Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[Retrobyter]

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Still, that has nothing to do with anything God told him.   God said that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Yet he lives on physically for many years thereafter.   So we know God wasn't speaking of a physical death.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Genesis 2:15-17 (KJV)

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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."

Here's the Hebrew:

וַיִּקַּ֛ח יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּנִּחֵ֣הוּ בְגַן־עֵ֔דֶן לְעָבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשָׁמְרָֽהּ׃
וַיְצַו֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר מִכֹּ֥ל עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן אָכֹ֥ל תֹּאכֵֽל׃
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃

Transliterated, this is ...

15 Vayyiqqach YHWH 'Elohiym 'et-haa'aadaam vayyannicheehuw bgan-`Eeden l`aaVdaah uwlshaamraah:
16 Vaytsav YHWH 'Elohiym `al-haa'aadaam la'mor mikol `eets-haggaan 'aakhol to'kheel:
17 Uwmee`eets hadda`at TowV vaaraa` lo' to'kal mimmennuw kiy byowm 'akhaalkhaa mimmennuw mowt taamuwt:

Translated word-for-word, we get ...

15 And-took YHWH God (d.o.->)-the-red-[man] and-put-him in-garden-of-Eden to-cultivate-it and-to-preserve-it:
16 And-commanded YHWH God over-the-red-[man] saying, 
"From-every tree-of-the-garden freely you-may-eat. 17 And/But-from-tree of-the-knowledge of-good and-of-evil not you-shall-eat from-it for in-day that-you-eat from-it surely you-shall-die:"

Now, understand this carefully: He was NOT saying that Adam would die in that day; He was saying He would surely die from eating it in that day!

[Retrobyter]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It does say "morning", which in Hebrew and in English means when the sun rises.  This is how we know the days are not literal ones.

Not in this case. In this case, it means "when dawn breaks" or "when day starts."

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

Yes, sir!  But the process of physical death did begin on that day, from "dying".

It's not what God said.  He said that Adam would die the day he ate from that tree.   Because Adam didn't die for many years after, we know it's not a physical death.

I pointed out the TWO deaths mentioned in the literal Hebrew.  "dying" is a process.  The death Adam suffered on THAT day was spiritual.  He died spiritually on THAT day, and he died physically 930 years later.

Both deaths are referenced in Gen 2:17.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Still, that has nothing to do with anything God told him.   God said that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Yet he lives on physically for many years thereafter.   So we know God wasn't speaking of a physical death.

Since the Hebrew includes "dying", which is a process, yes, God DID indicate that he was going to die physically.  Just not on THAT day.

[The Barbarian]

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

ince the Hebrew includes "dying", which is a process, yes, God DID indicate that he was going to die physically.  Just not on THAT day.

Sorry, the text does not support that belief.   God says he will die that day, not hundreds of years later.

 

[The Barbarian]

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

pointed out the TWO deaths mentioned in the literal Hebrew.  "dying" is a process.  The death Adam suffered on THAT day was spiritual.  He died spiritually on THAT day, and he died physically 930 years later.

And since the death God was speaking of was the one that happened that day, we know it was not a physical death God meant.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

 In this case, it means "when dawn breaks"

Yep.   And...

 

dawn

noun

the period in the day when light from the sun begins to appear in the sky

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dawn

 

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

or "when day starts."

The Hebrew day begins at sundown.  

The Jewish day starts at nightfall, and continues throughout the night and following day, until the next night.

https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/7469

So that won't work, either

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Now, understand this carefully: He was NOT saying that Adam would die in that day

Well, let's take a look...

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.

As you see, God says that Adam will die in that day.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Nope. Sorry, but you're NOT "going with God's word on this!" First, the man who asked Yeeshuwa` to remember Him WHEN HE CAME into His Kingdom, wasn't a "Good Thief!" He wsa a THIEF! He had done wrong, and the Roman governor was punishing him justly. He even admitted it while talking to the other thief:

However, there is one man who speaks up in the Lord's defense. He, too, is being crucified with Christ. Tradition refers to him as "Dismas," but he's also known as "the good thief." After the bad thief mocks Christ, this good thief sticks up for Him, saying, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal" (Luke 23:40-41).

...

The good thief admits his sin, accepts his suffering, and thus, opens his heart to the transformative power of Christ. He doesn't ask Jesus to take him down from the cross. He knows that the life he lived on earth deserves death. Still, not having given up hope in the life to come, he says, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Lk 23:42). And though the good thief only asks to be remembered, Jesus responds, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23:43).

https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/good-thief-bad-thief

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

He can do this for you, also.   As the Good Thief did, merely confess your sins, be repentant, and He will clean you of unrighteousness.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Dear Board Members,

It is genuinely fascinating, as a Christian, to study the history of science and how religious belief has played into it. Often in modern religion vs science debates, this history gets lost or forgotten.

The reality is, the vast majority of western scientists prior to the 20th Century were devout Christians. Many from the east were from other Abrahamic faiths. These faiths informed how and why they approached scientific inquiry. Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't?

The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists. Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:

1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?

As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man.

But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled. The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents. They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature.

Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark, and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures. Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?

In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today. This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?

2. Why are humans not found in the fossil record?

Much more troubling to scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries was the fact that human beings didn't exist in the fossil record. It is impossible to be sure exactly what animals were alive in Noah's time. But it is absolutely certain that one type of animal WAS around, and WAS killed by the flood - humans! In fact, wiping out the fallen and degenerate population of humanity was the whole point of the exercise.

Yet not a single human was found in the fossil record. When a Swiss scientist found a fossil that sort-of looked like a child in 1726, he was delighted, and called the fossil "homo diluvii testis" - man who bears witness to the flood. It turned out to be the fossil of an extinct species of giant salamander. 

300 years later, and not a single human has been found in the fossil record, anywhere, ever. Surely somewhere, amongst the dinosaurs and trilobytes, human beings must have existed? Nor have any human tools, implements, household items, clothes, or anything else been found. Some of these would have been very hardy and surely survived in some form. Yet not a single trinket has been discovered among fossils.

3. Why are the vast majority of fossils sea animals?

Another fact greatly troubled scientists as fossils were discovered. The vast majority were of sea creatures, not land animals. Of course this is readily explainable by modern evolutionists: the sea and its formation of sedimentary rock is a perfect place for fossils to be created naturally - much moreso than land. But at the time the assumption was that the fossil record was created by the flood, which drowned land-based creatures. Noah didn't have to have an aquarium aboard this ark.

Doubtless some sea creatures would have died. "All the springs of the great deep burst forth," the bible says - that sounds like something that might cause considerable water pollution and tumult and kill quite a few marine animals. But the fact remains that, while some sea creatures would have died and been part of the fossil record, every single land animal died through the flood.

Yet, the fossil record is about 95% marine fossils (mostly shellfish), 4.75% plants and algae, 0.2% insects, 0.015% fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

If the fossil record were formed through the flood, why is this?

4. Why has the fossil record been precisely sorted?

Finally, as radiometric dating techniques started to gain traction, scientists were able to approximate the age of fossils. Even before this date however, they had noticed an unsettling fact: groups of species were found in the same layers or strata together, and didn't tend to appear in others.

As dating techniques started to be used, scientists discovered that creature ONLY appeared between certain dates of rock, and NEVER in others. Many YECs doubt radiometric dating techniques for various reasons, but even if radiometric dating is wrong, why are species only found between certain "dates"?

Moreover, the order of the record didn't lend itself to natural explanations. For example, hydrological sorting in a flood would put larger creatures being at the bottom and smaller at the top. But there was no such "sizing" order to the fossil record, and if there was an average trend, it would be the other way around. Why then has a dinosaur never been found outside Mesozoic rock? Why have mammals only been found in rocks dating up to 65 million years old? What possible force of nature could account for this?

Conclusion

As a Christian, I would genuinely love to hear the views on YECs on all of this. However, there is a wider point.

Theories such as evolution by natural selection didn't come about in a vacuum. They were products of an age where the evidence being examined by devoutly Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. scientists was already revealing huge inconsistencies in the theory that the fossil record, and the changes in species and life it represented, could be explained by Noah's flood and the literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

Scientists genuinely believed, as the looked for fossils, that they would find overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood and biblical archaeology. But instead they found the opposite. Their predictions of what they would find based on their biblical or quranic beliefs didn't pan out at all. In many cases, they found the exact opposite. And these scientists, though devout, believed in the scientific method of making predictions and examining evidence based on these.

Perhaps any YECs on this forum could help out where these many great scientists failed?

How many early human fossils have been found?

From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species. Explore our 3D collection of fossils, artifacts, primates, and other animals.

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence