evidence to support my points.

            Now, can you please address all of my Scriptural evidence against a global flood instead of changing topics?

          • All right, I’ll make it very, very simple.

            You have not, repeat not, made anything close to an adequate showing against a Flood that was global in scope.

            The mountaintops you mentioned, became visible. They were not visible before. Indeed, the earth did not have mountains as high as those we observe today. The mountains were made when the hydroplates crashed into one another (to form the Himalayan chain and the Tibetan Plateau) or onto the floor of the now emptied-out subcrustal ocean (to form the mountain chains that run north-to-south, cf. the Rocky/Sierra Madre/Andean chain, the Ural chain, the Alpine chain, and even the “Fire-borne chain” that separates France from Spain, not to mention le Massif central, alias les Cévennes).

            I don’t have to go point-by-point when I can summarize. You may think you have a Scriptural showing that there was never any such thing as a Flood to cover the earth. But you haven’t.

            What you have, or what you think you have, is conventional science that pretends to have shown that no such Flood occurred. Walter T. Brown disproves that.

            I speak not to accuse. I speak rather to encourage you to make a break with convention that, from where I sit, you have not made. I encourage you to gain victory – Scriptural, Spiritual victory – over those who, as Paul of Tarsus and Peter of Galilee confidently predicted, say today that “the world has continued forever and has never changed.” Or has never changed its rate of change, as the uniformitarians say.

          • My point was simply that “all the surface of the earth” DOES NOT MEAN “all land was covered”, because right in the account of the flood it says otherwise. (mountains visible yet all the surface of the earth was covered with water)

            Now, once you have accepted this fact in Scripture..

            1) Yes, at one point no mountains were visible from the ark, and all mountains/hills within Noah’s range of vision were clearly covered by water.

            The fact that these mountains/hills were covered, coupled with the fact that “all the surface of the earth was covered with water” (which doesn’t require a meaning of “all landmass”) means that either:

            a) The flood water had risen such that all landmasses on the planet were under one giant ocean.
            OR
            b) Everything for hundreds and hundreds of miles was covered in the flood, such that any dry land wouldn’t be visible by Noah due to the curvature of the earth (mount Everest for example).

            If you are simply looking at the Genesis passage, I’d say its a flip of a coin on which interpertation is correct. You can choose “a” and thats just fine.

            But now, since we want to be true to all of scripture, we should consider other passages relevent to the flood.

            Lets start with a point we both agree on – Genesis 1:2 = Before God said “let the dry land appear”, the earth was in darkness and waters covered the earth.

            Now let us go consider parallel passages in Scripture about when God was creating land and such:

            Job 38:1, 3-4, 8-11 KJV – Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, … Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
            Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. … Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb?
            When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed [place],
            and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

            ^ This passage is clearly talking about when the earth was in darkness and waters covered the earth, and then God set “bars and doors” and said “here shall they proud waves be stayed”, setting a boundry for the oceans.
            And The psalmist discusses this same timeframe again in.

            Psa 104:5-9

            Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment:
            the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains;
            they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

            ^ This passage is clearly talking about the EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD as Job, but notice something the Psalmist says: “Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.”

            So, after God made dry land appear on day 3, the psalmist says that never again would waters cover the earth.

            Now lets go back to our 2 possible extents of Noah’s flood from Genesis:

            a) The flood water had risen such that all landmasses on the planet were under one giant ocean.
            OR
            b) Everything for hundreds and hundreds of miles was covered in the flood, such that any dry land wouldn’t be visible by Noah due to the curvature of the earth (mount Everest for example).

            The psalmist has clearly stated that it CANNOT BE ‘a)’, therefore it must be ‘b)’.

            Since I take the Bible seriously, and believe it is without error or contradiction, I cannot believe in a Global flood.
            I believe Noah’s flood was universal in that it destroyed all of mankind (save the 8 on the ark), but i see no reason to reject God speaking directly to Job and or the Psalmist (likely King David) as liars.
            This is God’s word, and God is not a man that he should lie.(Num 23:19)

            And please notice, I have not made ANY argument from a secular-scientific stand point. I am purely using Scripture as my guidance. Not some fallible man (even a great Christian like Walter T. Brown must answer to Scripture).

            God bless you. And may you have Spiritual victory in this matter through the study of God’s Holy Scripture.

          • And once again you overlook something. You assume, with neither Scriptural nor historical nor geological warrant, that the Himalaya chain and Tibetan plateau, to cite the example you yourself cited, existed in their present form before the Flood. I propose to you, as Walter T. Brown did in In the Beginning, that they did not. No mountain as tall as Everest, or even as McKinley in the Western Hemisphere, or even as the high point in the Appalachian chain as it runs through Pennsylvania, existed before the Flood.

            Concerning Genesis 1:2 – no doubt you know the same thing most Biblical scholars readily realize, namely that forms of the verb to be do not normally appear explicitly in Scripture unless they really mean to come to be. (If you want to convey mere “being” in classical Hebrew and ancient Greek, just put two nouns, or a noun and an adjective, together, and by the laws of “predicate placement,” any form of the verb to be is understood to apply.) Many scholars interpret “the earth was formless and empty” as “the earth went from a formed state to a formless state.” But I suggest that verse really means: “When the earth first came to exist, it was formless and empty.” Like a lump of clay, waiting for the Sculptor, or the Potter, to shape it and mold it as He would.

            Neither space nor time permits me to reply to you in detail. So I will share with you this work that I personally did on Genesis. This particular page covers Genesic chapters 1 through 8, including critical parts of the Log of the Ark (actually, Life-ship) of Noah, kept by Shem, Ham and Japheth.

            The verses you mentioned are insufficient to suggest that God created the mountains we see today, as part of the original creation.

            The Bible says that the Flood covered everything. If it did not, then Noah and his family could simply have taken flight on foot to escape the cataclysm. No matter how much land is to get flooded out, if you have sufficient warning, you can walk out of the threatened area.

          • You said:
            “And once again you overlook something. You assume, with neither Scriptural nor historical nor geological warrant, that the Himalaya chain and Tibetan plateau, to cite the example you yourself cited, existed in their present form before the Flood. …. No mountain as tall as Everest, or even as McKinley in the Western Hemisphere, or even as the high point in the Appalachian chain as it runs through Pennsylvania, existed before the Flood.”

            My response:
            “And once again you overlook something. You assume, with neither Scriptural nor historical nor geological warrant, that the Himalaya chain and Tibetan plateau, DID NOT exist in their present form before the Flood.”

            You said:
            “Many scholars interpret “the earth was formless and empty” as “the earth went from a formed state to a formless state.”
            But I suggest that verse really means: “When the earth first came to exist, it was formless and empty.” Like a lump of clay, waiting for the Sculptor, or the Potter, to shape it and mold it as He would.”

            My response:
            You forgot the part where it said: “…and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

            Even if the earth was “Like a lump of clay”, it was still covered with water until God made the dry ground. And after this point as the Psalmist said (and i demonstrated with Scripture) “Never again would the waters cover the earth”

            You said:
            “The verses you mentioned are insufficient to suggest that God created the mountains we see today, as part of the original creation.”

            My response:
            “Irrelevant. I’m not really trying to debate when the mountains existed (though i did just do it above, and mentioned the Mt Everest earlier.)
            I’m simply trying to point out that:

            a) Scripture tells us in both Psalms and Job that the world has not been covered with water since day 3 of Creation.
            b) The Genesis 6-8′s wording of the Flood could be (but does not require) an interpretation for which the extent of the flood was global.

            In a similar manner, there are passages in scripture that could be (but do not require) an interpretation for which the earth is flat.(Rev 7:1)

            Likewise, there are passages in scripture that could be (but do not require) an interpretation for which the sun goes around the earth. (Ecc 1:5)

            You said:
            “The Bible says that the Flood covered everything. If it did not, then Noah and his family could simply have taken flight on foot to escape the cataclysm. No matter how much land is to get flooded out, if you have sufficient warning, you can walk out of the threatened area.”

            My response:
            - True, but traveling hundreds of miles to avoid the flood would also require Noah do avoid the people people that were going to be judged. And we know (2 Pe 2:5) that God had Noah be “a preacher of righteousness” to the ungodly people. Thus, in following God’s nature; He gave the sinful people warnings of their sins – up to the last moment before he sent the huge-cataclysmic-flash flood that destroyed them all.

            God Bless.

