Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Hi Lucien,

I enjoyed our dialog on this topic and I am perfectly happy to let our different opinions stand where they are. I agree what matters most is that God's Word is honored. I respect your view without having to agree with it. And I hope you can respect mine. That pleases God.

I also think it's important in our dialog with non-believers that we can say that, "Some Christians believe in a global flood and some in a local flood. What's important, however, is to believe that sin is real; God judges it; and that Christ came to save us from its ravages. Will you believe that?"

Blessings,

Stu

I said it was my opinion.
You acknowledged it was my opinion.
And yeah, my opinion is that you are wrong and I am right.

And you know what? My opinion means absolutely nada, and neither does yours.
What matters is God's Word.
And my opinion, and hopefully everybody else's, is that I'd like to think that I and anyone who can read, can approach the Bible, start reading and start learning, without having to understand science, Mesopotamian history and needing more learned people than i to tell me what God meant. We do not need a Catholic priest or other high priest to tell us what Scripture means, we can read it for our selves. Even those who are not learned in the sciences, who are oblivious of Mesopotamian history, and simply want to read God's Word.

I disagree with your assertion. Can you name some of those conservative theologians?
The Bible is written for man. Not for God. He IS the Word. So if it is written for man... Don't you think that we should start with the natural, start with the plenary reading. Before we can venture into the spiritual.
The problem with putting theology first?
Well, I refer to your answer of me quoting John 3:12, which actually helps my case much more than yours.
Apparently it was necessary for God to use natural, historical, farming accounts before men could step into learning about theological cases.
We also start with milk, before we mature and move onto meat.

So I would propose:
Use the straightforward meaning of the text, unless it is clearly poetic or allegorical.
If you do NOT approach the Bible like this, you could end up with all sorts of sects and cults that twist Scriptures into whatever THEY want the text to mean. And this has happened.
This behaviour reminds me of Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice,"whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--- that's all."

About Noah's Flood.
Gen.6:7 states the human race was on the face of the earth and the first 7 verses of chapter 6 mentions earth no less than 5 times.
The next verses keep using superlatives and mentioning the earth and all this and the verses I quoted earlier makes it quite unrealistic to read a local area into it.
Sorry, but the plain, straightforward reading simply means the earth, not a small part of it. If you leave out the idea that you have in your mind about a local Flood, you would not get that from the text!!!

I do think that Psalm 108:5-9 does relate to the sea floors being lowered and the mountains being raised (catastrophic plate tectonics?), but the point is, I do not think the waters had to rise 17,000 feet as I do not think the mountains were that high.
In fact, if the mountains had been that high for 4.7 billions of years (or a fraction of that) they would have long been eroded by now, several times over, using current erosion rates.


There is still a lot we don't know, and even the existing Flood models do not answer all questions, but from the text, and the rainbow promise that I am sure you heard of in sunday school, clearly mean it was a global catastrophe.
Many local floods have occurred and continue to happen, and you are right, God does not lie, so the rainbow CANNOT refer to local floods.

Lucien

Lucien says (in black): When i say move, I mean the fact that Stu might move from Cali to Colorado when floodings occur. When the whole world is going to be flooded, you build a boat. Simple.

Stu replies (in blue): I'm sorry I still don't get the logic. Noah did what God instructed him to do -- and where and when. Anybody else would have skipped town -- but not Noah. That's the point of the story -- he "walked (sailed:) with God" and everyone else was "corupt in the sight of God" (6:9, 11)

And like i told (maybe not in so many words) Lee: I don't think mount Everest was as high then as it is now. in fact, it may not even have existed.
Read Psalm 108:5-9.

That sounds like eisegesis to me.

Sory Stu, you are (in my opinion) doing exactly that what you forbid: eisegesis. You read into the text what you think it means. Or at least what Noah thought it should mean.

As you said that's your opinion. I am using appropriate hermeneutics as I defined in my previous post. If you don't agree with the principles I set forth (which are accepted by most all conservative theologians) then you are the one using eisegesis. The least you should be able to say to me is, "I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree." Instead you are saying, "I am right and everybody else is wrong."

But perhaps the biggest problem you and Lee have with a local flood is this:
Genesis 9:12-17 ........ What does ALL life mean? To me, it means that there will be no more GLOBAL Flood that will destroy ALL life on the WHIOLE earth FOREVERMORE. Local flood proponents have a HUGE problem, in that local floods happen all the time. Did God lie?

God doesn't lie, but people don't always understand. The one thing for sure it means is that the flood was unique and will not happen again. The outcome and theological message remains unchanged whether you interpret the flood covering the Mesopotamian basin, the Eastern hemisphere, or the globe.

In Genesis 6 mankind was just beginning to multiply on the face of the earth. Since mankind and the animals were created in Eden I can assume they hadn't yet migrated beyond the Mesopotamian area. That could account for the use of EVERY, ALL, etc. since that area represented the known world at that time. A "local" flood then would be "universal" as far as ALL living creatures were concerned.

John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things..........

What brain gymnastics do you (and Lee) have for me to work around this problem?

I am glad you brought up that verse up. Jesus uses it to instruct us how His insightful explanations of "earthly" things will help us discern His teaching regarding "heavenly" things. In other words, to use our God given abilities of observation and logic (the visible) to give us confidence in the invisible which is revealed in His Word.

I find your explanation of "earthly things" in this case illogical. Here are some of the "brain gymnastics" required:

<1> It is not possible for sea level around the world to rise 17,000 feet. You may want to lower the mountains to make it possible, but there's nothing in the text that suggests that so you will be making up your own assumptions (and Everest is another 11,000 feet high).

