Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Science Contradicts the Bible?

godandscience.org — What most skeptics don't know is that the Bible, written mostly by a bunch of sheep herders, makes a number of scientific claims that are remarkably correct - even though many were not even confirmed to be correct until within the last 100 years.

Bury

Becca4RonPaul 91 days ago

24 diggs
digg it

Becca4RonPaul, on 04/08/2008, -3/+9From the expanding universe (Big Bang) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to Earth's geologic history--the Bible is surprisingly accurate! The only one in this list that I disagree with is footnote 15, from the text of Luke 17:34-35. I think the author have taken that Scripture out of context--assuming its application to global, instead of local, events. (If this sparks your curiosity, go to www.preterist-site.com for an explanation of partial preterism.) Otherwise, this is a remarkable--and non-comprehensive!--list. Please read before commenting! Enjoy.
americangoy, on 04/08/2008, -3/+3Well... interesting.
CrudeDarkness, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKZnmBnQVE&feature ...
Look4Truth, on 04/08/2008, -4/+7"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." - Psalm 19:1

All it takes is faith, I know because I took that step four years ago. You want proof that God exists? Pray for Him to show you and He will.

"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." - Matthew 7:8
- Becca4RonPaul, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1OaklandNative from Cali, you said: (this was our first reply to you, shouted to myself)
  
  "As a reliable source, you and your husband are citing a book that says the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago . . . You're an interesting couple btw and I'm enjoying this. I've never met anyone like you two and it's very interesting to me. You are obviously smart people with some sort of scientific background or at least scientific knowledge. Personally, I've never understood how anyone can have a strong science background and still believe in god. It makes no sense to me. I know plenty of really smart and scientifically educated people who do believe in god. However, whenever I ask them questions like the one I posed, they never have an answer and obviously have never really thought about it in any deep way. Usually, they just fall back on either "the bible says it so it must be so" or "I just know it's true. I have faith." It's refreshing to hear the opinions of someone who believes in god and has actually rigorously and scientifically analyzed their beliefs. Thanks. See you on the other side of the event horizon."
  
  Dear OaklandNative,
  Thank you very much for these kind words you said to us a while ago. We appreciate someone who can have an investigative mind that does not accept things by blind faith and who can have an enjoyable discussion and not an ugly argument. We hadn’t noticed your comments until a few days ago, but we would love to respond to the EXCELLENT points that you brought up.
  
  We make it our purpose in life to search things out, to think things through deeply and come to real answers for ourselves and others. Alex especially analyzes things to an incredible degree, studies the Scriptures in their original languages, tests every interpretation and teaching, and looks at Biblical claims in the light of science, logic, and good hermeneutics (rules of interpreting Scripture). Using these methods and an open mind in search of truth, he and I have seen Scripture validated to an incredible level—although often what surfaces is radically different from “traditional” Christian teachings. The issues involved in the Genesis creation and flood accounts involve us in some DEEP studies of Biblical linguistics, methods of interpretation, geology, cosmology, and anthropology. There ARE answers to the points of controversy you raised regarding the Genesis accounts which resolve these apparent difficulties and prove the reliability of the Bible, but they are deeply involved, and not the typical pat “Christian” teachings you are familiar with. Interested?
  
  We will be posting responses for you on this article's comments page: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Contradic ...
  We would love to dialogue with you, and are willing to respond to any related questions you might have.
Becca4RonPaul, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3OaklandNative said:

"As a reliable source, you and your husband are citing a book that says the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago, woman came from a man's rib, we are all born from Adam and Eve, billions of species fit on a boat that one man built in a few years, etc, etc. The bible is not a history book. The bible is not a science book. It was made up by hundreds of people thousands of years ago."

First, we’ll start with your claim that the Bible itself supports an understanding that the earth and the entire universe were created in 6 literal days, 6,000 years ago. We will show you that that is a weak, careless, and unnecessary interpretation of the Genesis account. Moreover, it is only ONE competing (and poorly supported) view of the Scripture, not truths specifically claimed in Scripture itself. The original Hebrew does not in ANY way necessitate such beliefs. We'll take them point by point from an Old Earth Creationist interpretation of Scripture (i.e., NOT Creation in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago). This view takes an honest and unprejudiced look at both the scientific evidence AND the linguistic evidence, rather than relying on oversimplified "literal" readings of *English translations* of the Scripture.

**Scripture does not necessitate creation in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.** In fact, the Hebrew linguistic evidence militates AGAINST such an interpretation, and rather SUPPORTS an understanding of Creation as a process which occurred over vast "ages" of time. Such a model not only makes better sense of the Hebrew, but also compellingly fits our knowledge of cosmological and geological history.

The Hebrew word translated as "day" ("yom") in many English translations has a range of possible meanings from six hours of "daylight" (versus night), a literal 24 hour day in history, OR SPANS of time and even vast epochs.

Here are a few of the MANY examples within Scripture of this word yom (day) used metaphorically for a span of time. Quotes are in the New King James Version (accurate but readable).

**SEASONS**
Numbers 13:20--"whether the land [is] rich or poor; and whether there are forests there or not. Be of good courage. And bring some of the fruit of the land." Now the time [DAY] [was] the season of the first ripe grapes.”
Joshua 3:15-- “and as those who bore the ark came to the Jordan, and the feet of the priests who bore the ark dipped in the edge of the water (for the Jordan overflows all its banks during the whole time [DAY] of harvest)”
Judges 15:1—“After a while, in the time [DAY] of wheat harvest, it happened that Samson visited his wife with a young goat. And he said, "Let me go in to my wife, into [her] room." But her father would not permit him to go in.”

**YEARS**
2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years [yomim--DAYS]"
Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years [yomim-DAYS]"
Exodus 13:10, "You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year [DAY] to year [DAY].”

**AGES**
Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age [DAY] of Jacob"--so yom is used to refer to an entire lifetime.

**VAST AGES**
Genesis 2:4, “This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [DAY] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens . . .” Here the Scripture calls the whole creative period A DAY.
Lastly, Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remains [literally, “in the earth’s DAY”], Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease." Scripture describes the period starting from the first four creation “days” ranging from clearly defined night and day to water cycles and weather patterns, to the inception of plant life-cycles up until the writing of this text as **A DAY.** Now, if one is an Old Earth Creationist, this is a period that spans BILLIONS of years! And even if one is a Young Earth Creationist (i.e., creation 6-10,000 years ago), you have to admit that day is used to describe THOUSANDS of years. Either way, that is one long “day.”

**CONCLUSION: Context determines the function of the Hebrew word “yom,” and dictates which reading is most appropriate. “Yom” is by no means limited to a literal 24 hour period. So, the Genesis account could quite literally mean that God did various creative works over 6 VAST creative time spans (“days” or ages). This does not violate any rule of Hebrew grammar. On the contrary, the assertion that the days MUST be literal is arbitrary and untenable when you look at how many different ways the word is used. In fact, before scientific evidence presented any pressure to “read” these “ages” into the Genesis text, many early church fathers and orthodox Jewish rabbis held to this view for purely linguistic reasons, so the charge of revisionism for its own sake falls short.

There other reasons why we should prefer a “day-age” reading. Scripture states in Exodus 20:11, “For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Now the Hebrew reckoning of a day runs from evening to evening, 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. On each of the Genesis “days,” Scripture states “from evening to morning, day one [day two, day three, etc.]”. Evening, 6 p.m. to morning, 6 a.m. is only 12 hours, or HALF of a day. AND this Creative work is said to take place during the “nighttime,” not the “daytime.” This language can also be understood figuratively, to describe the result of each creative “day”—a progression from a state of lesser complexity to greater complexity, like the dawning of a “day.” Plus, if we want to be “literal,” we are only given HALF of a day, not a whole one. To top it all off, Genesis 2:4 (above, under VAST AGES) refers to the entire creative period as a “day.” So which is it, 6 half-days (3 days), 6 days, or 1 day? Such plastic usage of the word is clear indication that a “literal 24 hour day” was not the intended meaning. This brings the Genesis creation account into perfect harmony with what we actually observe of the history of the universe—Creation “ex nihilo” (Big Bang, Genesis 1:1), several generations of stars culminating in the formation of a VERY unique solar system in one particular galaxy, capable of sustaining life—and of the earth—being slowly prepared over aeons by a very fortuitous series of events, with the introduction of complex life forms suddenly, over ages of time. This is a very strong position linguistically AND scientifically, which is consistently supported throughout Scriptures (see the article above, “Science Contradicts The Bible?” for more scientific confirmations of the reliability of Scripture). (more below....)
Becca4RonPaul, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5(Continued)

The Biblical creationist who maintains that all species were created simultaneously is really up a creek. The geologic strata are not a figment of someone’s mischievous imagination—they really describe the progressive introduction of species on planet earth (albeit, without any indication of gradually evolving ancestors). All species did NOT live together at the same time and could not have. The Old Earth Creationist is liberated from this absurdity. When we read the days as “ages,” we glimpse the order of God’s introduction of species over vast epochs. Coincidentally, the order of the introduction of species given in the brief Genesis account turns out to be accurate! See this article for a full break-down of the claims of Genesis 1 and the findings of archeology: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html. Here is a good summary of what Genesis 1 says happened on the different days, and how this is corroborated by science.

1.(Genesis 1:1) Creation, by fiat miracle, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) *Big Bang and developing universe*

2.(Genesis 1:2) Planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles. At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth's primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet's surface. God was "hovering or brooding" over the seas of the newly formed earth. We know from science this is the first unicellular life forms first appeared. The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young. Therefore, it seems that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 refer to God creating the first life forms in the sea.