          • So then we arrive at an impasse. Scripture does not speak directly to the history of any particular mountain chain or plateau, before or after the Flood. As a Justice of the Supreme Court – or a sage – might say, “resort must be had elsewhere to answer that question.”

            So where do we go? We go to a combined model that is more self-consistent than any other. In the end, we’re looking for the model of reality, and history, that is perfectly self-consistent.

            I don’t believe you’ve read the rest of Walt Brown’s book. You should. For he has the most comprehensive model to justify not only the Flood but also a young earth. Much of how I’d have to respond to you, involves quoting his book.

            Yes, water did cover the earth in Genesis 2. There are some who suggest that the earth was made of nothing but water. (See Humphreys, “On the Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,” in the Creation Science Research Quarterly.) But if you read II Peter 3:5, you find that God made the heavens and the earth standing out of water. Meaning that land masses rose up out of the first water. But that happened before the first life, not after.

            You say that the verses in Job and the Psalms say positively that the world has not been covered with water since Day Three of Creation. I don’t see how you can say that. God set a boundary, but the waters jumped all boundaries at His command, and then retreated at His further command.

            To your last point: How much warning do you think Noah had? 120 years, to be exact. Noah himself records this. See Genesis 6:2. And in fact, you’ve proved my point: Noah didn’t go anywhere. He built a life-ship to keep him, his family, and specimens of all the land animals and birds alive. A global Flood makes that necessary. With a local Flood, he wouldn’t avoid the people. He would tell them where he was going, and why. Then they’d either get the point, or not.

            And here is why I say, read all of Walt Brown’s book. No one has ever observed all the layers of the Fossil Column in one spot. But they have observed one or more layers everywhere–and there’s no spot, except at the very bottom of the Colorado River as it winds through the Grand Canyon, that doesn’t have at least one fossil layer underneath it. The Flood deposited those layers. (The Grand Canyon weas carved after the Flood, not during it.) So either something covered the whole earth, or none of it.

          • “Yes, water did cover the earth in Genesis 1:2. There are some who suggest that the earth was made of nothing but water. …. if you read II Peter 3:5, you find that God made the heavens and the earth standing out of water. Meaning that land masses rose up out of the first water…”

            ^ Yes, that happened on day 3.

            And then if you examine Job and Psalms we see that after this point “never again would water cover the earth”

            Thus Noah’s flood was not global.

          • We have already established that water did cover the earth in gen 1:2 (prior to Noah’s flood). And that after God created land on day 3, Scripture says “never again would water cover the earth” (as i have shown in Psalms and Job).

            Concerning Gen 8:21-22….
            This is God’s promise that he won’t destroy humanity like this again, and day and night shall not cease. Nothing about the flood.

            I think you meant to refer to Genesis 9:13-15
            Which says:

            Gen 9:13-15 KJV – “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”

            ^ The above isn’t a promise “never again will waters cover the whole earth”
            It is saying “never again will waters become a flood to destroy all flesh”

            It may be subtle, but it is a clear distinction.

            God said that water would never again cover the whole earth after he made dry land (day 3).
            God later said that he would never again use a flood to destroy all flesh.

            It is quite possible for God to use a flood to destroy all flesh without the flood covering all of the earth (because he already promised the earth wouldn’t be covered by water before the flood).

            Of course we could also debate what “all flesh” means…

            So once again, this is the order of events.

            OEC interpretation:
            1) the whole planet is covered with water. (gen 1:2)
            2) god makes dry ground (day 3)
            3) Never again would water cover the whole planet (psalms and Job)
            4) Later God sends a massive flood to kill all flesh (but it didn’t cover the whole planet as promised earlier)
            5) God has another promise to not destroy all flesh again by a flood.

            YEC interpretation:
            1) the whole planet is covered with water. (gen 1:2)
            2) god makes dry ground (day 3)
            3) Never again would water cover the whole planet (psalms and Job)
            4) God breaks His word and goes ahead and causes water to cover the whole planet again.
            5) After breaking His promise to never cover the planet with water again, God changes his promise from “never again would water cover the whole earth” to “never again would water cover the whole earth to destroy all flesh”

            I cannot accept an interpretation that makes God a liar. In order to have Scriptural & Spiritual victory, I must not accept the YEC’s model for the flood.

