Flood: Global or Local

[A Beautiful Truth]

Romans 8:20-22 makes it clear that the Fall had cosmic repercussions.

Romans 8:20-22 speaks only of mankind's sinful corrupt rule now enslaving the earth, it speaks nothing of animal death. You read your "no animal death" interpretation into Romans 8:20-22. But as I found out when I started a thread about Romans 8:20 that not all young earth creationists have a problem with animal (even soulish) death before the Fall.

Polar bears are a post-flood variety of bears.

So the webbing on their feet is NOT a design feature? It just popped up from natural processes? I believe God made Polar Bears with special webbed feet. You believe God made a Bear kind that evolved into Polar Bears and that webbed feet evolved naturally. (Surival of the fittest?)

They can hybridize with other varieties of bears, showing they are the same created kind.

Now, say IF--what IF (the following is not for the weak stomached) some scientist was able to hybridize an ape and a human...would that mean that they were orginially from the same kind?

And you claim it was only in Mesopotamia? Even though dating methods you and Ross (wrongly) accept place the Aborigines in Australia before the Flood?

And the dating method used to date those Aborigines, what is the margin of error for that method? That would be a detail to be included.

I only bring it up because that particular method is very prone to problems and has a large margin of error, in case you did not know.

But it is not unlike YEC to fail to bring stuff like this up...(remember that little issue with the piece of wood from the "ark"? Margin of error is not one of those details YEC like to mention....)

[reyvin]

Charleen just stole all the words out of my mouth. (Hey wait a sec! Does that mean she stole all the related TO THIS POST words, or every word I've ever spoken!?)

[kuboes1831]

Brilliant reply Charlene , you must be one of the few on this forum who took reading beyond KS1 and can work out and de-code the letters in Romans 8. You also stole my words so I will report you to the thought police

[A Beautiful Truth]

Brilliant reply Charlene , you must be one of the few on this forum who took reading beyond KS1 and can work out and de-code the letters in Romans 8. You also stole my words so I will report you to the thought police

Thanks...I think.

What does "reading beyond KS1" and how does one "de-code" the letters in Romans 8?

You may contact me off list if you like so as not to take this thread too far off topic.

~Charleen

[kuboes1831]

KS1 is Key Stage one the level of a 7 year old, "de-code" means you can work out the letters.
Or simply put you have the intelligence to work out what Romans 8 actually says, rather than misreading it.
My warped sense of humour.
Your posts are always worth reading and full of sound Christian sense.

[Warcraft3]

Oh, and welcome back, Steadele

Hey man thanks for the welcome.

Right now I am in New Mexico and should be leaving fo Kuwait (where I will be for a year---Im not going to Iraq afterall) sometime this month.

I usually just lurk and read stuff cause if I start posting too much Ill be on the computers alot and sometimes I dont have much time.

So Ill be lurking around for a while, but Ill try to get a post in here and there.

Its good to be back at TWEB with all you guys.


Russ

[A Beautiful Truth]

Thanks, kuboes1831.

And welcome back, Steadele!

~Charleen

(We were just in New Mexico--man, it was cold!)

[A Beautiful Truth]

..."all flesh" that Solly brings up is an excellent point.

Well, sure--"all flesh" in that region (which included all of mankind!)

[A Beautiful Truth]

After reading the devastating scriptural passage Solly just gave, how can you possibly say that?

You can't be serious?

I believe I gave a reasonable answer to Solly's objection in post #27.

[bar Jonah]

I believe I gave a reasonable answer to Solly's objection in post #27.

So you look at a passage that says that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded.... and you take that to mean that "all flesh in that region" was flooded and destroyed? :rihrm:

And this is a "brilliant" response, people? Egad, if you are willing to interpret scripture that ridiculously liberally and loosely, I wouldn't want you teaching Sunday school to kindergartners.

The truth is, you know darn well what it says, and you don't want it to say that because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. This is so absurdly simple to understand, and you are doing back-breaking gymnastics to get around it...

[Socrates]

Romans 8:20-22 speaks only of mankind's sinful corrupt rule now enslaving the earth, it speaks nothing of animal death. You read your "no animal death" interpretation into Romans 8:20-22. But as I found out when I started a thread about Romans 8:20 that not all young earth creationists have a problem with animal (even soulish) death before the Fall.

Nope, that they didn't have a problem agreeing that certain passages spoke only of human death. This one talks of the whole creation being cursed, and commentators have long linked this with the Fall.

So the webbing on their feet is NOT a design feature? It just popped up from natural processes?

It's a beneficial information loss as I explained, just like eyeless fish in caves or wingless beetles on windswept islands .

I believe God made Polar Bears with special webbed feet.

Believe what you want. Webbing is still an incomplete division of digits. Just as whiteness is the lack of fur pigmentation.

You believe God made a Bear kind that evolved into Polar Bears and that webbed feet evolved naturally.

I believe they AROSE naturally, but not EVOLVED because there is no new information. But of course I'm used to the deceitful equivocation of evolutionary propagandists that Ross and his adoring throng parrot.

(Surival of the fittest?)

Natural selection was theorised by creationists before Darwin. So there is no need for your knee-jerk reaction to this observable phenomenon.

Now, say IF--what IF (the following is not for the weak stomached) some scientist was able to hybridize an ape and a human...would that mean that they were orginially from the same kind?

Not gonna happen, when you understand the hybridization criterion. And Charleen has the problem that she has no coherent definition of the created kinds, if they are allowed to interbreed.

And the dating method used to date those Aborigines, what is the margin of error for that method? That would be a detail to be included.

Radiocarbon dating (via Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)), which Ross defends, ‘dates’ Aborigines in Australia to 41,000 BP (before present) -- O’Connor, S., Carpenter’s Gap rockshelter 1: 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation in the Napier Ranges, Kimberley, WA, Australian Archaeology 40, June 1995.

Ross dates the Flood to ‘between twenty thousand and thirty thousand years ago’ (The Genesis Question p. 177).

If you have any indication that the proponents of the radiometric dates allow 50% error bars, please produce it.

I only bring it up because that particular method is very prone to problems and has a large margin of error, in case you did not know.

I know that, but you old earthers are the ones who defend radiocarbon dating!

But it is not unlike YEC to fail to bring stuff like this up...(remember that little issue with the piece of wood from the "ark"?

No I don't actually. Should I?

Margin of error is not one of those details YEC like to mention....)

Why don't you tell us then?

[A Beautiful Truth]

So you look at a passage that says that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded.... and you take that to mean that "all flesh in that region" was flooded and destroyed? :rihrm:

And this is a "brilliant" response, people? Egad, if you are willing to interpret scripture that ridiculously liberally and loosely, I wouldn't want you teaching Sunday school to kindergartners.

Well, actually, post #27 was on the last page......

(I don't think you read it?--it was NOT the post I mentioned "all flesh in that region" The post numbers are in the top right side of the posts...)

[A Beautiful Truth]

Nope, that they didn't have a problem agreeing that certain passages spoke only of human death. This one talks of the whole creation being cursed, and commentators have long linked this with the Fall.

You are right that Romans 8:20 is referring to the Fall, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with you adding that animals started dying after the Fall. Even some YEC I've encountered on this board agree with me concerning this.

I believe they AROSE naturally, but not EVOLVED because there is no new information. But of course I'm used to the deceitful equivocation of evolutionary propagandists that Ross and his adoring throng parrot.

You do not believe webbing on a Polar bear was new information.

Natural selection was theorised by creationists before Darwin. So there is no need for your knee-jerk reaction to this observable phenomenon.

Yes, but you extroplate tremendous speciation in a very limited time off the ark. If you were right, we should see far more species "arrising" under our noses. (and not the lame mosquito species argument again. There is a difference between that and getting polar bears and panda bears arising naturally)

...coherent definition of the created kinds, if they are allowed to interbreed.

My problem is that you say they interbreed...but yet you give examples of human intervention. It does not happen naturally. And my point is "so what". Because they are similar does not mean they were related. I think it can be argued that God has a set of "templates" and has created theses species similar but unique. I know that they can change over time in small ways, but you believe in big ways.

Radiocarbon dating (via Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS))...If you have any indication that the proponents of the radiometric dates allow 50% error bars, please produce it.

and what about "via Accelerator Mass Spectromety"--is there an error bar to be considered?

I know that, but you old earthers are the ones who defend radiocarbon dating!

At least we are upfront with the margin of errors...

There are margin of errors, but with so many tests confirming the age of the earth, for example, to say they are all wrong and all off by millions is silly. That is saying because there is a margin of error, there is no truth whatsoever.

No I don't actually. Should I?

Why don't you tell us then?

It was a television show on Noah's ark (CBS, I think) where they claimed to have found a piece of wood possibly from Noah's ark and they subjected it to dating but made the dates fit their time of the flood by not including the margin of error (and they picked the most extreme limits to make a case). I am pretty sure there is a book out as well...I could dig and find more info, if you would like.

[Socrates]

You are right that Romans 8:20 is referring to the Fall, I have no problem with that.

Right, and this clearly points to a cosmic curse.

You do not believe webbing on a Polar bear was new information.

Of course not -- it is a partial failure of apoptosis to divide the digits. I also don't believe that shrivelled eyes in cave fish is new info.

Yes, but you extroplate tremendous speciation in a very limited time off the ark. If you were right, we should see far more species "arrising" under our noses.

Actually, the observed rapidity of speciation has been a surprise for long-agers.

(and not the lame mosquito species argument again. There is a difference between that and getting polar bears and panda bears arising naturally)

Please tell us more.

My problem is that you say they interbreed...but yet you give examples of human intervention. It does not happen naturally.

What do you mean? Mules have been produced for millennia "naturally". Artificial insemination was certainly not needed. But this is a problem for your lot -- we know the different breeds of dogs came from a common dog ancestor. They are still classified as the same species, although AI is needed to interbreed a Chihuahua and Great Dane.

And my point is "so what".

So what? If kinds can interbreed, you have no criterion to distinguish them. You may as well be an evolutionist.

Because they are similar does not mean they were related. I think it can be argued that God has a set of "templates" and has created theses species similar but unique. I know that they can change over time in small ways, but you believe in big ways.

No, I believe that size is not the issue, but direction!

and what about "via Accelerator Mass Spectromety"--is there an error bar to be considered?

I gave the figures -- you prove that the error bar is 50%!

At least we are upfront with the margin of errors...

Why don't you tell us then!

It was a television show on Noah's ark (CBS, I think) where they claimed to have found a piece of wood possibly from Noah's ark and they subjected it to dating but made the dates fit their time of the flood by not including the margin of error (and they picked the most extreme limits to make a case). I am pretty sure there is a book out as well...I could dig and find more info, if you would like.

Yeah, please do. I bet it has nothing to do with reputable creationist organisations like AiG.

[kuboes1831]

Sorry Romans 8 does not point to a cosmic curse due to the Fall, but only to humanity. Clear from the word ktisis which often means humanity rather than world