3.(Genesis 1:3-5) Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean. Photosynthetic unicellular life appears well after non photosynthetic.

4.(Genesis 1:6-10) Formation of continental land masses and ocean basins with stable water cycles in them.

5.(Genesis 1:11-13) Production of plants on the continental land masses.

6.(Genesis 1:14-19) Transformation of the atmosphere from a more translucent to a more transparent one. Oxygen and ozone reaching levels that would continue similarly to the present. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen easily from the vantage point of Earth's surface.

7.(Genesis 1:20-23) Creation of swarms sea mammals, crocodiles/whales and birds/flying things (sherets/nephesh {in water}=swarms of sea mammals; tanniyn=crocodiles/whales; owph=birds/flying things).

8.(Genesis 1:24-25) Creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals according to the Hebrew: a) behema = long legged herbivores like cattle, sheep, oxen ect. b) Chayya = Long legged wild or carnivorous like dogs, lions, bears etc. c) Remes - Short legged animals like rats, mice, rabbits and armadillos.

9.(Genesis 1:24-28) Creation of the human species.

This order of events gives the VERY abbreviated understanding of what God made/did in creation, and the basic order of the events. This brief summary only relates certain aspects of the creation that have *primary* effects/ relevance to ancient man and his civilization. For example, although lizards, amphibians and insects were known in the Old Testament era, these are not mentioned, probably because of their lesser importance in the societal scheme of things (likewise dinosaurs—which were unknown to mankind until recent times). Astonishingly, this order accurately describes early earth conditions and provides a correct sequence for the appearance of the species mentioned in the geological column.

So, let’s be clear. There are two competing viewpoints when it comes to interpreting Genesis 1. Young Earth Creationism has to negate both the Biblical linguistic evidence that “yom” was used to describe ages as well as days, AND it has to negate the scientific evidences for a very ancient universe and planet Earth, every known dating method and their independent confirmations of the ages of strata, and the progressive introduction and extinction of species. The Old Earth Creationist, however, can fully embrace what the Genesis account says, see in it a brief but uncannily accurate picture of events that took place over vast ages, AND be completely honest with and accepting of the findings of science. We do not overlook ANY body of relevant evidence, AND occupy the high ground when it comes to cosmology as well, being able to posit a theory which accounts for the Creation of all matter, energy, space and time by a (necessarily) non-material Agency. The naturalist has no empirically-based hypothesis for how the universe even came to exist, although we know it did, SUDDENLY, 13.75 billion years ago, worlds exploding into existence according to exquisitely fine-tuned laws from an infinitesimally tiny dot (the “singularity”).

We will post answers to your other points soon. Our next response will be focused on "Day 6"--the introduction of mankind. --Alex and Becca
- OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Ok. I have never heard of old earth creationists. Interesting. However, I'm still not sure how "The Old Earth Creationist, however, can fully embrace what the Genesis account says, see in it a brief but uncannily accurate picture of events that took place over vast ages AND be completely honest with and accepting of the findings of science."
  
  I don't think it's "uncannily accurate.". Of course you can totally re-interpret everything Genesis says to make it somehow acceptably fit into what we know about science. I think you could probably do that to some extent with any religious creation story.
  
  "We do not overlook ANY body of relevant evidence, AND occupy the high ground when it comes to cosmology as well, being able to posit a theory which accounts for the Creation of all matter, energy, space and time by a (necessarily) non-material Agency."
  
  While it's great to hear that, I don't know that I really believe it. Again, I think you understand science and that's great. But I think you twist what the bible says in order to fit it into scientific knowledge. Here's what we know.
  
  Evolution is a theory and a fact. What is at issue within biology debates are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. We have a massive fossil record that supports this. We have so much evidence that biologists hold day long conferences to debate whether to call a newly discovered inter-species fossil a "mammalian like reptile" or a "reptilian like mammal." We even observe evolution on a regular basis. Insects constantly evolve immunities to pesticides and new pesticides must be developed. Flu shots make you completely immune to almost every flu strain out there that exists at the time of your shot. Immune forever against those particular strains. But you need a new shot every year because the viruses mutate and evolve.
  
  Evolution is the process by which all living species exist and have ever existed (as you know, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, only what happened after life came into existence). The bible makes no mention of evolution. The bible doesn't even hint at evolution. The bible says god created "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." He created them all, each and every species. In one day. Whether you define a day as a day or as a billion years, it's not true. You can say he created life in such a way that evolution was possible but you most certainly can't say he created each and every species if you in any way agree that evolution (random mutations, natural selection, and survival of the fittest) created them.
  
  Genesis 1:14-19 depicts God saying: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
  
  This doesn't meld with what we know.
  
  1) Modern astronomy has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt today that stars are still being created. In other words they were not simply "made" and that was that, though the passage above in Genesis seems to imply that's what happened (though of course different Christians will interpret it differently), but at face value it does seem to be saying that the sun, moon, and stars were made, and that was that, without any word in the Bible of the fact that stars are still being formed today.
  
  2) Modern astronomy has spotted rings of matter circling other stars near our own, and presumably such rings of matters may circle stars elsewhere in our galaxy and in other galaxies, sometimes younger stars as well, where the matter may be forming into planets and moons. The Bible does not mention such things, yet it strikes me as a miracle worth mentioning that planets and moons may very well be forming even today out there in the cosmos.
  
  3) A couple thousand years after the Bible was written, astronomers discovered that Mars has two moons. Yet Mars has no people who need their steps "lit" at night, or who need to read the "signs and seasons." It was also discovered that Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has eighteen moons (one of them, Titan, is even larger than the planet Mercury)!
  
  4) The earth's moon, though described in Genesis as being made to "rule the night," apparently abdicates it's "rule" for three nights out of every twenty-eight, when it doesn't light the earth at all.
  
  6) "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." So the billions and billions of stars in billions and billions of galaxies spanning billions and billions of light years were all created to help humans distinguish between night and day, get a little extra light, and mark the seasons and days and years? Wow. How nice of god. What happens if we ever discover that some of those stars actually have planets orbiting with life on them? I bet god also told those beings that our star, the sun, was created for their benefit.
  
  5) Also one last curiosity, the moon is not a source of light. It merely reflects the light from the true source, the sun.
  
  If the bible was written by god, you'd think he would point out some of these truly amazing things. He created it, why didn't he accurately describe it? Why didn't he even mention dinosaurs - they ruled the earth for millions and millions of years. Didn't god think we'd someday find dinosaur fossils and freak out because they weren't mentioned in the bible despite the fact that they were massive in size and located everywhere?
  - OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1You said: "Therefore, it seems that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 refer to God creating the first life forms in the sea." I don't follow your logic at all. Again, I think you are really stretching to fit the word of bible in with scientific knowledge.
    
    Similarly, how can you possibly get "Photosynthetic unicellular life appears well after non photosynthetic" from "Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean." I see no connection with the two whatsoever. Moreover, how can you get either of those two sentences out of what you quoted in Genesis chap 1 which states:
    
    1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
    
    Rather than twisting the bible to make it say what it doesn't, I think you should just accept that the bible was written by ancient man (not God) and most certainly should NOT be taken literally.
- OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1More thoughts.
  
  "This order of events gives the VERY abbreviated understanding of what God made/did in creation, and the basic order of the events. This brief summary only relates certain aspects of the creation that have *primary* effects/ relevance to ancient man and his civilization. For example, although lizards, amphibians and insects were known in the Old Testament era, these are not mentioned, probably because of their lesser importance in the societal scheme of things (likewise dinosaurs—which were unknown to mankind until recent times)."
  
  Does that mean that the bible was only written to be relevant to ancient man, not for modern humanity? He had to know that at some point, humans would accumulate enough knowledge for this stuff to become important. Enough knowledge to eventually question the inaccuracies in Genesis. Enough knowledge to question the crazy and currently unacceptable biblical moralities.
  
  Every single christian cherry picks and chooses to follow certain parts of the bible and ignore others, which, for the most part, is a good thing. The bible contains explicit prescriptions for how to live that are not metaphors; they are not open to theological interpretation. God just comes right out and says "stone people" for a list of offenses so preposterous and all-encompassing that the killing never stops. You have to kill people for working on the Sabbath. You kill people for fornication or simply being gay. The vast majority of christians, thankfully, do not accept those parts of the bible. Public consensus on morality has shaped most sub-denominations into teaching more positive prescriptions on how to live.
  
  Even the commandments themselves are morally flawed. They are black and white in a gray world.
  
  "Don't steal." What if I'm starving? What if my child is starving?
  
  "Don't bare false witness." What if it's the Nazi's at my door, I'm hiding a jewish person, and they're asking if I know where any jewish people are? What about the million other times it's ok to lie because it's the lesser of two evils?
  
  "Don't kill." What if someone is trying to kill my family and the only way to stop them is by killing them?
  
  Etc.
  
  The second commandment used to be "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth... (Exodus 20:4-6). That's what the bible said. Christians don't follow that anymore because it doesn't make sense in a modern world. Also, they like art.
  
  I can certainly think of a few commandments that are missing which really are black and white. Don't rape. Don't commit genocide. Don't enslave people. There is never a valid excuse to do any of those things. Why aren't they commandments? Because all those things were acceptable at the time the bible was written.
  
  I just don't understand how people can say they accept the bible when they know that they do not and will not follow many/most of it's teachings (which, again, i think it's a good thing that they don't follow all the biblical teachings). Why say you accept it in the first place?
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2: ) You're a good thinker, and these are worthy considerations. We will be happy to reply as soon as we can. Please keep checking this page.
    - OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Bookmarked. I will be back.
      Thanks.
- OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Here is the main issue I have with you two. How/why do you know your religion is correct. I won't even get into why you believe in god. That's fine. But why identify with a specific religion.
  
  You understand science. You embrace it. You even state that:
  "The Old Earth Creationist, however, can fully embrace what the Genesis account says, see in it a brief but uncannily accurate picture of events that took place over vast ages, AND be completely honest with and accepting of the findings of science. We do not overlook ANY body of relevant evidence, AND occupy the high ground when it comes to cosmology as well, being able to posit a theory which accounts for the Creation of all matter, energy, space and time by a (necessarily) non-material Agency."
  
  Your arguments, however, are the opposite of science. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. You can have more than one theory to explain a set of facts. If those theories are mutually exclusive, one or all of those theories is necessarily incorrect. However, that's the beauty of science. When the facts don't support theories, theories are immediately thrown out. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are by definition untestable. It's all about faith, no matter what the facts say. You already have a conclusion: the bible is the word of god, the bible is correct, and Christianity is right. You do whatever it takes to interpret science and fact in a way so that allows you to "fully embrace what the Genesis account says." I suspect you do the same for any other part of the bible. When religious people are exposed to facts that contradict their beliefs, they either ignore the facts or warp them to fit into their beliefs. By identifying with a particular religion, you are saying that you KNOW your theory is correct. No fact can possibly disprove your theory. Rather than observing facts and proposing a theory to explain the facts, you positively KNOW your theory is correct and seek out the facts that support it and ignore or warp the facts that contradict it. Your predetermined conclusion cannot change. That is NOT science (well, sometimes that is science when scientists are trying to get more grant money -- haha, but that's not real science).
  
  How do you know the bible is right? You obviously understand the circular reasoning of "the bible is right because the bible says it's right." So how can you possibly say Christianity is right or the bible is right? What is your basis for believing that? More to the point, WHY would you say that? Religion, by nature, is divisive. Why identify yourself with a particular religion instead of with humanity as a whole?
  
  We have - for religious beliefs - relaxed standards of reasonableness and evidence so totally that people believe the most ludicrous propositions, and are willing to organize their lives around them. Propositions like "Jesus is going to come back in the next fifty years and rectify every problem that human beings created so we don't need to solve the problems ourselves"--or, in the Muslim world, "death in the right circumstances leads directly to Paradise." These beliefs are harmful and should not have a free pass simply because they are religious. We have Christians against Muslims against Jews against whoever else, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a member of a specific religion lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole. I think you two are adding to this problem by claiming to be Christian (I say Christian because I don't know your specific denomination) and searching for scientific support for the bible.
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the wealth of commentary. We have a family engagement tonight, so we may not be able to post anything until tomorrow, probably evening/night. Talk to you then.
    - OaklandNative, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Please take your time. I'm going out of town for the next 5 days anyway. I will definitely check back periodically after I return.
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4OK – I will start your statements with *** and then I will respond. This is a response to the recent comments you posted. Because of all the additional issues you brought up, we won’t be able to get to Adam / 6th day just yet. Here goes.

**Of course you can totally re-interpret everything Genesis says to make it somehow acceptably fit into what we know about science. ***

The interpretation we have given actually best fits the original Hebrew words and the metaphorical / poetic style used in the Genesis account compared with a young earth creationist view. Also, as we stated previously, this interpretation was espoused by orthodox rabbis and early church fathers on linguistic grounds ALONE, *LONG* before scientific evidences called for an Old Earth, so it is not simply a convenient modern innovation (please refer back to our discussion of the word “yom”-day-and its many figurative uses). We have given NUMEROUS examples of the Hebrew usage and points of the metaphorical style to prove this point. Not one point we used from the internal evidence have you shown to be incorrect according to Hebrew usage of grammar or style. And if you mean that we should not reexamine traditional views of Scripture or that doing so somehow undermines it, than you should throw out all of science for we are always refining, correcting or expanding our knowledge. Science has given us knowledge of the natural world that no previous generation possessed, and as we have been able to refine both our knowledge of Scripture and science, we find that they are in better harmony now than we have ever realized. Again, we have offered not just rhetoric but solid facts for you to consider. We expect any refutation to take these FACTS into consideration, instead of mere emotionalized rhetoric or non-evidential dismissive statements (I just think you’re twisting / reinterpreting . . .).

**I think you could probably do that to some extent with any religious creation story.***

This is incorrect. For example, the sacred texts of Hinduism claim a continually rebounding (rebirthing) universe (called the “oscillating universe” model). According to this theory, the universe continually expands and contracts (instead of continuous expansion). A continually rebounding universe should constitute a falsifiable claim about the natural world. In point of fact, this claim HAS been falsified. All our present knowledge of the cosmos shows that for several reasons—including the degree of present expansion, lack of sufficient gravity for re-attraction (even from dark matter sources), increasing expansion from the dark energy effect (cosmological constant), and available energy loss from entropy—our universe did not and cannot “rebound.” Our universe is headed toward an entropic and expansive death. Also, beliefs that have an eternal universe at their core are also shown to be false. The big bang singularity has been shown to be true to an overwhelming degree. Thus the universe had a BEGINNING. The steady state theorem has been thoroughly refuted. Another example of obvious and irreconcilable errors in a religious text are the claims of the Koran. Quoting from http://www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm (another excellent site with scientific evidences from the Bible): “The Koran, the scripture of Islam, written 1,500 years after the Hindu scripture, does not contain many of the ancient superstitions. Yet its observations of the universe are seriously flawed. The Koran speaks of seven literal heavens which are solid.20 These heavens contain lamps or stars whose main purpose is to be "darted at the devils."21 Mohammed wrote that "the sun sets in a sea of black mud."22

So an HONEST (with the internal evidence of the text – not just what you could say you thought about it) examination of the texts of some other religions DOES NOT produce the same possibilities of truth claims. AND the absurdity of the accounts of other religions only lends more credence to the Bible.

Here’s a good summary of what we’re looking at when we examine the “creation” accounts / myths of most religions: “Some religions hold that some or all matter had a beginning at some point in time. Most do not consider time or space to have had a beginning. Some start the universe in a state of chaos, others start with water and many start with the existence of at least part of the material world. Many religions deal with infinite rejuvenation, which requires an ageless universe. We know the universe and time itself indeed had a beginning from nothing” (The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis). -Quoting from Old Earth Creationist Mark Harpt http://members.cox.net/wwcw/whoisgod.html.

My question is, how do you “twist” the obvious inaccuracies of these other accounts? –those that make no provision for the creation of space and time (as Scripture does); those that do not explain where the original “chaotic” universe came from or give physical explanations for how that chaos resolved itself into order; those that require an essentially eternal universe when we know that our universe is finite and came into being at definite point in the past? The truth is, from an Old Earth Creationist perspective based on the unique combinations of Hebrew words employed in the text, Scripture not only makes specific and accurate claims about the beginning of the universe, but also describes *accurately* certain aspects of the development of conditions and introduction of species on planet Earth. You should take a truly unbiased look at the *evidence,* and see if our claims about the Bible’s accuracy are proven to be correct. Even if you see merit to significant amounts of our claims, that should compel you to look into these matters thoroughly. To just take a dismissive attitude about the Bible in light the stunning scientific corroboration of its account of origins would not be scientific, wise, or honest.

**But I think you twist what the Bible says in order to fit it into scientific knowledge***

Wow – show me where what we have said does not use the Hebrew or Greek in a manner that fits the grammatical rules or stylistic usage within the Scripture (AS WE HAVE SHOWN THAT IT DOES). There is no “twisting” necessary. If you still maintain otherwise, please point out where this supposed twisting has occurred. Again, I’m not interested in you or anyone else merely using claims from church tradition or the vagaries that arise from the generalization of an English translation of Scripture. Deal with the data we claim. You cannot refute what we claim by trying to refute something someone else claims. We are no longer dealing with the young-earth straw man here. If you want to refute this, then you need to prove our usage of the Hebrew is incorrect.

***It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.***

The evidence now shows that liquid water has been on the surface of the earth from around 3.8 billion years ago after the late heavy asteroid bombardment caused the surface of the earth to become molten several kilometers deep. *See ya* to prebiotic materials or life from that point back! Then our earliest evidences of life appear about 3.8 billion years ago, at virtually the same time the earth’s surface cooled sufficiently and reestablished surface water for life to exist. VERY little time to supposedly gain prebiotics or have any kind of LONG periods of time for trial runs at biogenesis from them! Also, there is ZERO evidence for any prebiotic molecules. All the carbonaceous materials we find in the fossil record are post-biotic—that is, the remains of living things. Molten lava on the Earth’s surface destroyed any “soup” of prebiotic materials that might have there before the asteroid bombardment, and we don’t find any prebiotics in the short time AFTER the Earth’s surface cooled—and yet, we have life. On top of this, there have been found no natural inorganic sources that can supply the necessary amounts or kinds of amino acids or enzyme cofactors necessary for life. The Miller experiments with decades of INTELLIGENT design work could only produce a few amino acids under IDEAL conditions, and 95% of the mixture was of no value and even toxic to life and chemical bonding. It has also been shown now that early Earth’s atmospheric conditions were vastly different than were previously thought and now *NO* amino acids for life can be formed in the experiments! In fact, some prebiotic ingredients mutually exclude one another. For example, two nucleotide bases (adenine and guanine) require *freezing* conditions for their inorganic synthesis, while two others (cytosine and uracile) demand *boiling* conditions. In other words, for all four to be produced, the prebiotic soup must BOTH be freezing and boiling. Chemist Stanley Miller and his team conducted multiple experiments to examine the stability of biomolecules under both deep-sea hydrothermal vent conditions and ideal thermophilic temperatures. The team determined that an aqueous environment at 350 °C allows an amino acid half-life of only a few minutes. At 250 °C, the half-life of sugars measures in seconds. A polypeptide’s half-life measured anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Likewise, RNA hydrolyzed (broke down by combining with water) within minutes at 250 °C and within seconds at 350 °C. In other words, life’s building blocks fall apart rapidly under sea-vent conditions. Recently scientists have turned to the heavens for an attempt to find life building blocks since they could NOT find an adequate source here. Again and again their studies looking for sources all over the cosmos come up empty-handed. This doesn’t even begin to deal with the INSURMOUNTABLE problems of inorganic amino acid production like HOMOCHAIRALITY. This problem ALONE devastates a naturalistic attempt at the origin of life!!!!
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue09/i ...