            God bless.

          • How could a flood destroy all flesh if it limited itself in scope? Surely a flood that destroyed all flesh (except for eight human souls and several specimens) would be global in scope. It would have to be.

            Would not any human beings be able to avoid a local Flood by walking away from it?

            Regarding your YEC interpretation, or your version of it: move Item Three down to the bottom of the list, and then I can accept it as valid. But not before.

          • You could try to move #3 to the bottom of the list, but that would go against the clear teaching of Scripture.

            This now gets to the point of “what does ‘all flesh’ mean”?

            Did all fish die? (here the YEC will respond, “they don’t breathe air, and don’t count”)
            So fine… did all whales/dolphins/ect. die? Were they on the Ark?

            2Pe 2:5 makes it clear that it was “the world of the ungodly” that was destroyed. This “world” is in reference to humanity not the planet; because the 3rd rock from the sun that was destroyed (it’s still here), humanity was destroyed.

            I believe that all humanity (save the 8 on the ark) were killed by the flood. Even extremely tiny floods (say, 20ft of water) kill hundreds of people with our advanced technology.

            Imagine a flood hundreds of feet deep that comes suddenly upon ancient people! God knew what He was doing, they had no chance to escape. (and if any had tried, I’m sure God could have handled it just fine.. assuming God even allowed them to un-harden their hearts as He did to pharaoh.)

          • We’re at an impasse. You read Scripture one way, and I another. Such is the hazard of approaching first principles from two fundamentally opposite points of view. As you and I have clearly done.

            We agree that all but the eight on the Ark died in the Flood. We disagree on how they died. Can you show definitively that all the people then on the world stayed in one place, and that place got flooded faster than they could escape? I know of only one event that could overtake even the furthest nomads. And that would be the very sort of breakout that Walter T. Brown shows happened at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

            I’ve asked you several times to look up his work. This is a prize example, by the way, of why he insists that anyone seeking to debate him, commit to reading his book, from cover to cover (or the on-line equivalent), before he begins his challenge. You will find, in that work, a complete explanation of where I stand, and why.

          • long quote:
            ———
            “Do we really agree on “the core issues”?
            Many of them, yes. Perhaps most of them.
            Sadly, not on the issue most central to the purpose of the Creation Science Hall of Fame:
            “honoring those who honor God’s Word as literally written in Genesis….Now: you assume that people stayed local because that was just another command for them to disobey.
            But the decision to disobey a law has its basis on more than “just to stick a thumb in the eye of Him Who made the law.”
            You have to ask yourself what a disobedient person would have to gain from his act.
            I suggest that mankind would have spread itself as far as technology would have allowed….And I see that your assumption of the limits on technology goes to your limits on “how far Noah had to travel.” Now bear one more thing in mind: the Pangaia model. All the continents fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, with some of their edges eroded. So there’s no such requirement as having to get on a ship to cross a gulf as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Noah had one hundred twenty years to deliver his warning. See Genesis 6:2.

            ————-

            “Now: on one hand, you insist that the flood was local.
            On the other, you must invoke a miracle, not so much to make such a flood happen as to make it inescapable,
            even if limited in scope. Well, all right then.
            Why didn’t God have Noah walk out of the future Flood Zone before He broke the Flood out?”

            - Honestly, i don’t really like the term “local flood”. Because even you believe it was “localized”.
            Do you believe the flood was on Moon? on Mars? Did it cover the Sun and the Galaxy?
            No, you say that it was localized to just the 3rd planet from our sun.
            Your main point is that it was “global”.
            My main point is that it was “universal”, meaning “destroyed all humanity except for the 8 on the ark”.

            So I believe in a universal flood, and yes it was “localized” to one area. But that really isn’t the main issue for me.
            I could just have easily asked you: “Why didn’t God have Noah travel to the moon, was it a limit of technology”?
            Or: “Why didn’t others build an Ark like Noah?”

            “Now we both agree that this was no ordinary flood of the rising-river or rising-lake variety.
            I happen to believe that a subcrustal ocean broke out of its confinement,
            split the continental land mass into several parts
            (some of which crashed into one another to make the Himalayan/Tibetan massif),
            and washed over all the land masses before draining into the new Pacific Basin.
            Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning, when you read it, will show you just how violent this event was. ”

            - yes, I watched a presentation he gave. It is interesting. But not much of it seems possible.
            For example, he talks about rapid forming ice crystals froze the mammoths up north..
            but he seems to forget that these same ice mammoths were covered with water (that was heated with water that came from the force of a Billion hydrogen bombs).

            Not to mention that all of the water coming out at that pressure would have instantly expanded, turned to gass, and cooked the whole planet (and those on the ark).

            “And he can explain it with simple engineering principles. The only miracle he invokes is how the Earth
            formed to begin with—and we know that’s a miracle, for the Bible attests to that. The only issue left is:
            why did the earth’s crust get on the way to cracking as it did? Possibly because God withdrew His hand,
            and then knew exactly when to weaken it critically, and gave one man—Noah—timely warning of the disaster to come,
            or at least its timing.”

            I think the miracle of Noah’s flood was more than “God designed the planet with a fail-safe flood switch to kill everything when they turned evil”

          • Did I say the Flood was localized? Sorry. Slip of the fingers on my keyboard. Senior moment. Or maybe something I said that lent itself to some clever misconstruction.

            Of course I said it was global. And when you mention the Moon and Mars–well, now that you mention them, I do say that one percent of the earth’s mass escaped from the earth, in the form of water, rock and mud. Some of it fell on the Moon, Mercury, and Mars. And has been seen on all three bodies, as polar ice. As for traveling to the Moon—I didn’t want to mention this before, but now you force me to. A former Project Apollo historian by the name of Shane Johnson speculated that pre-Flood man might have commanded a technology capable not only of flying to the Moon but of building a base there, and a similar base on Mars. And when the Flood destroyed their civilization on Earth, they went insane and killed one another in mutual murder, mutiny, and mayhem. Those who survived that, ended up killing themselves.

            Mind you, I can’t prove that anything like that actually happened. I don’t even suspect it. But if someone found the remains of an advanced lunar base, that’s the first thing I would think of: the greatest Out-of-place Artifact find of all time.

            I might have known that you would object to the sub-crustal ocean model as a “fail-safe flood switch.” We shall probably not know, this side of the New Jerusalem, what caused the pillars of the earth to fail and the crust to weaken and finally to crack. Possibly someone tried to dril to that sub-crustal ocean, and set in motion something he could not stop.

          • Now you are arguing that it is possible that some people survived the flood on the moon/mars?
            And that they killed themselves when earth was destroyed?

            You keep pointing to men like “Shane Johnson” and “Walter T. Brown Jr.” as your evidence.

            And I keep pointing to God’s Word.

            I see now that we can make no progress in this discussion.

            Even though i completely disagree with your view of Genesis; I pray that God would still use your ministry to bring people to Christ.

            God bless.

          • I didn’t make that argument. I would say that we won’t know how high the technology before the Flood actually got. I never said that Shane Johnson was setting forth a real theory. He wrote a novel, that’s all. He’d be the first to admit that no one is here to tell the tale, and no astronaut has found any such artifact as he described.

            Walter T. Brown, on the other hand, does have a case to make.

            I gave you the link. You won’t even look at the evidence. And I am stating that right now for the record.

            You, and you alone, can correct that fault.

          • “I didn’t make that argument. I would say that we won’t know how high the technology before the Flood actually got. I never said that Shane Johnson was setting forth a real theory. He wrote a novel, that’s all. He’d be the first to admit that no one is here to tell the tale, and no astronaut has found any such artifact as he described.”

            ^ Also, if they had the technology to avoid the flood (space ships and submarines) then why would Noah build an ark out of wood?
            The whole theory is 100% made up.
            You claim to be “honoring those who honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis”.
            Yet i am shocked that you would even consider the possibility of space age technology pre-flood, while also flat-out rejecting everything I’ve said which i back up with Scripture.

            “Walter T. Brown, on the other hand, does have a case to make. I gave you the link. You won’t even look at the evidence. And I am stating that right now for the record.
            You, and you alone, can correct that fault.”

            - The only link you ever gave in this back-and-forth was

            “http://www.conservapedia.com/Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29″

            Which you said was your work.
            But i have looked up a lot about Walter T. Brown and his hydroplate model (so don’t accuse me of otherwise).
            I still want to “state for the record” that I keep backing up my claims with Scripture, while all of your claims seem to be based on Walter’s scientific theories.

            Why don’t you send me some more links about Walter T Brown’s work.

            In the mean time, i offer you these links about Walter’s model:

            link to paleo.cc
            link to oldearth.org

            “The hydroplate model is a creative but woefully deficient model of earth history, flying in the face of many lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, physics, and math…
            And is not supported even by most creationists with backgrounds in relevant fields.”

          • The best link about Walter T. Brown’s work is the one I gave earlier:

            link to creationscience.com

            Now about those other sources you mentioned: surely you cannot expect me, with my experience of politics and my knowledge of logic, to accept uncritically an argument that amounts to circular reasoning. In this case it is a very special type of circular reasoning:

            Your theory does not work under my theory; therefore your theory must be wrong.

            Why is it, that although Dr. Brown stands ready to debate his theory, in moderated settings, he has had no takers? And he has had a few people who at first agree, and then walk out when it becomes clear that they want to bring their preconceived notions of what geological evidence really means into the discussion? Try to remember, as you go through the book, that he is challenging every cherished notion of the origin of fossils, strata, comets, meteors, and even radioactivity.

            Radioactivity alone ought to militate against the old-earth model. How can the earth be “very good” (actually a Hebrew idiom meaning “absolutely excellent, complete, and good to go”) if some of its elements are subject to decay? Radioactivity did not come to be during Creation Week, nor did it exist during the 1654 years before the Flood. The Flood, and the earthquakes attendant upon it, brought radioactivity into existence, with everything else that came with it. Including carbon-14. And the dumping of large quantities of carbon-14 into the atmosphere are one of two key influences that cut the life span of man from an average of 900 years to the longevities of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and following.

          • “Your theory does not work under my theory; therefore your theory must be wrong.”

            ^ This is the only argument you have been presenting.

            I have been presenting Scripture as my evidence.

            What would you have me do?

          • “How can the earth be “very good” (actually a Hebrew idiom meaning “absolutely excellent, complete, and good to go”) if some of its elements are subject to decay?”

            Do you believe that the sun was giving off heat?
            This is decay.

            Do you believe that Adam&Eve&Animals ate and digested food?
            This is decay.

          • I think your definition of decay is questionable.

            And that also gets into the question of the origin of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. Conventional science says the sun is a third-generation star, and that radioactivity had its origin in the cores of supernovae. Now how do you reconcile that with Genesis chapter 1?

          • “The best link about Walter T. Brown’s work is the one I gave earlier:
            link to creationscience.com

            I already found that resource on my own, I don’t remember you posting it (maybe you did on a different thread).

            I already watched the video, but i don’t want to pay money for a book when his own video about the book makes no sense.

            Consider how he says that the eruptions from the Flood had the strength “exceeding 10 billion hydrogen bombs”

            Remember Hiroshima? It was destroyed by by a single bomb. And its land area is only 349.4 sq miles.

            The planet earth’s entire surface is 196,900,000 sq miles.

            That means it would only take roughly 600,000
            such bombs to completely destroy the entire planet (land & oceans being covered).

            But he said “exceeding 10 Billion!”

            This kind of energy would have completely vaporized the atmosphere. Noah and his ark would have burned to a crisp. Its complete nonsense.

            I already own several YEC books (like starlight and time, and several from Answers in Genesis)… So i’m not going to be buying his book.

            God Bless.

          • The energy he referred to persists as mostly kinetic. The Flood event ejected about one percent of the earth’s mass into space; that mass persists as the comets, asteroids, and meteoroids of today, plus the ice you find on the Moon, Mercury, and Mars, and the great “masscons” that make the Moon’s gravity uneven and made lunar orbital mechanics such a nightmare for Project Apollo mission planners.

            And the energy that is not kinetic became:

            Heat. That is why the earth’s core is now molten.

            Radioactivity. All the trans-lead elements formed during the Flood event. That takes energy, as you well know. (Iron is the nucleus at the lowest energy state for the number of nucleons it possesses.)

            I offer this strictly for the record.

          • “Recognize that in fact you have sought to reconcile Scripture with conventional origins science. And that is logically impossible.”

            ^ No, I am reconciling Scripture with Scripture.
            You are reconciling Scripture with YEC origins science. And that is logically impossible.

            “I think your definition of decay is questionable.”

            ^ You think it is questionable for me to say: “digesting food counts as decay”, but you don’t think it is questionable for you to say: “radioactive elements count as decay”?

            I’m taking a break from this conversation…
            Maybe I’ll check back in a few days.

          • I found an online copy of Walter’s book on that site… reading it now.
            (it was difficult to find)

          • Still reading it…

            But i just wanted to mention one thing

            First, quoting you:

            ———–
            The energy he referred to persists as mostly kinetic. The Flood event ejected about one percent of the earth’s mass into space; that mass persists as the comets, asteroids, and meteoroids of today, plus the ice you find on the Moon, Mercury, and Mars, and the great “masscons” that make the Moon’s gravity uneven and made lunar orbital mechanics such a nightmare for Project Apollo mission planners.
            And the energy that is not kinetic became:
            Heat. That is why the earth’s core is now molten.
            ————-

            Yes, I agree much of the energy would start out kinetic. But we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

            Just like when asteroids & spaceships travel fast through our atmosphere (kinetic energy), the resistances from the atmosphere produces heat. 1% of the earth’s mass being ejected from the earth would produce the same amount of heat (if not more) as an asteroid with 1% the mass of the earth.

            Remember, the earth’s mass is:
            5973600000000000000000000 kg

            So 1% of that would give:
            59736000000000000000000 kg

            (this doesn’t include the mass that was ejected from the crust but didn’t make it out of the earth’s atmosphere, by this model)

            And remember, this ejection of materials had to be going faster then escape-velocity when it “burst forth” (it didn’t have a rocket continually adding a constant force).. so it had to go fast enough that (A) the friction from the atmosphere and (B) the gravity of the earth didn’t slow it down enough to prevent it from escaping.

            ^ The above is why i said that the earth’s atmosphere would be completely vaporized.

          • You’re not the first person to make that mistake. I suggest you read further. I’ll give you one word in rebuttal here: “refrigeration.” Have you ever considered that water is theoretically the best refrigerant known to man? When you let out water under the tremendous pressure it was under, it will expand. You are talking about supercritical water – liquid and vapor dissolving one another so completely that you have no meniscus – suddenly released into an atmosphere at standard pressure. The heat of vaporization alone would be enough to suck out any heat of friction you mention, and still chill things very quickly. Which is how the mammoths were frozen, some standing up.

            And about that mass: the total mass of all the asteroids is less than the mass of the moon. And the moon has a mass 1.23 percent that of the earth. (Which is why the gravity on the surface of the moon is one-sixth Earth standard.) And some of the mass of the moon takes the form of the “masscons” that shot out into orbit and then fell onto the surface of the moon as the “month” wore on. Again, keep reading.

            I remind anyone still following this thread: Walter T. Brown will debate anyone, over the telephone (with an experienced debate coach as moderator) or in writing (with an editor as moderator, with a view to writing another book), any time. Just follow the links and contact him.

        • A Quick response.. and then I’ll go try and read some of Walter T. Brown’s stuff.

          a) I think we agree on the core issues that are important. So i don’t know why Bible believing Old-Earth Creationists cannot be in the Creation Hall of Fame.

          b) To your question: “Can you show definitively that all the people then on the world stayed in one place,”.
          – The following are a few (of many) reasons that I believe mankind was localized to one area:

          b.1) Gen 6:5 KJV – And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

          ^ I believe that this could suggest that mankind is disobeying all of God’s commands, including “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

          b.2) Like Jonah was to Nineveh, Noah was a Preacher of Righteousness to the world of the ungodly (2Pe 2:5).

          ^ He can’t really be preaching to all mankind if mankind has traveled all around the globe. (Not to mention that Scripture has shown repeatedly that it is in God’s character to warn sinners of their sins, and send them a preacher who would warn them of coming judgement)

          b.3) As i have already shown, the clear teaching of Scripture opposes a global flood (Job & Psalms). Thus if all mankind was destroyed by a flood they must have been localized to the area that was flooded.

          c) To your question: “and [Can you show definitively] that the place got flooded faster than they could escape?”

          - You seem to think that I don’t believe that this flood was supernatural. It was. God did something special to make this happen.
          so:
          c.1) God could have prevented anyone from escaping, and Scripture says they all died by the flood.
          – If you dislike that answer, let me ask you: “can you show definitively that no one else built an ark to escape your global flood?” (your answer would be similar to mine above)

          c.2) They didn’t believe the flood was coming, and it came quicker than they could react.. In Jesus’s words:
          Mat 24:38-39 NKJV – “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

          Again, I don’t believe this was some normal flood. It was a supernatural God-ordained judgement on humanity. I just don’t believe that Scripture warrants a Global flood (unless you pick and choose what verses of the Bible you want to believe… which i think is wrong).

          • Do we really agree on “the core issues”? Many of them, yes. Perhaps most of them. Sadly, not on the issue most central to the purpose of the Creation Science Hall of Fame: “honoring those who honor God’s Word as literally written in Genesis.”

            Now: you assume that people stayed local because that was just another command for them to disobey. But the decision to disobey a law has its basis on more than “just to stick a thumb in the eye of Him Who made the law.” You have to ask yourself what a disobedient person would have to gain from his act. I suggest that mankind would have spread itself as far as technology would have allowed. (And by the way: we do not know definitively whether that technology limited itself to the minimum that Noah needed to build his great life-ship. The finding of certain Out-of-place Artifacts suggests that technological development was originally far more advanced than that.)

            And I see that your assumption of the limits on technology goes to your limits on “how far Noah had to travel.” Now bear one more thing in mind: the Pangaia model. All the continents fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, with some of their edges eroded. So there’s no such requirement as having to get on a ship to cross a gulf as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Noah had one hundred twenty years to deliver his warning. See Genesis 6:2.

            Now: on one hand, you insist that the flood was local. On the other, you must invoke a miracle, not so much to make such a flood happen as to make it inescapable, even if limited in scope. Well, all right then. Why didn’t God have Noah walk out of the future Flood Zone before He broke the Flood out?

            Now we both agree that this was no ordinary flood of the rising-river or rising-lake variety. I happen to believe that a subcrustal ocean broke out of its confinement, split the continental land mass into several parts (some of which crashed into one another to make the Himalayan/Tibetan massif), and washed over all the land masses before draining into the new Pacific Basin. Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning, when you read it, will show you just how violent this event was. And he can explain it with simple engineering principles. The only miracle he invokes is how the Earth formed to begin with—and we know that’s a miracle, for the Bible attests to that. The only issue left is: why did the earth’s crust get on the way to cracking as it did? Possibly because God withdrew His hand, and then knew exactly when to weaken it critically, and gave one man—Noah—timely warning of the disaster to come, or at least its timing.

  3. Dear Mr. Hurlbut

    I do not know how long you have been a Christian. Please then take these remarks from someone who has once been as zealous for God and Jesus to the point of being hurtful in my comments. I have learned much in my walk with God, and grace has been one of the most important lessons in my life. I will never deny God or Jesus even though I agree with the science that affirms a Universe as old as 14 billion years. In this debate I have received insults from other fellow believers due to my position. Ken Ham’s comments imply that we are heretics by saying that we worship a different God. Your comments implying that we deny the divinity of God or Jesus fall in the same field. This kind of rhetoric, divisive and condemning, should not be what characterizes Christians. I know Jesus does not condemn me. The enemy tries to condemn me. Can you see what side you are taking when you condemn your brethren? I pray that you leave room for grace. The casualties are already high. There is no point on increasing their number through divisive comments.

    • Just because we at CSHF honor Ken Ham for making creation a more popular concept, does not mean that we are fully in accord with every method he has ever used, or every rhetorical flourish, either.

      But I suggest to you that your experiences now lead you to pre-judge my particular rhetoric.

      I speak as much from science as from Scripture. Let me dispose, first of all, of the 14 billion year argument. Semantics being what they are, I will say that you observe – correctly – that the great time constant of the universe is equal to 13.7 billion years. But: have you thought that maybe the clocks on earth have not run at the same speed as have the clocks at the edge of the universe? See Hartnett J, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, for a discussion in further depth than space permits here. Thus the universe can still be 13.7 billion light years in radius but only 6,200 or so years old here in the “solar neighborhood.”

      Nice try, though. It gives me reason to answer it.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply