Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Guest kingdombrat]

16 hours ago, HAZARD said:

I believe God, some time in the dateless past created the heavens and the earth and then the angels including Lucifer to inhabit them.

God gave Lucifer rule of the earth, and some time during his reign Lucifer and one third of the angels rebelled.

God in His anger destroyed the earth, turned it upside down.

Who knows how long God left the Earth without form, and void, and darkness upon the face of the deep.

About 6,000 years ago, God restored the earth to make it habitable for man, Adam and Eve. God told them to be fruit full and multiply, and RE-PLENISH THE EARTH. In must have been plenished before, for God to say RE-PLENISH the earth.

So you Believe Genesis 1:1 [like many Hebrew/Jews] the Heavens and Earth is completed here included with life and possible people.  

 

Then do you add Jeremiah 4 here where it ends like going into Genesis 1:2?

Jeremiah 4:

23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

 

 

Then NEXT we lead into Genesis 1:2?

 

And because the basics are already there. is this where you place the [6 Day Creation] that ultimately leads from Adam and then {specifically} to the Messiah?

Edited April 13, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Sparks]

8 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Well Plate Tectonics is well observed, is very predictive, and has very strong explanatory power for why the earth has the surface forms it does.

Yes, this is true.  I just don't think we have been around long enough for it to play a significant role.

8 minutes ago, teddyv said:

The concept of Pangaea is quite well supported by geophysical, geological and paleontological evidence and fits very nicely within Plate Tectonic theory and measured plate movement rates.

Sure.  Theory is the key word, though.  As you pointed out, it's not testable.

8 minutes ago, teddyv said:

There are fossils all over, but they are not randomly distributed like what a single event you describe.

If you look at hydrologic sorting, it happens automatically, and nicely.  If you had an Earth absolutely packed with animals that were in a swirling mess, they would settle just like you see settling in a jar, in your kitchen experiment.  The so called Geologic Column does not sort out as seen in text books, pretty much ever.

8 minutes ago, teddyv said:

In a high energy environment as you describe here, there would be less hydrologic sorting. It does not take much water energy to move large boulders (go near a rushing creek in the spring and listen). The muds and silts would remain suspended for a very long time, unlikely to settle out after even a year of quiescence after the Flood itself.

In your kitchen experiment, if you fill a jar with water and dirt, you will find it won't sort at all without high energy.  Dirt just sinks in the order you fill it.  If you violently shake the jar, then put it down, it will sort out automatically just like below.  So, in conclusion, it takes high energy to sort.

[teddyv]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yes, this is true.  I just don't think we have been around long enough for it to play a significant role.

We don't have to be. We make assumptions and test those assumption. Right now the assumptions are very solid.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sure.  Theory is the key word, though.  As you pointed out, it's not testable.

I never said this theory is not testable. I said that about your idea. And I use theory in its scientific sense, not the colloquial sense.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If you look at hydrologic sorting, it happens automatically, and nicely.  If you had an Earth absolutely packed with animals that were in a swirling mess, they would settle just like you see settling in a jar, in your kitchen experiment.  The so called Geologic Column does not sort out as seen in text books, pretty much ever.

And we simply do not see this in the natural world.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

In your kitchen experiment, if you fill a jar with water and dirt, you will find it won't sort at all without high energy.  Dirt just sinks in the order you fill it.  If you violently shake the jar, then put it down, it will sort out automatically just like below.  So, in conclusion, it takes high energy to sort.

Your experiment is well understood. Yes, you need high energy to mix the large clasts and smaller sand to clays. But when you stop shaking, that becomes is a low energy environment necessary to sort them. In particular you need very low energy to sort out your silts and clays.

Rivers do this naturally.

[Sparks]

22 minutes ago, teddyv said:

We don't have to be. We make assumptions and test those assumption. Right now the assumptions are very solid.

Yes, but when we use assumptions, it's not really science.  When we see a fossil, and assume it's related to another fossil, that's when we get into trouble.  When you see the actions of tectonic plates, and then assume the Earth has been doing it for billions of years, you draw the wrong conclusions.

Richard Gouldschmidt, in 1940 -- "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg"

Gouldschmidt was really just think out loud, speculating.  But people today repeat his words as if it's a matter of fact, without realizing it has never been observed.  The assumption business is a danger to the truth business.

22 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I never said this theory is not testable. I said that about your idea.

I would say we assume things, but have not observed geologic time.

22 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Your experiment is well understood. Yes, you need high energy to mix the large clasts and smaller sand to clays. But when you stop shaking, that becomes is a low energy environment necessary to sort them. In particular you need very low energy to sort out your silts and clays.

Rivers do this naturally.

It would seem the world-wide floods do this type of sorting.  I certainly don't believe billions of years made these layers, where animals were walking around and died, and the were covered by layers. 

Maybe the dinosaurs appear lower, because they were simply heavier and sank deeper into the mud?  That's is a more likely 'assumption' that could be tested with modern animal carcasses.  But, because it's in conflict with the billions of years mantra, it won't gain traction.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Yes, but when we use assumptions, it's not really science.  When we see a fossil, and assume it's related to another fossil, that's when we get into trouble.  When you see the actions of tectonic plates, and then assume the Earth has been doing it for billions of years, you draw the wrong conclusions.

Science is built on assumptions. But many have been repeatedly tested and demonstrated to be very reliable. The Plate Tectonic theory is the underpinning of modern geology. It is well tested, observed, predictive and explanatory. It is a powerful theory in the true scientific sense of the word. 

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Richard Gouldschmidt, in 1940 -- "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg"

Gouldschmidt was really just think out loud, speculating.  But people today repeat his words as if it's a matter of fact, without realizing it has never been observed.  The assumption business is a danger to the truth business.

Never heard that quote. Never read it anywhere in any textbook that I recall. It is exceptionally outdated and I'd be surprised if any current evolutionary biologist would state anything like that.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I would say we assume things, but have not observed geologic time.

We assume all sorts of things. And no, our limited life spans preclude observing things over the vast spans of history. But history is preserved for us.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It would seem the world-wide floods do this type of sorting.  I certainly don't believe billions of years made these layers, where animals were walking around and died, and the were covered by layers. 

There is just so little to go on in the Biblical record that we can't reconstruct the actual physical mechanisms that may have been in play. YEC groups insert huge assumptions into their narratives. They also start with the conclusion of a massive flood and then look for the evidence to support it. 

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Maybe the dinosaurs appear lower, because they were simply heavier and sank deeper into the mud?  That's is a more likely 'assumption' that could be tested with modern animal carcasses.  But, because it's in conflict with the billions of years mantra, it won't gain traction.

There were many very small, light and fast dinosaurs that would have easily been escaping the floodwaters as they rose. Sure you could test it with modern animals, but since it was a Flood, you cannot assume they died on the spot and then sank in the mud.

Anyway, if a hypothesis explains the evidence better, then it will be considered. But even a few anomalies will not overthrow the entire thing. It will take a lot of additional observations and research. I think you are overstating the case of scientists ignoring things because you may be coloured by those few vociferous ones that have made science into their personal philosophy.

[BeyondET]

Creation is amazing and mysterious.

check out the (Immortal Jellyfish) able to totally reverse the aging process and start over again. A polyp then grow to adult jellyfish then back to a polyp if stressed or injured.

Edited April 13, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Science is built on assumptions.

Assumptions is not the way the scientific method works.  Science is observation and testing, little more.  They call Global Warming science, but when you look deeper into it's assumptions based on bad computer models, speculation and opinions, but not observations, so that's not science either. 

You know, I think most people don't even know what science is and what it is NOT, which is why so much pseudoscience is trusted.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

It is well tested, observed, predictive and explanatory. It is a powerful theory in the true scientific sense of the word. 

Could you elaborate on what has been predictive about it? 

Hubble's constant was powerful theory, until he looked out the window and realized he was 95% wrong.  I mean the math was perfect and peer reviewed, but it was almost entirely wrong, none the less.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Never heard that quote. Never read it anywhere in any textbook that I recall. It is exceptionally outdated and I'd be surprised if any current evolutionary biologist would state anything like that.

It was not too long ago that someone found a very nice chunk of amber and it had a feather in it.  The worthless assumption, probably based on Gouldschmidt's statement, was that it was a dinosaur feather.  Yeah, it could not have been a bird as your own eyes would have suggested.  They claimed it was a dinosaur.

See what compounded assumptions bring?  Ridiculous conclusions.

Here is National Geographic from 2019:

The bird species today are descendants of the survivors. Paleontologists and evolutionary scientists believe birds are dinosaurs — the last living dinosaurs on Earth, according to the American Museum of Natural History. This is because both physical characteristics like feathers and behavioral traits such as nesting and brooding that we associate with birds first occurred in dinosaurs.

No evidence, of course.  Just an assumption.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

We assume all sorts of things. And no, our limited life spans preclude observing things over the vast spans of history. But history is preserved for us.

True, but we see the same evidence preserved.  It depends on your world-view as how you will interpret it.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

There is just so little to go on in the Biblical record that we can't reconstruct the actual physical mechanisms that may have been in play. YEC groups insert huge assumptions into their narratives. They also start with the conclusion of a massive flood and then look for the evidence to support it. 

If you don't throw God and the Bible out with the bathwater, you can see that there is an actual Biblical claim there was a massive flood.  That's where the YEC come up with the idea.  They didn't make the claim without scripture to back it.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

There were many very small, light and fast dinosaurs that would have easily been escaping the floodwaters as they rose.

So?  When they are dead, and swirling around in the waters for months, they can end up anywhere.  In fact, the Geologic Column is fiction.  It's only represented in books by artists, not in what you dig up today. 

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I think you are overstating the case of scientists ignoring things because you may be coloured by those few vociferous ones that have made science into their personal philosophy.

I think Darwinian Evolution is it's own religion.  What scientist find lying around, they make assumptions about, and their biggest assumption is that there is no God. 

When your premise starts with "There is no God" then you are reduced to earthly explanations, which are pretty silly usually.

[teddyv]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Assumptions is not the way the scientific method works.  Science is observation and testing, little more.  They call Global Warming science, but when you look deeper into it's assumptions based on bad computer models, speculation and opinions, but not observations, so that's not science either. 

You know, I think most people don't even know what science is and what it is NOT, which is why so much pseudoscience is trusted.

You should look in the mirror.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Could you elaborate on what has been predictive about it? 

We can observe volcanoes, eartquakes and faults tend to occur on the margins of the plates. We can observe the features these create. We can then find historical examples of volcanoes and faults not on active margins. We can observe mineral deposits that typically occur in certain geological provinces. Using that, we can then locate similar geological provinces and identify the same type of deposits there.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Hubble's constant was powerful theory, until he looked out the window and realized he was 95% wrong.  I mean the math was perfect and peer reviewed, but it was almost entirely wrong, none the less.

I don't think a constant is a theory. But like any science, the conclusions are provisional, based on new evidence. So what's your point?

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It was not too long ago that someone found a very nice chunk of amber and it had a feather in it.  The worthless assumption, probably based on Gouldschmidt's statement, was that it was a dinosaur feather.  Yeah, it could not have been a bird as your own eyes would have suggested.  They claimed it was a dinosaur.

You are making a big assumption here. If you decry assumptions, then don't do it. Show some sources for your claims. Then we can both evaluate the merits.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

See what compounded assumptions bring?  Ridiculous conclusions.

Here is National Geographic from 2019:

The bird species today are descendants of the survivors. Paleontologists and evolutionary scientists believe birds are dinosaurs — the last living dinosaurs on Earth, according to the American Museum of Natural History. This is because both physical characteristics like feathers and behavioral traits such as nesting and brooding that we associate with birds first occurred in dinosaurs.

No evidence, of course.  Just an assumption.

I think you need to look deeper than National Geographic for the reasons that the researchers are making these claims.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

True, but we see the same evidence preserved.  It depends on your world-view as how you will interpret it.

If you don't throw God and the Bible out with the bathwater, you can see that there is an actual Biblical claim there was a massive flood.  That's where the YEC come up with the idea.  They didn't make the claim without scripture to back it.

I realize that of course. But it's still poor science, because as much as some don't like it, science works under an agnostic view of the supernatural and seeks to explain through naturalistic mechanisms. It will undoubtedly fail in certain areas of inquiry. But our Flood geologists are making testable claims. And these have still not demonstrated anything that is going to overthrow the dominant geological theories.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So?  When they are dead, and swirling around in the waters for months, they can end up anywhere.  In fact, the Geologic Column is fiction.  It's only represented in books by artists, not in what you dig up today. 

You just changed the point you were trying to make.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I think Darwinian Evolution is it's own religion.  What scientist do find lying around, that make assumptions about, and their biggest assumption is that there is no God. 

You really need to meet some scientists. There are probably some in your church. My previous church had many degreed scientists and engineers.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

When your premise starts with "There is no God" then you are reduced to earthly explanations, which are pretty silly usually.

I'm not sure why saying "there is no God" would result in faulty conclusions about chemistry or physics. Does believing in God change the orbit of the planets? The physics of getting probes out there? 

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

You should look in the mirror.

You assume I don't understand science.  That is a bad assumption. 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

I don't think a constant is a theory. But like any science, the conclusions are provisional, based on new evidence. So what's your point?

It was a theory in Hubble's case, because he was almost entirely wrong about his 'Constant' despite all the peer reviewing, and perfect math.  Had he looked out the window first to observe, he would not have made this mistake, and to observe first also would have been the correct use of science.

For what it's worth, light speed is not a constant either, but colleges still teach that it is.  Why do they lie about this? 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

We can observe volcanoes, eartquakes and faults tend to occur on the margins of the plates. We can observe the features these create. We can then find historical examples of volcanoes and faults not on active margins. We can observe mineral deposits that typically occur in certain geological provinces. Using that, we can then locate similar geological provinces and identify the same type of deposits there.

So, it's still an assumption that clams and oysters, found in the closed position as fossils, made it to a mountain top because the of volcano and the faults?  There is no evidence for that, just assumptions. 

Is it impossible that there was a world-wide global flood, as the Bible claims? 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

I think you need to look deeper than National Geographic for the reasons that the researchers are making these claims.

I have.  National Geographic hides observations to perpetuates a silly theory. 

What actual evidence do they have for dinosaurs becoming birds (please don't say archaeopteryx , or archaeoraptor)? In the article, they just say they speculate based on the way dinosaurs nest, and allegedly had feathers.   I think the feathers part is a leap due to a faked fossil.  I guess that means rabbits and squirrels are birds, too.  They nest.

Let's not forget the Easter Bunny, who actually lays colored eggs.   

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

You are making a big assumption here. If you decry assumptions, then don't do it. Show some sources for your claims. Then we can both evaluate the merits.

I am pretty sure I did. 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

I realize that of course. But it's still poor science, because as much as some don't like it, science works under an agnostic view of the supernatural and seeks to explain through naturalistic mechanisms.

Science can only look at the natural world.  It cannot look at anything else, but try to tell that to evolutionist scientists who claim God does not exist due to their phony theories.

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

You just changed the point you were trying to make.

No. I think you wanted to make the point that lighter weight dinosaurs that are found along side bigger ones, but I have already said multiple times that the Geologic Column is bogus, and and artist rendering.  It does not reflect what we find in the strata, today. 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

You really need to meet some scientists. There are probably some in your church. My previous church had many degreed scientists and engineers.

What makes you assume I know no scientists? 

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'm not sure why saying "there is no God" would result in faulty conclusions about chemistry or physics.

Because science can only deal in the natural world.  It's scientists that are biased, not the tool known as science.

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

Does believing in God change the orbit of the planets? The physics of getting probes out there? 

No, but I do think it's interesting that God throws wrenches into theories, so often.  Some planets and moons in our solar system rotate 'in the wrong direction,' and so do galaxies.  This goes against the conservation of angular momentum, if we have spun off the same source explosion.  Everything should be spinning in the same direction.

[HAZARD]

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

Replenish, in a 1611 dictionary simply meant to fill.  Today, replenish has come to mean refill.  The word meaning has changed, as words tend to do over 400 years.  This single word has caused some modern false doctrine, called the Gap Theory. 

If you go back to the original Hebrew in Genesis 1:28, the Hebrew verb מלאו (mil’û), simply means fill.  If you were living in 1611, you would immediately associate replenish with filling, as if filling for the first time.

Strong's Concordance

 

male or mala: to be full, to fill

Original Word: מָלֵא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: male or mala
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-lay')
Definition: to be full, to fill

That's is just about the only problem you run into when using the King James Edition of the Bible, is that you have to keep in mind that some word meaning has changed, and even sometimes words mean the opposite from today.  You are dealing in Shakespearean English.  Modern translations look back at the original Hebrew, and translate it to mean fill, using today's word meaning including the Modern King James, as seen below.

Genesis 1:28 (NKJV) Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:28 (NLT) Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

If you use the word fill instead of thinking refill in Genesis 1:28, you will come away with the true story of Genesis. 

God didn't make the Earth, then destroy it, and then remake it, and then flood it.  He made the Earth in 6 literal days, and then later flooded it.

There were two great floods on the Earth, 1. we shall call Lucifers flood brought upon the Earth because of lucifers rebellion, and 2. Noahs flood caused by the rebellion of man. Many Scriptures show there was a great difference between them, all we need do is read every one and believe what we read.

 

The first where God destroyed His original creation because of Lucifers rebellion, and the second, Noah's flood because of mans rebellion.

Lucifers flood, everything was destroyed, all life, no light, the earth made empty and void.

Noah's flood, all life was not destroyed. Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives were left alive, plus all animals and the sun and moon was not prevented from giving light.

Here are all the Scriptures proving this occurred, read them for yourself then believe them or not??

Noahs flood which I will post as . 'N.F.' Lucifers flood, L.F.

L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Earth not made waste (Gen. 8:11-12, 22 ; Heb. 11:7 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23).
N.F. Earth not made empty (Gen. 6:18-22 ; 8:16).

L.F. Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2-5 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-22)

L.F. No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22).

L.F. No day and night (Gen. 1:2-5).
N.F. Day and night (Gen. 8:1-22).

L.F. All vegetation destroyed Gen. 1:2 ; 2:5-6 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Vegetation not destroyed (Gen. 8:11, 21 ; 9:3, 20).

L.F. No continued abating of the waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Continued abating of the waters from the earth by evaporation (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. Waters taken off the earth in one day (Gen. 1:10).
N.F. Months of waters abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. God supernaturally takes waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Natural work of evaporation of the waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. No rebuke or miraculous work in fled away (Gen. 1:6-12 ; Ps. 104:7).
N.F. No rebuke or miraculous work is taking waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. The waters on earth in Gen. 1:2, hasted away when rebuked (Gen. 1:6-2 ; Ps. 104:9).
N.F. The bounds already eternally set for waters in Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. All fish were totally destroyed in flood of Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. No fish were destroyed of created again after Noah's flood (Gen. 1:20-23 ; 6:18-22).

L.F. No Fowls left on the earth after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Fowls were left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:7-17).

L.F. No animals left after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Some of all animals kept alive (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:17 ; 9:2-4, 10-16).

L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No social system left at all in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. A social system left after Noah's flood (Gen. 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No ark made to save men in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. An ark made to save men and animals alive (Gen. 6:8-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16 ; Heb. 11:7).

L.F. Cause: fall of Lucifer, now Satan (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17 ; Luke 10:18).
N.F. Cause: wickedness of men (Gen. 6:5-13) ; and fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6-7 ; 2 Pet. 2:4).

L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11).
N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16).

The original creations of God include the heavens and the Earth and all things therein as first brought into being. This period is summed up in Gen. 1:1. thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven [Hebrew, heavens] and the earth." This refers to the dateless past, and takes in only a part of the creative ages, that is, from the beginning of creation until the chaotic period of Gen. 1:2 when the Earth and its first inhabitants were destroyed by the first flood. Notice during Noahs flood not all inhabitants , vegetation, animals, day, night were destroyed.

There are many other passages in Scripture that refer to that period (Job. 38; Ps. 8:3-8; 19:1-6; Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:3,10; Acts 17:24-26; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-12; 11:3; Rev. 4:11).

Rev. 4:11).

In Scripture, all instances of obscuring the sun and bringing darkness are the result of judgment, not creation-which is also true of the two universal floods (Genesis 6:8-8:22; Exodus 10:21-23; Isaiah 5:30; Jeremiah 4:23-26).

All predictions of future darkness depict judgment (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 24:29-31; Rev. 6:12-17; Rev. 8:12; Rev. 9:2; Rev. 16:10; Isaiah 13:10; Joel 2:30-3:16; Amos 5:18-20).

Could we say that Genesis 1:2 is the only place in Scripture where darkness and a universal flood are not an act of judgment? If it isn't an option, then Genesis 1:2 proves that there was a pre-Adamite world destroyed by darkness and flood.

No one questions that Noah's flood was an act of judgment, or doubts the existence of free moral agents before the flood actually came. Why then doubt the existence of a pre-Adamite world which was destroyed by the darkness and flood of Genesis 1:2?