"For too long, the secular science community has been able to accuse the creation science community of not being able to define a created kind nor proposing testable observations. It is long past time to answer the critics." ... read more of my new article at the Creation Club: https://thecreationclub.com/developing-a-testable-scientific-model-...

Any thoughts: good, bad, indifferent?

Views: 93

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Todd I have engaged you on Facebook and elsewhere.  I know that you have worked hard to help bring some sibilance to the YE creationists view.  

But unless there has been some quantum leap, there are huge issues.  I recognize you're in your infancy at the moment with these definitions.

Being an expert on reptiles, specifically lizards, but also ahving spent 50 plus years in the bush studying the things that not only crawl under rocks but plant and insect, and animal symbiosis, which I am sure we both agree were God breathed and designed.

I am not sure about you criticizing science as the scientific nomenclature and drill down is the best that mankind has?  I don't say that to be critical of you, but your approach to what we do observe in nature fails to have enough scientific drill down.  You also seem to disregard morphology specifically in many animals.  

Our mighty God created such a complex system of interactions between living creatures.  

I once asked one of the experts as to what the elephant kind looked like on the ARK dispersal?  One "elephant kind" was responsible for all elephants that exist including Mastodons, Mammoths (Columbian), Mammoths (Wolly), as well as 4 tusk elephants, and non tusk elephants.  It's clear God just in the elephant Morphology was so unique and diverse.  You somehow fail to see this?  You have no idea what a monitor lizard kind looked like or a Platypus kind, or bear kind?  

You assume that all animals from the creation of god in the first week were all kinds, therefore none of the known species we are familiar with did not exist prior tot he flood?

This lizard is one I am studying in Texas.  Its nomenclature is as follows.
Crotaphytus Reticulatus.  What do you offer for the Crotaphytus lizards of which there are many?

What Crotaphytus existed prior to the flood?  These lizards are endemics from Mexico and the US. 

Again I don't want o be unduly critical.I know you have worked hard.  BUt even some of the YE people that have written papers use the current scientific names for different animals they have written about?

MY point is the scientific drill down is absolutely necessary to bring out the differences in each species.  You can't infer all Cobras as spitters, or bitters, OR pythons and boas from different continents as squeezers , etc.  

Attachments:

"MY point is the scientific drill down is absolutely necessary to bring out the differences in each species.  You can't infer all Cobras as spitters, or bitters, OR pythons and boas from different continents as squeezers , etc."

With all due respect to Lou's educated opinion, its still an opinion, Todd. Keep in mind that animal kingdom researchers today, while they are so adamant to 'drill down' in to modern anatomy, it is necessary for them to remember that they can only use modern day observation as a litmus to support a theory of the past. 

My question would be to anyone questioning the validity of all kinds within a species having originated by one creature... is the God who created such a 'complex system', capable of writing the multi-variation of species within one strand of DNA then inject that info into one of his creatures to which thousands of variations of that species could be formed through time?

Man must be careful not to pridefully hold their observations and researches above that which is presented and provided to us plainly in the Word of God, no matter how man perceives them to be. We must remember, when we look and observe the modern universe, we see barely a glimpse of what God's perfect creation once was, rather a fallen creation decimated and corrupted by sin.

Gary that was an insult and smear!  I was not egotistical about Todds work, I know he has worked hard, but I merely tried to point out some "facts' THIs was not about being critical in the sense that you just put my response in.  And by the way why are you responding to this instead of him?  Are you an expert in this field.  HOw much time have you spent with animals and education in those areas?  I mean let's get Todd to respond to his own posts.

If you had a clue about why diversity needs a drill down, you'll find that mighty Gods creation is "not" at he family level, and there are many unique reptiles for instance that have shovel heads and fringe toes found all across the world that live on sand dunes.  But they are specifically not the same animal. similar in design via DNA information, but not an exact duplicate.  a boa constrictor can easily be mistaken for a small python by a novice.  they both have spurs located in the anal area but they are completley different animals that "are" constrictors.  but within the context of those animals there is huge variation in kinds, this is God breathed creation and not my arrogant response as you seem to broad brush me.  

How do you take God's work and "simplify it" when even non-believers recognize that intrinsic requirement for drill down.  Christians started the sytematics for this and they recognized Gods design as well?  

BY the way this is not "my" educated opinion its the opinion of thousands and thousands of Christians that work with zoology and other forms of study that absolutely take issue with keeping an animal "Kind" at the family level.  IS it not a fact that after the flood alla the different species of elephants came to fruition by your own views?  All of those related species and 4 tusk species?  Isn't it true that you observe the variations and unique nuance species in the earth?  Wether or not they were pre-or post flood?  Or do you deny that what exists. 

So now my facts are called an opinion but Todd's are what?   

BY the way Gary...my bible says man was decimated by sin.  Animals are not sinners and do not have soul.  Jesus dies for all men, but now your going to throw in the animals too? 

I agree with you little ditty about DNA above and that is the exact reason why the argument has to question Todds lack of a drill down.  Frankly I am a little shocked at the way you categorized me a born again believer who loves God and has no problem inculcating the Word with my work.  Yet you want to disenfranchise clear facts and assume you should answer for Todd?  If he posts on this site let him respond, because he certainly does understand. 

YOu said this:

is the God who created such a 'complex system', capable of writing the multi-variation of species within one strand of DNA then inject that info into one of his creatures to which thousands of variations of that species could be formed through time?

In what context did God do this if your assumption is correct?  Was there a new creation after the flood?  Or during the six days when God filled the biosphere with all known plants and species?  If you are referring this as post flood, where is the known DNA information and protocol for two animals male and female to produce multiple new species?  I am not talking about hybridization...  Like it or not Gary, we have a very intrinsically and specifically made creation to observe, we both trace this to God's mighty works. 

BY the way and most lastly you have engendered to the people reading here that the drill down is my opinion?  THis is the opinion of millions of scientists and Christian scientists including your own people who use scientific names with drill downs to discuss different animals in nature?  I hope those that read this pass realize that your response is ill informed and you have broad brushed what any reader can observe in nature even around their own house and tried to paint what doesn't actually exist?  

I am sad that you felt you should respond to this in this way, and I am also sad that you assume Gods grace to man  from sin also included Christs sacrifice for animals as well?  Do your readers actually buy this?  

When we look at the creation that we observe today--it is so magnificent, so complicated, so much variation, and nuance species, working in symbiotic relationships one with another by Gods own design.  So what ever there may be, what we have today is a picture of those design features and and unique work of God so complicated that we still don't fully understand it. So I hope I get responses from some of your other readers who are serious about what we do observe and are not into broad brushing people esepcially believers because they have the gull to question what I know is true, observable, known by observation, another thing God did was to leave his footprints for us all to observe and understand.  
  

You said:

In what context did God do this if your assumption is correct?  Was there a new creation after the flood?  Or during the six days when God filled the biosphere with all known plants and species?  If you are referring this as post flood, where is the known DNA information and protocol for two animals male and female to produce multiple new species?  I am not talking about hybridization...  Like it or not Gary, we have a very intrinsically and specifically made creation to observe, we both trace this to God's mighty works. 

No, Lou, me and several other well informed YEC members of CC have been clear in our direct responses to the flood, even when our questions go unanswered...

There was no 'New creation' after the flood, just as there was no 'new stars' formed after day 4, however there were different TYPES of KINDS before the flood that did not survive the flood, but because those TYPES within those KINDS did not survive does not mean their biological DNA was not resident in the host or KIND that Noah brought on the Ark. You see, I have this unwavering faith that God... can do that, he is able to sustain the complexity of his designed creation through all ages and events.

The whole of creation (including genome and DNA information) was all created during (and only) during the creation week... unless you can provide me with scripture that says otherwise or a time when I or anyone here at CC has stated that there was some 'new creation' after the flood, I am not certain why you would make such an assumption that is what we 'infer'. The only possible conclusion I can come to is that you are simply skirting the issue, not answering or looking for questions, rather boasting your educated opinions from your own observation of a fallen creation that does not match up with God's marvelous and perfect creation from the beginning.

Do you believe there was a second creation event, Lou? Do you believe there was life and creatures before man walked the planet? Exactly when do you believe the flood occurred and did the flood cover the entire face of the earth.

These are all questions over the years we've asked of you, to which you give no definitive answers of what you believe, rather continue to ask YEC believers the same questions we've answered time and time with no rebuttal, just continue to ask those questions a different way.

Yes, Lou, I believe that God created one type of elephant in the beginning, and within that elephant's DNA was written the hybridization and the specificity for an elephant to change their shape, color, form, size, even senses and behavioral habits in order to adapt to environments, niches, food resources, water resources, animal habitat resources, etc. The list goes on... and yes God may have made the wooly mammoth as the first of these KINDS instead of the Sri Lanken Elephant, but they are all still... the same TYPE of beast/creature God made originally in the beginning. I do believe a God of such complexity and who is fully sovereign within his Creation can miraculously and powerfully (without man's understanding or observation) preserve creature traits within their DNA through the ages.

I hope this is direct enough. If not, again, one must wonder if you really are considerate of the YEC model which is plainly described and presented within God's Word, or if you're goading for a healthy spar.

As always, in Christ and in love...

Todd: This Universe is 13.8 billion-years-old, Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old, humans are 2.8 million-years-old, and the ET God-incarnate was in the Guardin' of Eden about 6,000-years-ago. He cloned himself to create Adam and then cloned Adam to create Eve. See http://7seals.blogspot.com .

Dear Brad,

I went to your site and this is all mumbo jumbo?  It is not orthodox and forget the age of the earth or man, your information is not Jesus words, the are the words of some other Jesus and you need to have a meeting with the real Jesus.  I don't have a clue who has been responsible for your spiritual journey, but I can tell you that you need to take a different tac.  Before you criticize this site here you should have at least a rudimentary idea of what Jesus taught?  

This is false teaching, I am sorry with respect to science and what is observable Brad.. You have to ask yourself how it is that Dinosaurs have measurable C-14 and we have discovery after discovery that infers soft tissue from fossils that are supposed to be 67 million years old?  There is a huge contingent of evidences that the Creation event is of recent vintage. I am young earth advocate just not one who follows some of what is posted on this site, but none the less the creation event is of recent vintage.   So on both accounts, you are in my humble opinion are in left field and need to study more with respect to the sciences, but I am afraid for your eternal Soul my friend, and I pray you will drop this stuff and seek after the Lord God almighty who's Son died for your sins.  

Dear Gary....

Let me take this a little further since again you infer all the stuff you have apparently tried to teach me from what basis?  If its the bible then it needs to fit with the narrative?  

Yes, Lou, I believe that God created one type of elephant in the beginning,

Based on what in scripture? God filled the bio-sphere with life. It was intrinsic, complicated, designed, and eco-niches were required for all life to exist (Psalms 104).  This work as implied by scripture could not have been some long drawn out affair as the symbiotic relationships that God had designed would collapse in short order.  

and within that elephant's DNA was written the hybridization and the specificity for an elephant to change their shape, color, form, size,

If God made a male and female kind (what ever it was as you supposed, maybe a Colombian or Wholly mammoth)  Just one pair, their DNA is specific to that animal.  It is the design genetically for that species.  Hybridization takes another animal of a similar kind that can mate with that species and produce a “hybrid”.  The results would only be the reaches of the DNA content of each pair. So for instance the flat tail honed lizard and the desert horned lizard hybridized in the deserts of California, the offspring have features of both.  IN the case of a 4 tusk, or a Colombian, or a wholly, there is no DNA protocol that can explain how new species could be offspring of an original pair Gary.  So you are inferring something that is impossible, it is not hybridization, its never been observed in nature where two butterflies could create 500 different species of offspring?  The DNA information for each and every unique animal species requires specific DNA.  In order for it to reproduce the pair need a male and female with the same specific DNA to produce specific off spring.  While variations in nature are extremely observable... Such as the California King snake has 21 different known morphs of king snake patterns, they are all California king snakes.  Because male and female originals have DNA specific to this.  
So variation is not hybridization. Variation does not produce new species.  Where as two different parents a male and female like my horned lizards produce a different species, they are still horned lizards.  So your not going to get a 4 tusk elephant or a no trunk elephant, or a wholly from a male and female Columbian Mammoth.  It just doesn’t happen that way in nature Gary.  Someone is education you to believe something that has never, ever, ever, been observed in nature.

You used the word hybridization?  I don’t know why because it is clear you have broad brushed a creation scenario that is one thing but then relegated it to hybridization that cannot fit with what you imply?  We have so many dog breeds that have been hybridized.  But they are all dogs? So how one explains a pair on the ark who were originally created by God as a pair Kind as you imply, its off spring were a carbon copy of that kind until the flood?  
It was then at the juncture of the flood, when the same originally crated pair of elephant kind (One kind. Male and female) came off the ark, the offspring of these animals began to produce “new species” of elephants and mammoths? (where is this in the bible?) Where did the DNA come from Gary?  It had to come from somewhere and this is what God has used from the beginning, and we know enough about DNA and variation to know that one could not assume new species from an original kind pair?  So what you imply is impossible and has never been observed?  Variation can’t produce new species, Hybridization takes two different kinds of kinds to produce a different species? But you imply God did this through One pair originally what you call a kind.  I don’t see any of this in the bible at all?  Do you?    

even senses and behavioral habits in order to adapt to environments, niches, food resources, water resources, animal habitat resources, etc. The list goes on...

Behavioral  habits, are all built into an animal via DNA?  It is absolutely God’s design for each and every unique and specific species he created... This is why a Monarch or Hummingbird fly from one end of the earth to the other?   food niches, food resources, water resources, animal habitat resources were all created by God in the first 6 days which begs that as far as we know, observable nature feeds on the same food types as it has always been observed to do from as long as man has known animals. Animals you infer adapt to environments?  But what do you mean buy that.  Gary  animals have a created Max-Min, and when either end of that design is threatened the animal is in danger of dying.  Your implying here some sort of Evolutionary adaptation which changes the creature?  But we have no evidences of creatures changing into something else (Evolutionary gradualism). The DNA God designed a species with is what controls the animals existence.  You must also understand that there millions of symbiotic relationships that animals, plants and insects have, and when these are altered the animals often die?  


and yes God may have made the wooly mammoth as the first of these KINDS instead of the Sri Lanken Elephant, but they are all still... the same TYPE of beast/creature God made originally in the beginning.

This is kinda of mumbo jumbo Gary? You infer one kind of elephant kind in the beginning with God’s creation, but then you infer two known species of elephant kinds are the same?  A Colombian and a Siri Lankin elephant?  They are not the same kind?  This is the issue with your view?  They are not?  Whether you infer post flood or what ever, these animals come from different environments, have different DNA, different design, and God did that not the results of some offspring hybridization?  And an elephant is not a Mammoth.  This goes back to the boa constrictor and python.  They come from two different parts of the world, and they are not the same kind?  They were designed to have similar features and habits but they are nit the same, nor is their DNA.  If you took a cave bear and a panda bear, they may be bears but not the same?


I do believe a God of such complexity and who is fully sovereign within his Creation can miraculously and powerfully (without man's understanding or observation) preserve creature traits within their DNA through the ages.  

Again this is your ”belief”?  Like you I believe in creation event that is of recent vintage.  But You cannot discount mans understanding or observation of anima kingdom.  He has recorded what he has observed as long as man has existed. Because they observed their habits they also were able to capture and provide a food source. So how is that you all together have a view that you can just forget mans observations or his understanding?  Even God said to study nature and what did Solomon do?  What did he speak on?  You want to call me an enemy, I want you to consider what your espousing and lets get all Christian believers at the table and discuss what it actually real and known and what is theoretical.  The things I speak about are not theoretical.  That is why I ask that instead of you seeing me as an enemy that Christians interested in this field come together with common sense approach to what is known.  The first  Christian systematic that were originally invented fit quite well with the Biblical narrative.  Why are we going through these gyrations over the pure and observable evidences of Gods work in nature?  Why isn’t the framework one that denies the fallacy of evolution but describes the intrinsic complexity of Gods work, which was not brought about by evolution but by a creation event.  Before the very first living substrate came into existence by Gods working, the information contained in DNA and specifically for each and every living platform of life was in existence in the bosom of God.  It is analog and digital, and no amount of evolutionary thought can explain away what we now know about DNA since Francis Crick. Again I know Todd has done a lot of work, but after this time, If I ask someone what collared lizard kind looked like and give me specifics , like the elephant kind they don’t know what that kid really was?  But and if Kind refers to the known species living and extinct, then we certainly understand the power of Gods mighty works.  I am not out to have some Donnie brook over the subject but I was disheartened when I read your imbalanced response to me, and frankly wrote me off.    

Why can’t we come to the table and together discuss these things and consider what is known.  What we don’t know we just say so....  

We will never stop seeing responses from this dear brother in Christ. He does not believe in the biblical flood, HE DENIES that it was global. And this colors all of his thinking. He actually thinks that the lizards now living in the American Southwest are exactly the same ones as those that lived in the days of Adam and Eve, before the Fall and the curse on the Creation. He believes that the Curse on Adam and Eve did not have any effect on the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. He believes that animals were killing each other, and shedding blood before the Fall.

And any time anyone disagrees with him he will always complain that he is being smeared and misrepresented and insulted. Like below - no one accused him of being "egotistical" about Todd's work - yet that is his constant and unrelenting tactic - he will always accuse those of us who are mainstream Creationists of saying that he is not as good a Christian as he is - and that we are not open to discussion - as in the that last line > "Why can't we come to the table and together discuss these things. . . . ?" br/>
Amen, why can't we? Because we have radically different understanding of the the biblical revelation and the supremacy of Scripture over Science. I guarantee everyone that he will respond to this not by admitting that we have a different view - but he will simply continue to defend his practice of subjecting hermeneutics to his own views of the "bio-sphere" and contend that it is unchanged since the beginning of Creation - which he puts at at lest 10-15 thousand years ago.

He is a relentless opponent of the doctrinal statement of this Creation Conversations.

He will constantly talk about the "FLOOD" but always remember he is a FLOOD-DENIER - about he said that he was worried about Brad's "eternal salvation" - but it is ok for our dear Brother Lou to deny the Flood - and hold us to his view of the world since the Flood that HE DENIES. 

He has been unrelenting in his opposition to the Creation truth that we believe in here at Creation Conversations. He is unapologetic in his disdain and antagonism toward our scriptural statement of faith. Look back through all of his posts since 2011 - they are the same arguments and objections to creationism that are articulated by BioLogos and Reason to Believe - yet he thinks that be cause he claims to be a "YEC" that means that we must agree with his preposterous notions.

Lou Hamby said:

Gary that was an insult and smear!  I was not egotistical about Todds work, I know he has worked hard, but I merely tried to point out some "facts' THIs was not about being critical in the sense that you just put my response in.  And by the way why are you responding to this instead of him?  Are you an expert in this field.  HOw much time have you spent with animals and education in those areas?  I mean let's get Todd to respond to his own posts.

If you had a clue about w . . . . this is God breathed creation and not my arrogant response as you seem to broad brush me.  

How do you take God's work and "simplify it" when even non-believers recognize that intrinsic requirement for drill down.  Christians started the sytematics for this and they recognized Gods design as well?  

BY the way this is not "my" educated opinion its the opinion of thousands and thousands of Christians that work with zoology and other forms of study that absolutely take issue with keeping an animal "Kind" at the family level.  IS it not a fact that after the flood alla the different species of elephants came to fruition by your own views?  All of those related species and 4 tusk species?  Isn't it true that you observe the variations and unique nuance species in the earth?  Wether or not they were pre-or post flood?  Or do you deny that what exists. 

So now my facts are called an opinion but Todd's are what?   

BY the way Gary...my bible says man was decimated by sin.  Animals are not sinners and do not have soul.  Jesus dies for all men, but now your going to throw in the animals too? 

I agree with you little ditty about DNA above a. . . . 

I am sad that you felt you should respond to this in this way, and I am also sad that you assume Gods grace to man  from sin also included Christs sacrifice for animals as well?  Do your readers actually buy this?  

When we look at the creation that we observe today--it is so magnificent, so complicated, so much variation, and nuance species, working in symbiotic relationships one with another by Gods own design.  So what ever there may be, what we have today is a picture of those design features and and unique work of God so complicated that we still don't fully understand it. So I hope I get responses from some of your other readers who are serious about what we do observe and are not into broad brushing people esepcially believers because they have the gull to question what I know is true, observable, known by observation, another thing God did was to leave his footprints for us all to observe and understand.  
  

There are many other issues with a wwFlood, as well.  BiblicaL CONTEXT OF THE HEBREW IS CLEAR....

One very convincing one outside of the flood is the bible itself.

In Genesis 4 &5 it mentions two family lines that descended from Adam... The line which Noah was part Adam, Seth, Enosh down to Noah and his three sons, etc--- and the other line is Adam, Cain. Enoch, Irad, Mehujael down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain.  So there were two lines from Adam

We have a detailed account of Noah's family in Genesis 10 (line of Seth).

But what became of the other line (Cain, Enoch) down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain?

Enoch was the son of Cain who killed Abel.

Adam
Cain
Enoch
Irad
Mehujael
Methushael
Adah-----Lamech       Lamech----Zillah
Jabal Jubal(offspring)          Tubal-cain Naamah(offspring)     

If you believe in a wwFlood then you must assume this line (Cain’s) were destroyed in the flood? Would you not?

But this presents a problem because Noah writes of them still living during the time he wrote.?? Genesis 4:20-22, check this out.

20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

The writer says these people dwell (not dwelled) in tents, they “have’ (not had) Cattle, they handle the harp (not handled)--if they all drowned in the flood then the Hebrew would be incorrect.

Hastings encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics as well as the Interpreters Bible says that the wording implies an unbroken history of civilization, and the writer of of this section did not regard the flood as a “Universal Deluge”.

These descendents of Cain migrated east of Eden and populated areas different from Noah. Also after the flood, the descendents of Shem, Ham, And Jepath migrated and settled in various countries, “by these were the isles (coastlands) of the Gentiles divided in their lands, everyone after their tongue, after their families, in their nations...Genesis 10, 5, 32.??? This is right after the flood. If all were drowned but the eight how do we explain the existence of these nations...this of course makes one ask where did these blood lines come from if all were destroyed.?

So now what kind of critical disparegence will you cast on me this time.. I received no response about the mathematics of the Flood via the Scirptures that clearly show the flood was local and not World Wide....Just personal criticism because the fact sand questions are right there for those who can read what the Word says in context?

Lou,

The reason I have not responded to any of your previous posts in regard to this thread is partially because the questions you have posted (again) have already been answered both with scripture and evidence that which you just wont accept but primarily because of the accusation toward me in your opening statement, it was inappropriate. I in no way insulted you, smeared your name, and there is no place where I accused you of being egotistical, that is absurd and truthfully offensive.

Your defensive nature and response without really directly to my post is evidence you're not truly here to 'reason together', rather simply post your beliefs and defy any truth, studies, research to the contrary.  I did mention the fact that your educated opinion is nothing more than an opinion (as are all that statements posted on CC) including my own. I mentioned this in one of my posts directed to you...

"If not, again, one must wonder if you really are considerate of the YEC model which is plainly described and presented within God's Word, or if you're goading for a healthy spar."

This was not an observation of your behavior in your posts that seem to show your here more to engage rather than admonish... We've had this discussion before and truthfully, the pointing of fingers and accusations against other members will NOT be tolerated as per the rules of this site, regardless who is accusing. Such continued behavior will warrant action. I am posting this section of the Rules of Engagement for further clarification...

There are certain behaviors that won’t be permitted. We won't allow anyone to be disrespectful, overly annoying, spamming, trolling, self-promoting, bitter, venting, slanderous, arrogant, tactless, obnoxious, hateful, use inappropriate language, or try to blatantly sell you anything not related to the Bible and Creation. Questions related to the age of the earth are welcomed. Posting old earth theories and representing them as a matter of fact for the purpose of swaying the community is not acceptable.

http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/rules-of-engageme...

No one at CC has a vendetta against you, Lou, however, you do post and question members specific to YEC facts, and often promote opinions or supporting (but not factual) details that questions the YEC belief and the consensus of this community, all the while dismissing facts or statements to the contrary and argue that it is AIG dogma. Such responses of course will generate passionate posts in response. Please be reminded that "posting theories contrary to YEC and representing them as a matter of fact for the purpose of swaying the community is not acceptable", and breach our no tolerance policy.

If you would like to speak on this further you are welcome to message me directly. I want to be clear that unwarranted accusations toward members in an effort to diminish their character is a breach of NTP and will be dealt with.

Blessings in Christ


Lou Hamby said:

Gary that was an insult and smear!  I was not egotistical about Todds work

Thank you Gary. We have been answering his questions, over and over and over, since 2011. 

He never asks a question - but rather he makes lengthy arguments and objections against our positions here at CreConv. - He never actually asks a single question for which he seeks an answer - or about which he wishes to engage in discussion. He always responds that we are questioning his standing as a Christian.

Thanks again for taking a stand.

Gary Murray said:

Lou,

The reason I have not responded to any of your previous posts in regard to this thread is partially because the questions you have posted (again) have already been answered both with scripture and evidence that which you just wont accept

No one at CC has a vendetta against you, Lou, however, you do post and question members specific to YEC facts, and often promote opinions or supporting (but not factual) details that questions the YEC belief and the consensus of this community, all the while dismissing facts or statements to the contrary and argue that it is AIG dogma. I want to be clear that unwarranted accusations toward members in an effort to diminish their character is a breach of NTP and will be dealt with.

Which one of all these questions do you want answered?

Which one?

Let us address them ONE-by-ONE. That way you can be satisfied and stop asking them over and over and over - and then denying that we have answered them.

Which One - ask it again in only one sentence, ending with a question mark.



Lou Hamby said:

There are many other issues with a wwFlood, as well.  BiblicaL CONTEXT OF THE HEBREW IS CLEAR....

One very convincing one outside of the flood is the bible itself.

In Genesis 4 &5 it mentions two family lines that descended from Adam... The line which Noah was part Adam, Seth, Enosh down to Noah and his three sons, etc--- and the other line is Adam, Cain. Enoch, Irad, Mehujael down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain.  So there were two lines from Adam

We have a detailed account of Noah's family in Genesis 10 (line of Seth).

But what became of the other line (Cain, Enoch) down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain?

Enoch was the son of Cain who killed Abel.

Adam
Cain
Enoch
Irad
Mehujael
Methushael
Adah-----Lamech       Lamech----Zillah
Jabal Jubal(offspring)          Tubal-cain Naamah(offspring)     

If you believe in a wwFlood then you must assume this line (Cain’s) were destroyed in the flood? Would you not?

But this presents a problem because Noah writes of them still living during the time he wrote.?? Genesis 4:20-22, check this out.

20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

The writer says these people dwell (not dwelled) in tents, they “have’ (not had) Cattle, they handle the harp (not handled)--if they all drowned in the flood then the Hebrew would be incorrect.

Hastings encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics as well as the Interpreters Bible says that the wording implies an unbroken history of civilization, and the writer of of this section did not regard the flood as a “Universal Deluge”.

These descendents of Cain migrated east of Eden and populated areas different from Noah. Also after the flood, the descendents of Shem, Ham, And Jepath migrated and settled in various countries, “by these were the isles (coastlands) of the Gentiles divided in their lands, everyone after their tongue, after their families, in their nations...Genesis 10, 5, 32.??? This is right after the flood. If all were drowned but the eight how do we explain the existence of these nations...this of course makes one ask where did these blood lines come from if all were destroyed.?

So now what kind of critical disparegence will you cast on me this time.. I received no response about the mathematics of the Flood via the Scirptures that clearly show the flood was local and not World Wide....Just personal criticism because the fact sand questions are right there for those who can read what the Word says in context?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service