So, there would have been virtually no *TIME* for life to arise naturalistically, no *MECHANISM* with which to produce sufficient quantities and types of organic materials needed to generate the genetic code necessary for the simplest prokaryote, and thus, insufficient *MATERIALS* (prebiotics) thought to be required for such an amazing feat. Naturalistic explanations of the origin of the first life fail astronomically. Taking into account only 5 critical factors (chirality, getting only life-specific amino acids in the right place, correct specific amino acids in the right place, correct material in the right place for each gene, and correct sequencing of genes--ALL of which are numbers from established EMPIRICAL facts of organic and inorganic chemistry), the odds of even the simplest *conceivable* bacteria (the simplest ancient bacteria known has 500k base pairs here we are using one with only 100k) arising naturalistically (without intelligent intervention) are 1 out of 10 to the 112,827th power . . . One chance out of 10 with 112,827 zeroes behind it. POOR ODDS INDEED!! (1 in 10 to the 150th is approximately considered a universal probability bound for any occurrence including quantum events. Anything beyond that is considered “absurd.”)

***There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and there are none now.***

I agree that most life forms are no longer living and birds and mammals were not living 250 mya. So what? No dinosaurs now either – Yes I agree they died out around 65 mya. Neither the staggered introduction of species nor the extinction of species poses any problem for Old Earth Creationism.

***The bible makes no mention of evolution. The bible doesn't even hint at evolution. The bible says god created "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." He created them all, each and every species. In one day. Whether you define a day as a day or as a billion years, it's not true. You can say he created life in such a way that evolution was possible but you most certainly can't say he created each and every species if you in any way agree that evolution (random mutations, natural selection, and survival of the fittest) created them.***

The Bible (in Genesis 1) doesn’t mention frogs, clams and other animals even though they were well known in that time. The account was merely a very brief overview. I agree that evolution is not described. It is not even refuted absolutely. The Bible only states that certain kinds of species were introduced by God; it doesn’t claim every single “kind” and even every genetic variation that has ever existed was made at that time. This diversification is explainable in terms of genetics and natural selection. But the fact remains that one of the most striking features of the fossil record is STASIS. Species once introduced show very little or no change. More on that later
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5As far as the omission of certain types of creatures in the Genesis account, I demonstrated that the Hebrew usage was of particular types of animals (categories that could encompass many different species). The Hebrew word used (Nephesh/Soulish) connotes creatures with the attributes of mind, will and emotion. This indicates the sea creatures created on the fifth "day" were not fish but air-breathing mammals -- whales, dolphins, porpoises and the like. The specific Hebrew word for “fish” is used later in verse 28 of the very same chapter! The narrative of the fifth "day" also states God created "every winged bird." The Hebrew word used here (Owph) means to fly and is normally restricted to birds. It can refer to flying insects. However, in that usage, it is usually combined with the Hebrew word (Sheres) connoting "winged creeping thing" (e.g., Leviticus 11:20-23).26 The usage here with Nephesh restricts the meaning to birds. One possible exception is bats. Bats are listed among the unclean birds/flying things (Owph) the Jews were instructed not to eat in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

The narrative of the sixth creation "day" speaks of the creation of three types of land animals: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals. The Hebrew word for livestock (Behema) refers to large four-footed mammals some of which can be domesticated. The Hebrew word for creatures that move along the ground (Remes) refers to the locomotion of small creatures -- small rodents and sometimes small reptiles. The usage with (Nephesh) again brings greater restriction to normally mean small mammals. The Hebrew word for wild animals (Chay) means wild or alive. Chay comes from the root Chaya that conveys living life to the fullest. Used with Nephesh again Chay usually refers to wild or larger carnivorous mammals. Many young-earth creationists assume the creatures that move along the ground Remes include crawling insects. However, a Hebrew word with a similar meaning (Sheres – without Nephesh modification) is normally used for those creatures. Sheres is also used at times to refer to snakes and creatures that glide or have many legs such as spiders and caterpillars. Sorry if this is overkill. We list these “kinds” in order to illustrate that they tell us a lot about the nature of the account—a generalized order of the introduction of major groups of species which is not meant to be all-inclusive, but to give a broad outline. However, it is SPECIFIC enough to be testable. “Does the Bible’s account of the order in which species were introduced match the geologic record?” Answer—YES.

So even if God introduced certain “kinds,” that does not mean there would not be any kind of evolution (micro or macro). This means we must look at the evidences from nature to try to understand those particulars better. When I look at the EMPIRICAL fossil and biological evidences (not HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMPTIONS USED AS EVIDENCE) I do see microevolution from natural selection, genetic variance and mutations. I do see the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record and massive extinctions. I see some variations in a SPECIFIC creature but not large COMPLEXITY GAIN changes in a SPECIFIC creature. So I DO see microevolution; I do not see Macroevolution.

***We even observe evolution on a regular basis. Insects constantly evolve immunities to pesticides and new pesticides must be developed. Flu shots make you completely immune to almost every flu strain out there that exists at the time of your shot. Immune forever against those particular strains. But you need a new shot every year because the viruses mutate and evolve.***

These are examples of MICRO-evolution by means of natural selection, genetic variance, and mutation. These are but variations within a given species, however in NONE of these cases are these species developing NEW, GREATER complexities within their make-up. Aphids are STILL aphids; influenza is STILL influenza (peppered moths are STILL peppered moths, whether light or dark ; )--these are merely variants of a “kind.” It is so common among naturalistic evolutionists to use this type of lame tactic where examples of microevolution are shown and then TOUTED as examples for macroevolution. The empirical evidence undeniably shows the reality of microevolution (change within a species), however, the empirical evidence of biology and the fossil record are a devastating blow against macroevolution. The vast majority of effects from mutations are detrimental to species, except for when the population of a species is so great (in the quadrillions for example, as in the case of bacteria, viruses, and some insects) that they can afford massive die-offs. New research actually suggests that much of bacterial resistance may be due to built-in genetic variance, and not primarily from mutations, so we may be overestimating the role of mutations there. Mutations represent DELETIONS from the genetic code; not additions. They do not result in increased complexity leading to entirely new morphological features, as macroevolutionary theory requires. For example, changes in a gene that restricts the growth of a bird’s beak could cause a larger, thicker or longer beak, however, SINCE NO NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED, new complex organs and systems CANNOT be formed by this means. Genetic variance only allows for the mixing of possibilities of the information ALREADY PRESENT in the code—again, NO NEW INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
Next, natural selection ELIMINATES species that cannot sufficiently adapt to an environment—thus REDUCING the overall amount of genetic information available within that species’ gene pool. Again, this adds NO NEW INFORMATION. A limited amount of information can re-added to the species through natural interbreeding or selective breeding. However, this is only restoring information that ALREADY existed in that species’ genetic code. Thus, NO mechanism of biology exists to explain the large information gains required for macroevolution to take place. This also explains why gaps in the fossil record are the rule, and not the exception. We primarily see the sudden appearance of fully-developed taxonomically-identifiable species. We then see little or no change in the fossil record of each species (stasis). We then see massive extinctions throughout Earth’s history (Permian, Jurassic and Cretaceous extinctions, for example). Then we AGAIN see the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of new species. There is also the massive problem of the Cambrian Explosion (about 530 MYA), where billions of years of single-celled organisms suddenly gave way to VAST amounts of complex, multi-cellular life forms, with roughly 90% of morphological structures for virtually every animal phyla--coming into existence in a geological instant. This is the most dramatic refutation of Darwin’s “tree of life.” These creatures have articulated limbs, complex organs and systems, have no possible ancestor, and show no change after their appearance. Some are still in existence—unaltered—to the present.

***Genesis 1:14-19 depicts God saying: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
The Old Earth view reveals that this is the full appearance of these “lights” in the sky from the vantage point of the surface of the earth (which was the context in view from Genesis 1:2 with the Spirit hovering over the surface of the earth) This sky is also where the “birds” fly in verse 20 and where water vapor formed clouds in verses 6-8. The Hebrew construction, “let there be light” is more literally translated “Light, come,” or “Light, come forth.” There are two other Hebrew words that are used throughout the account which mean “to make.” The first, barah, is used to describe a totally new creation without forebear and is used only 3 times—when God initially “made” the heavens and the earth, when he created “soulish” (nephesh) creatures, and when he breathed “spirit” into man, creating being with a physical, soulish AND spiritual nature. The second word is asah, used to describe creation from existing materials / ideas. If the creation of the *source* of light was truly in view, why were neither of these words used? Instead, the light which is already present is told to “Come forth.” This is linguistically significant.

(more below : )
- OaklandNative, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I'm actually shocked to here you argue against macro-evolution in the face of mounds and mounds of evidence supporting it. I'm actually rather confused. You can accept macro evolution and still be a christian, no?
  
  ***The vast majority of effects from mutations are detrimental to species, except for when the population of a species is so great (in the quadrillions for example, as in the case of bacteria, viruses, and some insects) that they can afford massive die-offs. New research actually suggests that much of bacterial resistance may be due to built-in genetic variance, and not primarily from mutations, so we may be overestimating the role of mutations there. Mutations represent DELETIONS from the genetic code; not additions. They do not result in increased complexity leading to entirely new morphological features, as macroevolutionary theory requires. For example, changes in a gene that restricts the growth of a bird’s beak could cause a larger, thicker or longer beak, however, SINCE NO NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED, new complex organs and systems CANNOT be formed by this means. Genetic variance only allows for the mixing of possibilities of the information ALREADY PRESENT in the code—again, NO NEW INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
  Next, natural selection ELIMINATES species that cannot sufficiently adapt to an environment—thus REDUCING the overall amount of genetic information available within that species’ gene pool. Again, this adds NO NEW INFORMATION. A limited amount of information can re-added to the species through natural interbreeding or selective breeding. However, this is only restoring information that ALREADY existed in that species’ genetic code. Thus, NO mechanism of biology exists to explain the large information gains required for macroevolution to take place.***
  
  Evolution is not solely based on mutations. New information IS available through new COMBINATIONS of genes. Sexual reproduction allows an organism to combine half of its genes with half of another individual's genes, which means new combinations of genes are produced every generation. Also, when eggs and sperm are produced, genetic material is shuffled and recombined in ways that produce new combinations of genes. Sexual reproduction thus increases genetic variation, which increases the raw material on which natural selection operates. Genetic variation within a species -- also known as genetic diversity -- increases a species' opportunity for change over successive generations.
  
  ***This also explains why gaps in the fossil record are the rule, and not the exception. We primarily see the sudden appearance of fully-developed taxonomically-identifiable species. We then see little or no change in the fossil record of each species (stasis). We then see massive extinctions throughout Earth’s history (Permian, Jurassic and Cretaceous extinctions, for example). Then we AGAIN see the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of new species.***
  
  You can't possibly be serious. First of all, are you saying that every once in a while, god just likes to create new creatures out of thin air? Poof, "here's a platypus, Earth. Enjoy it's weirdness." Why would he do that? You actually honestly don't believe that all sexually reproducing creatures had parents? Or that each creature came from at least one other creature? To say otherwise is to totally ignore science. Talk about gaps in the record. That certainly beats any gap in the fossil record. At least the fossil record has many many instances with NO gaps. Long traceable strings of species that came from other species. There is no record of creatures appearing out of thin air. Also, by your logic and by Genesis, no new species came about after man. That was the last thing god created. Do you contend that there were no species, of any creature whatsoever, that came about after man?
  
  Secondly, though the fossil record certainly has gaps, it's mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A VERY small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; many will never be found. Nonetheless, we have many, many fossils that illustrate evolutionary transitions between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, and in many lineages such as whales and horses. And new fossils continue to reveal transitional forms that some said don't exist.
  
  If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that is suggestive of incremental development. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms. And all life forms came from previous life forms. Thus, this succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is highly suggestive of evolution. As noted, there are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurances, such as the Cambrian explosion, but the overall impression one gets from the fossil record is one of INCREMENTAL development. Neither the Cambrian explosion nor gaps in the record disprove macro-evolution, they just show that we are missing pieces of the puzzle.
  
  The standard evolutionary tree suggests that birds are most closely related to reptiles, so we would predict that we could find fossils which show a mix of bird and reptile characteristics. Fossilized organisms that posses intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils.
  
  Exactly these sort of fossils have been found. Tons of them. A classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Why in the world would god create chickens with genes for teeth? He didn't. They evolved from other creatures that actually had and used teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.
  
  We would also expect that we would not find fossils showing intermediate characteristics between organisms that are not closely related. For example, we would not expect to see fossils that appear to be intermediates between birds and mammals or between fish and mammals. Again, the record is consistent.
  
  I find it hugely disingenuous to argue against macro-evolution when you concede micro-evolution occurs. It's the same process.
  
  Also, I'm curious where the Neanderthal and other hominids fit into Genesis. Neanderthals were likely almost as smart as humans (if not as smart). We even existed at the same time. Why didn't Genesis mention all the hominids that god created that were so similar to humans? Were all these hominids just trial runs for god before he created humans? Poof, "here's a Neanderthal. Good luck competing with the humans that I'm gonna create in a couple hundred thousand years. You're almost as smart as they are but the shape of your skull bones won't let you make as many varied sounds as them so you won't communicate as well as they do. Haha."
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Our rejection of macro-evolution is not based on doctrine. Scripture does not come out and say it that it did not occur. We have to look at the evidence for that. I'm glad you brought up these additional questions. We want to answer all of them, and have answers, if you don't mind waiting. ; ) We're kind of busy people.
    
    I'm sorry you are aghast at our rejection of macro-evolution. We will demonstrate to you why the EVIDENCE truly does support such a conclusion, however. By the way, have you ever heard of a petition called, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"? It is signed by more than 700 scientists from all different fields who say that there is just NO EVIDENCE for Darwinian evolution, that it is a failed hypothesis that they can no longer support. The signers are not Christian per se, and it is not a Christian effort at all. Google it and see what you think. More later. : )
    
    PS--I wish we could talk over the phone! We would get a lot more accomplished a lot quicker! If this is an impertinent suggestion, I beg your pardon. Have a good day. : )
- OaklandNative, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Moreover, what about hybrids?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Exam ...
  Certainly hybridization has introduced even more genetic variation throughout history which has also enabled macro-evolution.
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Check this out from http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.h ...

@Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. God is still on the surface of the earth. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from? The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so, like it does in the rest of Genesis one. It says that God "let it be." Let's read the rest of the first day to get the clues.

"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:4-5)

How long is day 1?

Many Christians assume that all the Genesis creation days are exactly 24-hours long. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the first day was. However, there were a lot of things that happened on the first day. God created the entire universe. There are other Bible verses that address at least part of how God created the universe. **No fewer than 11 verses from five different inspired authors claim that God stretches out the heavens.6 ***[Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah-see webpage for specific references] Many of these verses use present tense, indicating that God is still stretching out the heavens. How long did it take to stretch out the trillions and trillions of stars? The Bible doesn't say, but if we measure the current rate that the universe is being stretched, it would suggest a very long time.

Notice that every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all of this is part of the continuing action. The text says that there was day and night on the earth on the first day. This tells us that the light that was shining on the earth was directional (from one source). Let's put it all together. God created the earth with a thick layer of clouds around it that caused it to be dark. When God said "Let there be light" it is most logical to conclude that God removed at least some of those thick clouds so that light would fall on the surface of the earth. Where did the light come from? The Sun shining on a rotating earth. You might protest, "But the text never said God created the Sun." It actually does. As stated previously, the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the entire created universe. So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.@

OK -

The Bible has told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).

Unidirectional light had ALREADY existed on the surface of the earth from creative “day” one. The term God made the lights in verse 16 is in the imperfect tense which can mean a previously started work that was being worked on into the present. So the sun, moon and stars were previously made (by the way this Hebrew word means to form from existing materials not ex-nihilo or especially unique creation as WAS claimed of the origin of the universe and special creation required for the earth.) but the light from them became progressively more accessible and consistently visible from the SURFACE of the earth.

*** 1) Modern astronomy has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt today that stars are still being created. In other words they were not simply "made" and that was that, though the passage above in Genesis seems to imply that's what happened (though of course different Christians will interpret it differently), but at face value it does seem to be saying that the sun, moon, and stars were made, and that was that, without any word in the Bible of the fact that stars are still being formed today.

The scripture does not say God created sun, moon or stars on day 4. The scripture DOES NOT says stars cannot continue to form. The scripture teaches a universe with a beginning and that has been expanding and that will age and wear out (entropic death). This all allows for star births and deaths in the aging and expanding universe. Your point then makes no detraction at all from a Old Earth Creationist view.

***2) Modern astronomy has spotted rings of matter circling other stars near our own, and presumably such rings of matters may circle stars elsewhere in our galaxy and in other galaxies, sometimes younger stars as well, where the matter may be forming into planets and moons. The Bible does not mention such things, yet it strikes me as a miracle worth mentioning that planets and moons may very well be forming even today out there in the cosmos.

Very cool point, there are over 200 extra solar planetary bodies known and some appear to be forming! Awesome. However again this makes no difference in an OEC position, it is simply the laws of physics in action. An argument from something not described by scripture proves NOTHING against what it does say. Am I to reject addition in subtraction in a children’s school book because it doesn’t include calculus?!! No points scored here.

***3) A couple thousand years after the Bible was written, astronomers discovered that Mars has two moons. Yet Mars has no people who need their steps "lit" at night, or who need to read the "signs and seasons." It was also discovered that Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has eighteen moons (one of them, Titan, is even larger than the planet Mercury)!

Again, the Bible never claimed that moons DON’T exist anywhere else in the Cosmos. And the practical value of the “lights” for man is true. Again an argument about something outside of the claim of scripture that does not disprove what it DOES say.

***4) The earth's moon, though described in Genesis as being made to "rule the night," apparently abdicates it's "rule" for three nights out of every twenty-eight, when it doesn't light the earth at all.

So what? The moon is still the PREDOMINATE source of light for the SURFACE of the earth at night. The text NEVER said that the light of the moon or sun would NEVER at any point not shine down equally, in fact eclipses of the sun and moon were know then and yet the Sun is still the PREDOMINATE source of light in the day and the moon indirectly at night. No points here. That would be like saying – hey how long is that snake, oh around ten inches, you measure and its 9.3 inches. It’s still a great approximation. It would be different if it was 1 inch to 5 inches or 24!

***6) "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." So the billions and billions of stars in billions and billions of galaxies spanning billions and billions of light years were all created to help humans distinguish between night and day, get a little extra light, and mark the seasons and days and years? Wow. How nice of god. What happens if we ever discover that some of those stars actually have planets orbiting with life on them? I bet god also told those beings that our star, the sun, was created for their benefit.***

OK, contextually we are again talking about the stars visible from the CONTEXT, the SURFACE of the earth. Again a point made in opposition the context and so of NO value in any refutation of scriptural claims. Actually the latest knowledge of the universe has shown that the matter needed for the universe to exist in a way possible for life (i.e. galaxies, enough stars, enough time for stellar burning to produce heavier elements for planetary development etc.) cannot change by more than a dime’s worth in the WHOLE measure of the universe! WOW nice fine tuning GOD! Thanks for all the stars! Without a white dwarf binary pair near us, we would have no fluorine on earth and thus no life. WOW thanks for the cool stars GOD! 50% of all solar systems are binary thus no life in 50% of the solar systems in the universe. Then the size, color ,age and distance from the star must be right. The distance from the galactic core and extremities, the age in the universe and galaxy for proper amounts of heavy elements but also breakdown of radioactive elements, galaxy shape etc.! On and on I could go – NICE GOD!

***5) Also one last curiosity, the moon is not a source of light. It merely reflects the light from the true source, the sun. If the bible was written by god, you'd think he would point out some of these truly amazing things. He created it, why didn't he accurately describe it?***

Since the moon IS -THE MEANS- by which light ACTUALLY REACHES the surface of the earth at NIGHT this is NOT an inaccurate statement. I wonder if we should fire astronomers, meteorologists or teachers if they ever use the term moonlight or sunrise or sunset or something being “sucked” into the vacuum of space verses pushed out by pressure in the non vacuum area? Come on this is lame attempts that are obviously attempting to ignore the context and generalization style used there! No points!
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3***Why didn't he even mention dinosaurs - they ruled the earth for millions and millions of years. Didn't god think we'd someday find dinosaur fossils and freak out because they weren't mentioned in the bible despite the fact that they were massive in size and located everywhere?***

No points – again a very brief statement of creation (EVEN by standards of all of what COULD have been described about the natural world and animal species known in that day!) does not have to include EVERY possible element of the world. Does every text book of earth science (books specifically written to go into DEPTH about the natural world) do not include discussions about EVERY POSSIBLE thing. Dinosaurs would have little practical value to man and his understanding of the world for most of mans existence. Sorry no points here. An argument from what is not discussed does not invalidate what is! Plus, the Bible displays an amount of knowledge about the heavens which is highly improbable by sheer human guesswork, such as the frequent references to God “Stretching out the heavens,” using present progress (has done and is continuing to stretch out the heavens)—accurate description of an expanding universe. The Bible also correctly describes the Pleiades as being “bound” (Job 38:31—turns out that of all the stars in the visible night sky, those several visible "stars" are actually an incredible group of more than 250 tightly gravitationally-bound stars. Amazing also is the statement in Job 26:7 — "[God] hangs the earth on nothing." You cannot find this degree of specificity and accuracy in ANY OTHER creation account. (Please look at the article "Science Contradicts the Bible?" if you haven't already.)

***You said: "Therefore, it seems that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 refer to God creating the first life forms in the sea." I don't follow your logic at all. Again, I think you are really stretching to fit the word of bible in with scientific knowledge.

Similarly, how can you possibly get "Photosynthetic unicellular life appears well after non photosynthetic" from "Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean." I see no connection with the two whatsoever. Moreover, how can you get either of those two sentences out of what you quoted in Genesis chap 1 which states:

1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.***

OK

Here’s my logic. The standard and virtually EXCLUSIVE word from which we derive fly, flew, soar, flying, hover etc. is the Hebrew word (Uwph). In fact this word is used in Genesis 1 a few verses later of the birds that fly through the sky. The word translated in English in some versions as hover or moved is the Hebrew word (Rachaph). According to Gesenius’s Hebrew lexicon this word conotates a very unique meaning in Hebrew and Syrian Aramaic. The word conotates loving, cherishing care, brooding over young or eggs like a bird does, being moved by cherishment for another or others etc. If the verse was only meaning the action of flying/hovering over the water then the standard word Uwph could have been used. Why then go out of the way to use a very specific word that would conotate such additional meaning likened to the care of a mother bird over her young or over eggs she was hatching! This shows strong evidence for the meaning of life being cared for in the oceans. So since that IS the ACTUAL meaning of the word then PROVE that I stretched its meaning. Show Hebrew evidence that what I said is not in line with Hebrew lexicons or other Biblical usages. No points for you here.

Next, I did not say that the clearing of debris or light was SAYING that God made photosynthetic life the, I merely stated that the previous word showed life being cultivated BEFORE it was well lit and that photosynthetic life DOES show up AFTER non photosynthetic. I showed that what the scripture actually claims IS in line with the Geological order and is NOT in opposition to it.
***Rather than twisting the bible to make it say what it doesn't, I think you should just accept that the bible was written by ancient man (not God) and most certainly should NOT be taken literally.

WOW – You make an Ad Hominem attack against me insinuating that I have “twisted” the bible instead of dealing with the DATA that I have provided. Not one point of ANYTHING I have claimed from an OEC position has been refuted. You have not provided even ONE EXAMPLE where I have used ANY Hebrew word incorrectly or where the context does not support my point. Again I have provided Hebrew words, definitions, and examples of usage. If you need tools to check me then here – blueletterbible.com you can check the verses and click on the “c” figure to the left of the verses you pull up to check the Hebrew or Greek and see if what I say is so. You can look up the basic lexicon definitions and the usages of the particular words. If you want more in depth there are freeware programs that you can download and check the grammar in greater detail - http://www.onlinebible.net/ and http://www.scripture4all.org/

No excuses here – PROVE my usages of the words wrong!

***Does that mean that the bible was only written to be relevant to ancient man, not for modern humanity? He had to know that at some point, humans would accumulate enough knowledge for this stuff to become important. Enough knowledge to eventually question the inaccuracies in Genesis.***

Come on, be serious! You surely don’t think I MEANT that the Bible was written ONLY for ancient man?! My point was that there was an original audience whose languages were used. The message would carry truths that successive generations could learn from but there was a target audience for each of the biblical writings. Also writing things in a technical manner that ONLY man in the last 150 years would understand would be useless for thousands of years. There did not even exist words in Hebrew to express many things we know of today. However we CAN examine the truth claims of scripture from modern knowledge as well. However to use all of today’s technical understanding but NOT to use the proper understanding of the ORIGINAL languages means that one CANNOT properly investigate truth claims. So far you have shown NO inaccuracies from the Genesis account via an OEC model and NO inaccuracies from my investigation and usage of the Hebrew language.
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3That's what we have ready so far. Sorry if you find it a lengthy read, but you did present quite a few issues for consideration. ; ) This is mostly Alex with some Becca editing and interpolation. This by no means exhausts the evidences that we are familiar with and ready to speak about. We are really enjoying this conversation with you, and appreciative of your respectful attitude. The few little sarcastic pokes in these comments are not meant to belittle or offend.

We have a second part coming about your more philosophical questions, and those related to the Mosaic Law.

After that, Adam and the 6th day, God willing. ; )

Thanks for a great discussion so far! --Alex and Becca
- flip2trip, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3@Becca4--I have been really enjoying the discussion here. I wanted to ask you guys a question if I may insert myself into this conversation. First let me say that for years I was a young earth creationist (in fact I still have leanings this way, old teachings can die hard). The more I've studied and asked questions, the more I am coming to realize that a young earth proposition cannot stand up to the over-whelming evidence to the contrary. One scientist in particular, Hugh Ross, is probably most responsible for my beginning to search for these answers myself.
  
  I have always found it interesting that other portions of the Bible are backed up by scientific discoveries and exploration--for instance in John 5:1 we find mentioned the Pool of Bethesda (five porches) and for a long time archeaologists said that no such place existed but low and behold it was found and just as John had described!
  
  Now to my question. In the Genesis account I have always been taught that when Adam sinned this is when death entered the world. In effect saying nothing had died before this happened (at least according to young earth creationists). But when we look at fossil records it leaves one scratching his head as to how that could be. I mean saying that all animals were vegatarian before the fall makes no sense when I look at the teeth of a T-rex.
  
  Is there a way to explain both the fall of man when sin and death entered the world against the evidence of the fossil record?
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Awesome and important question! There IS a way to explain these things. I will post a reply soon--I'll shout and let you know when its ready. Good for you that you saw (and are seeing) the inconsistencies in the young earth interpretation. Your journey is very similar to my husband's and mine. : ) We'll talk to you soon--looking forward to it.
  - OaklandNative, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4flip2trip, thanks for joining the discussion. I hope more thoughtful and open people join the discussion, though I doubt anyone will find this page. Than again, maybe it's good that we are discussing this on a 55 day old article - I don't wanna read any troll comments or personal attacks.
    
    Great question btw. I am very curious how it will be answered.
- OaklandNative, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1We can spend a lifetime arguing over scientific support (or lack thereof) for the bible. I can point out countless instances of impossibilities in the bible, at least with respect to our understanding of science. For example: mammals cannot have virgin mothers; no living creature can be their own father; solid objects with a higher density than water cannot "walk" on water; a single fish and a single loaf of bread cannot feed thousands; mammals cannot come back to life after being dead for three days (or any number of days for that matter); one man cannot build a boat to carry and house every species on the planet for weeks and weeks (what did the carnivores eat by the way?); a boat that's three hundred cubits, the breadth of fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits could not possibly hold all the species in the world; a sea cannot be parted at whim; a bush cannot burn without being consumed; men and women cannot live for hundreds of years; contrary to Genesis, serpents crawled on their bellies long before the time of man (also, they don't eat dust); there is no archaeological or fossil support for the existence of giants; there is no scientific support that a flood that covered the highest mountain (Everest) during the time of man; there is no scientific support whatsoever that there ever existed any flying creeping things which have four feet (Leviticus 11:20, 23) or unicorns; serpents on brass poles don't cure diseases (Numbers 21:8-9); etc, etc, ad nauseum.
  
  I suspect that the only way you can explain any of these things is "Miracle" or "God did it" or "well, the bible does say X but what it really meant was Y" or "well, this particular thing is not meant to be taken literally." You are more than welcome to try and explain the above, and I will read whatever you write, however, rather than debate these scientific impossibilities or the (in)accuracy of Genesis, I would rather get back to my main point which, admittedly, took me a long time to make. How do you possibly KNOW your religion and your bible are right? Based on what you have written, you clearly do (somehow) KNOW it is. You obviously understand the circular reasoning of "the bible is right because the bible says it's right." So how can you possibly say Christianity is right or the bible is right? What is your basis for believing that, besides because you were told to believe it? In holding this belief as unquestionably true, you are forced to dismiss anything that contradicts the bible, or explain it away with smoke and mirrors. You are forced to completely ignore the scientific method because you already have a theory that CANNOT be disproved under any circumstances.
  
  More to the point, WHY would you claim to be a member of ANY particular religion? Religion, by nature, is divisive. Why identify yourself with a particular religion instead of with humanity as a whole? Do you not see that as harmful to humanity?
  
  Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my many many questions so far. I hope to hear from you soon.
- OaklandNative, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2I would also love to hear your response to my cherry picker and 10 commandments comments. How can you say you accept the bible when you do not, and will not, follow many/most of it's teachings (the violent ones at least)?
  
  Thanks guys. Cheers.
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2That is all coming up in the near future! ; ) It's already been written for a couple of days, but we've been very busy, and are still editing it. We really appreciate the conversation as well, and we'll be in contact again in the next couple of days. : )
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/03/2008, -1/+3flip2trip,

Ah, yes . . . We remember working through these very issues ourselves, and we admire your willingness to honestly grapple with these weighty matters. This is a study Alex put together after loads of research (some uncited material--sorry. I have to get onto him all the time to keep track of where he gets stuff from ; ). Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions / observations. : )

Death Before the Fall

The first issue that must be addressed is the issue of immortality. Who or what was offered immortality in the Scripture?

Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

What is interesting is that this verse actually does not say that they will live forever, it merely states the opposite.

It says that in the day they eat, they will die. Does this actually imply that Adam and Eve would live forever? Traditionally this is the way that this verse has been interpreted, but in the day one eats a toadstool, they will die. Their liver will fail and they will die within 24 hours. Yet if someone tells them that the day they will eat a toadstool, they will die, it does not imply that they otherwise would live forever. To conclude that Genesis 2:17 implies immortality is a non sequitur. Do these verses teach that mankind was given eternal life?

The function of the Tree of Life was obviously to give eternal life. Of this tree God says:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

What is clear from this verse is that the tree’s fruit could give the eater immortality. If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality, why was the tree there? There are three possibilities. 1. The tree was there to provide eternal life for people after the fall. 2 The tree was there to provide a one time ‘reward’ of immortality after a period of life on earth. 3. The tree was there to provide continuing ‘treatments’ of immortality. The context clearly falsifies the first option, the idea that the tree served some purpose for life after the Fall. God removed the Tree specifically to avoid the fallen creatures from partaking of the tree. So this would suggest that the only reason for the tree was to provide immortality for the UNFALLEN Adam and Eve, either as a single or continuing dose, options 2 and 3. But both of these options imply strongly that they did not originally possess immortality. As noted above one can not give a trait like immortality if they already have immortality. Both of these two possibilities contradict the widespread view that Adam and Eve were created immortal (in spite of the fact that no statement to that effect actually occurs in the Scripture.)

What about the New Testament references to death entering the cosmos through sin?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Note that in the above verses death was spread to MEN, not to animals. This is supported by the fact that the word 'men' is the Greek word, anthropos. This Greek word means men NOT animals. Adam’s sin spread to men. This passage cannot be used to support the concept that Adam’s sin affected the animals.

If animals were not able to die, it would imply things like the following. An ant, crawling on grass which was eaten by a cow, would have had to have been able to withstand the crushing of the cow’s teeth, and a passage through the ruminant’s four stomachs. It would be able to resume its life after elimination from the cow no matter how far from home the cow had taken it.

Also eating would not be necessary. If animals were unable to die, then, they would also be unable to die from starvation. So God giving the various animals food would have been pointless. They really didn’t need to eat at all because they couldn’t die.

Finally, there is a strange dichotomy between what Young Earth Creationists say about death and what they themselves actually admit as being the case. When an animal in the pre-fall world ate a plant, hundreds of thousands of plant cells would DIE. These cells and the plant itself would be digested and incorporated into the structure of the animal. So, plant death was a reality no matter what the theology says. Death, plant death and cell death, existed prior to the fall. Those denying death before the fall are only interested in denying animal death.

Yet this raises an interesting question. Could animal cells die before the Fall? There is really little fundamental difference between plant and animal cells in relation to their fundamental structure. Both have DNA, both have cell membranes etc. Why is it that only cells with chloroplasts were believed to be subject to death prior to the fall? Along these lines, skin is partly composed of a tough layer of dead skin cells which help protect humans. Adam had skin and thus presumably DEAD skin cells. This would mean that there was death before the fall.

Eve was given a MULTIPLICATION of pain in childbirth after their fall – NOT a BEGINNING of pain. Pain registers that there is something WRONG or damaged in the body. When there is stretching and tearing from the crowning and passing of the baby, the body has received some level of damage. Some cells died, and this potential existed BEFORE the fall and was merely multiplied by it.

To conclude, it seems highly likely that there was death before the Fall. There was most certainly plant death and cellular death, and the existence of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden suggests that it was there to give Adam and Eve something that they did not originally possess – immortality. And if they were not immortal, then they were mortal. Adam and Eve were offered immortality originally through the Tree of Life in some fashion. And this involved giving them a quality they didn’t originally possess--immortality.

Furthermore, Adam named the animals, using terms that described their carnivorous activity

Before the creation of Eve, God brought the animals before Adam for him to name. The text makes it clear that Adam, and not God, named the animals. This is important for an understanding of what Adam had seen prior to the Fall. If the young earth creationists are correct, one would expect the names of the carnivores to reflect the non-carnivorous activities of these creatures prior to the Fall. However, Adam gave some very unusual names to some of the carnivores. For example, the Hebrew name for lion is derived from the Hebrew root that means "in the sense of violence." Was Adam referring to the violence with which the lion ate its vegetables? It doesn't seem likely! In addition, Adam named some of the predatory birds using a Hebrew word with the meaning "bird of prey." Were these birds preying on fruits and nuts? In naming the eagle, Adam used the Hebrew word whose root means "to lacerate." Was the eagle ripping up plants with its talons? Likewise, the Hebrew root for the word "owl" means to "do violence to" or "treat violently." Although it is possible that Adam named the animals in some language other than Hebrew, and that those names were entirely different than the Hebrew ones, there is no biblical evidence for this idea. Even so, if the names were transliterated into Hebrew at a later point, one would assume that they would carry forward their original meanings, or else the Bible would have never made a big deal about Adam giving the animals their names.

Adam's names for carnivores

Lion Strong’s H738/from H717 "in the sense of violence"
Hawk H5322 "unclean bird of prey"
Eagle H5404 from an unused root meaning "to lacerate"
Owl H846415 from H2554 "to wrong, do violence to, treat violently, do wrongly"

It is abundantly clear from the names given to the carnivores by Adam that he had seen these animals in action - eating other animals prior to the Fall of mankind. The idea that all animals ate only plants prior to the Fall is contradicted directly by the biblical texts.

Ecosystem

Apparently, young earth creation science experts are a little weak when it comes to understanding the ecosystem and the food chain. God designed nature to be self-renewing. As creatures die, their remains decompose, and nourish the plants. As the plants grow, they are eaten by the animals. The animals are killed by predators, and what is not eaten is left to decompose to nourish the insects and plants, and the cycle starts all over. This IS the way God designed nature. There is no reason to believe this process was different prior to sin. The creation was made to renew itself through this process.

Another reason to consider is animal design. If God never intended carnivores to eat meat, then He would have designed them differently. For example, lions with molar teeth for chewing plants. A lion, with sharp teeth for killing, is not an efficient creation for the processing of plant matter.

With that said, let's examine a few creatures of God's creation that proves there was death before Adam's Fall.

Young earth proponents claim that sin and suffering entered the world after the Fall of Man. They claim that disease is a result of sin. However, what is disease? It is sickness caused by viruses, bacteria, etc. Did these microorganisms exist before the fall of man? If you listen to young earth proponents, they could not have existed before the fall. However, they had to. To imply that they came about as a result of the fall of man is to imply that God created them after Adam sinned. But, since God is in His seventh day of rest, and the creation is already 100% complete, he could not have created them after the fall. They had to be created sometime during the six days of creation.

Spiders, Snakes, and Venom

Spiders are wondrous creatures. They spin their silk webs in order to ensnare their victims before consuming them. How would they have survived in a pre-death world? Would their webs have been used to catch falling leaves? No, they could just simply go into a tree, or to the ground, to feast on the leaves. Spiders were created with only one diet in mind...a dead insect.

Also, why were some spiders created as venomous? What is the purpose of this venom? They didn't need this venom to subdue the leaves, or whatever else they were supposed to eat in the Garden. And, it could not have been for self-defense, since there were no predators in the Garden? In fact, the same thing goes for venomous snakes. Venom only has one purpose...to kill. Even venoms that incapacitate are for the same thing in the end, for once the creature is incapacitated, it is consumed.

The only logical conclusion is that God created venomous creatures to kill their prey.

Venus Fly Trap

I'm sure everyone has seen one of these carnivorous plants. Before the fall of man, did it catch falling leaves? It certainly could not have evolved this trait after the Garden.

Other plants that eat insects are the Sundew and the Pitcher Plant. These plants live in wet places, where there is poor nitrogen content in the soil. The plants get the nitrogen they need from the insects.

Bats

Bats feed off of flying insects. Before the Fall, did they use their natural radar to catch falling leaves and eat them?

Sea Lions, Seals, and Walrus (and Penguins)

All of these marine mammals feed on fish.

This list could go on for many pages.

It is clear from the fossil record that animals died throughout the last few hundred million years of earth's history.

The context of the verses is discussing man, not animals. It says "death spread to all men." It does not say "death spread to all animals."

And what about the mosquitoes and ticks, whose body structures, like that of spiders, is set up exclusively for feeding on the blood of other animals? Your point about the T-Rex teeth is irrefutable. These animals were to *designed* to be enormous predators. Not only are the teeth situated for predation, but the muscle attachment sites and the jaws themselves in conjunction with the teeth of species like Tyrannosaur, Allosaur, et al. were set up for strong bite pressure and tearing--not grinding. Plants contain cellulose, which is not digestable. Utilizing that protein would require grinding teeth, often multiple stomachs and/or gizzard stones. Thus these obvious carnivores would have no ability to eat and digest enough plant material to sustain their large body size. In the fossil record long before the introduction of human beings, there are numerous instances of fossil finds in which animals died and were buried in mortal combat. And in other instances, we find the remains of one creature inside the stomach of the fossilized predator that devoured it.

(MORE BELOW)
- OaklandNative, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1"The only logical conclusion is that God created venomous creatures to kill their prey."
  
  God also created parasites to torment creatures (his other creations) with incredible pain and suffering. Why would god create some creatures to be peaceful and other creatures to torment and/or kill those peaceful creatures? Doesn't sound like a very kind god to me.
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Heh. Gets us into an interesting discussion about what kind of world God created and why... Will pursue at some point if you're interested.
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/03/2008, -1/+3What Type of Death?

So what kind of death spread to all men as a result of the fall? When we look more closely at Genesis 2, we see that God said "in the day you eat from it you shall surely die." But Adam didn't die physically in the very same day that he ate from the tree. In fact, he fathered Cain, Abel, Seth and other children and lived a total of 930 years! Now it may be true that the natural aging process we experience began in Adam on that day (to some extent at least), but in order for God's word to be accurate, the idea of death has to mean something other than cessation of biological life.

In the Bible the death of men speaks of separation, not merely annihilation. Sometimes this can mean separating the spirit from the body as in physical death. But it can also mean separating the spirit from God, which is defined as spiritual death or "dead in our sins" (Col 2:13, Eph 2:5).

It is this spiritual death that Paul is speaking of in Romans 5 and indeed throughout the entire book of Romans, in which Paul writes, "the mind set on the flesh is death... Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile towards God." (Rom 8:6,7).

In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew Biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action.

The meaning of this word group is that there was to be a process of time, in which there would be certain death. Is there any more data in the text as to when the process would start or last? Yes there is. The process of death would take place WITHIN the day that they eat it. While day can be used of spans of time here it is modified by the meaning of the time that they ATE the fruit. Also the Hebrew word Yom is modified by the Hebrew preposition which is the letter “beth” that means in English “in”. It is NOT modified by the Hebrew prepositions that would mean for example “from” that day, or “unto” that day, but rather the preposition that means IN that day. So this death could not grammatically be speaking directly of physical death.

In closing, this is not all we could say the the nature of sin, the anthropology of man, and how it relates to Genesis, but this is a (hopefully) digestable start. In fact, we have a big response coming up for OaklandNative which deals in depth with these very issues. We'll let you know when we post that one, too.
- flip2trip, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Thanks Becca for all the info! Something interesting for you--Yesterday I was doing some random reading and was actually drawn to Romans 5! Thank you guys, I feel like a whole new revelation of Scripture is opening up for me. I will continue to check back here to see what's going on--and I will ask questions when I have them, or can't find them for myself. Be Blessed.
  - Becca4RonPaul, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1AWESOME! You be blessed, too. Thanks so much for reading our stuff! We're so glad you found our comments helpful. : D
Becca4RonPaul, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Oakland Native, this is a response to your most recent comment, and the issues you raised regarding the Biblical flood account.

You said things like –

***I can point out countless instances of impossibilities in the bible, at least with respect to our understanding of science. For example: mammals cannot have virgin mothers; no living creature can be their own father; solid objects with a higher density than water cannot "walk" on water; a single fish and a single loaf of bread cannot feed thousands; mammals cannot come back to life after being dead for three days (or any number of days for that matter); a sea cannot be parted at whim; a bush cannot burn without being consumed; serpents on brass poles don't cure diseases (Numbers 21:8-9)*** etc..

Wow what a straw man argument! You posit something that the scripture ITSELF agrees is not possible “naturally” and makes a point of showing that those are NOT the way things work “naturally”. Then ACT as though the scripture DOES say those things just “naturally” happen and try to then say that the scripture is unscientific. ACTUALLY – If the scripture HAD said that those things were “natural” occurrences then you WOULD have a place to refute them. You are however only “refuting” your false straw man position.

You also said –

***I suspect that the only way you can explain any of these things is "Miracle" or "God did it***

And

***etc, etc, ad nauseum.***

Hmmmm, you mention miraculous (supposed) events that by definition of the event itself cannot have evidence for or against it- in other words I cannot demonstrate verifiable proofs that the virgin birth happened and YOU CANNOT prove that it COULDN’T have happened. If you were HONEST here you could conclude that those events are claims of scripture that don’t have verifiable proofs and thus they cannot be used as proofs of miraculous intervention today but they also cannot be disproved. To ASSUME that they are “IMPOSSIBLE” is not tenable from a TRULY SCIENTIFIC view because you would have to show the empirical evidence that PROVES that hypothesis. That ASSUMPTION can only be made if one has a PHILISOPHICAL WORLDVIEW of materialistic naturalism that is NOT based on empirical evidence ALONE – but upon a DESIRE to NOT believe in such metaphysical occurrences. A truly HONEST scientist looking at these things discussed in Scripture, could HONESTLY say “I DON’T KNOW IF THERE COULD BE SUCH THINGS – I HAVE NOT SEEN THE EVIDENCE OF THEM AS OF YET.” So the nausea is at least in part from things one doesn’t want to believe in, NOT from things one CAN’T believe in. Especially in light of the things that CAN be verified from scripture and the things that show the best linguistics of scripture ARE in line with what we know from empirical scientific data.

You also said –

*** You are more than welcome to try and explain the above, and I will read whatever you write, however, rather than debate these scientific impossibilities or the (in)accuracy of Genesis,***

So we have the WORLDVIEW-based, non empirical claim of impossibility, and a claim of inaccuracy with not *ONE SINGLE point* of an old earth creationist view of the linguistics that I have shown being refuted. NO POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I will say your point about the Genesis flood is excellent in that it refutes a universal flood story with a universal animal storage problem!!!!! I agree!!! HOWEVER once again I will show that the problem lies with erring TRADITIONS of interpretation, and a particular young earth/universal flood view that is NOT what is REQUIRED of the text, and is NOT what is the best supported linguistically. I will post a great basic study on this in a few paragraphs.

And by the way – If you want to knock my views than please, don’t just resort to ad-hominem attacks about twisting or just seeing what I want. REFUTE what I am actually CLAIMING – SHOW THAT IT IS NOT TENABLE from the Hebrew words and literary usage. Otherwise, thus far I have an UNREFUTED position.

You also said-

***You obviously understand the circular reasoning of "the bible is right because the bible says it's right." So how can you possibly say Christianity is right or the bible is right? What is your basis for believing that, besides because you were told to believe it? In holding this belief as unquestionably true, you are forced to dismiss anything that contradicts the bible, or explain it away with smoke and mirrors. You are forced to completely ignore the scientific method because you already have a theory that CANNOT be disproved under any circumstances.***

WOW what a claim! You claim that I must ignore the scientific method even though I believe in all the empirical sciences. I believe in a finite expanding universe, stellar evolution, electromagnetism, oxidation and reduction, velocity and force equations, mathematics, etc……. I have not once said that the Genesis 1 narrative PROVES by itself that Christianity is true. Rather I have merely shown that the account is NOT in CONTRADICTION to what we see from investigating the natural world. So you have made false claims and assumptions about me!!!! A

Science Contradicts the Bible?