<2> The oceans would have to triple their volume of water in 150 days and then quickly shrink back to normal. Where did the water go? There was no place for it to drain or to evaporate. Water rising at the rate of over 100 feet per day would have created currents so strong that survival of the ark would have been unlikely. There is no text to suggest that the ark was in that kind of peril. The rate of recession of the water required to keep to the accuracy of the text is impossible.

<3> How can there still be fresh water lakes after all that water mixes with sea water. How did the freshwater and the saltwater fish survive?

Of course you can appeal to "God can do anything" arguments but there's nothing in the text to suggest we need that kind of miraculous intervention to answer the objections above - the local flood does it nicely. Making up unnecessary "earthly" miraculous answers doesn't add to Jesus' "heavenly" credibility, rather it dilutes His Word.

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?


When
i say move, I mean the fact that Stu might move from Cali to Colorado when floodings occur.
When the whole world is going to be flooded, you build a boat.
Simple.

And like i told (maybe not in so many words) Lee:
I don't think mount Everest was as high then as it is now. in fact, it may not even have existed.
Read Psalm 108:5-9.

Sory Stu, you are (in my opinion) doing exactly that what you forbid: eisegesis. You read into the text what you think it means. Or at least what Noah thought it should mean.

But perhaps the biggest problem you and Lee have with a local flood is this:
Genesis 9:12-17
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”


What does EVERY living creature mean?
What does ALL generations mean?
What does THE EARTH mean?
What does EVERY kind mean?
What does NEVER agin mean?
What does EVERLASTING mean?
What does ALL life mean?

To me, it means that there will be no more GLOBAL Flood that will destroy ALL life on the WHIOLE earth FOREVERMORE.
Local flood proponents have a HUGE problem, in that local floods happen all the time.
Did God lie?
What brain gymnastics do you (and Lee) have for me to work around this problem.
I am really curious.
Guys, let's face it, the text plainly, at a straightforward, face-value reading, demands a global flood that destroyed all people and land dwelling animals, apart from those on the ark.
Do you not see?

John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Not sure what you mean by "not move." Noah did what God commanded him to do (7:5) and that was to build the ark and get in it (7:1).

"The author is trying to tell us something" by highlighting the words "ALL and EARTH and EVERY and WHOLE." I agree, but let's understand, when interpreting what the author is trying to tell us, it is the theological message which is of primary importance. Yes, the historical and geographical setting is important but secondary; and the science information that is in view (such as a spherical earth) is tertiary. Also the text was crafted by God and the author as a story told from Noah's point of view, location, and experience. The text is not meant to satisfy everybody's desire from all ages to read into it what they're looking for.

From Noah's point of view ALL was his immediate environs and experience, and the biblical writers use that expression frequently, e.g., "all the earth came to Joseph to buy grain" (41:57). I don't think China was in view.

"EARTH, EVERY, WHOLE" should be interpreted in context of its theological message primarily. Take Deu 2:25 for example, "This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.” I don't think the author is talking about the Chinese.

As far as water covering the mountains to 15 cubits is concerned -- the theological message is not diluted :) when one considers the Hebrew wording and the point of view of Noah:

"Covering the mountains" -- the surrounding mountains were overrun with flash flooding "drenching" (Hb) them. The biblical text does not demand that the mountains be entirely submerged -- especially to 17,000 feet!

"15 cubits" -- doesn't have to mean 15 cubits higher than the tops of 17,000 foot mountains. It could just as easily mean 15 cubits higher than the plain (Hb), covering at least some part of the local mountains. That kind of local flood would still get the theological job done -- consider tsunamis and extreme flash flooding.

Logical objection:
If it was local, then why did Noah and co. not move?

Don't make me quote Gen. 7 again and highlight the words ALL and EARTH and EVERY and WHOLE.
I think the author was trying to tell us something, hence he used these kind of words again and again.

Any solution must take into account the inerrancy of the account; the possible interpretations of the text; and the intent of the original author. It should also take into account the reality and logic of the event and not overly rely on "God can do anything" answers to reasonable logistical, historical and scientific problems associated with an interpretation.

Where I will be starting from is that the explanation that best fits all these criteria, and remains God-honoring, is that of a local flood.

Lee

1) How do you take the amount of years (a number) between one generation and the next "symbolically"?
It seems to me, that the Bible states how old one patriarch was when he became the father of the next.
Even if you replace the word father by grandfather, it still does not change the amount of years in-between the patriarchs.

2) Have you considered Psalm 104:5-9?
If you "flatten" the earth, i.e. lift the seafloor and push down the mountains, then you can cover the earth, using the water available, by a depth of roughly 2 miles.


Lucien

Kudos to you for going to see Michael Behe and defending him. I know he is not a YEer -- he's even an evolutionist -- but he has contributed greatly to our side of the debate.

I agree that the Bible is without error and that the missing generations cannot not account for such a large (8000-38000 year) gap. I am curious as to how OEers reconcile the gap. I'll check out Reasons to Believe. In the meantime it seems the Scriptural evidence favors a YE interpretation.

Lee or Bret -- are you familiar with reconciling theories?

Lucien,

I don't want anyone to think the Bible is errored. That is why I made my initial comment about the geneology being incomplete as Stu also suggested. This is another case also, why we have to take the Bible more symbolically and less literally in some cases.

The wind can blow all it wants and not change the depth of the oceans by roughly six miles in depths. This would be the case if the ocean covered the world's highest mountain over 30,000 feet tall. The whole world would still be flooded, if the wind blew and it was a global flood.

Lee

Hi chaps

Went to see Michael Behe speak on a conference at the Carnegie Lecture hall at Caledonian Uni in Glasgow.
As expected interesting stuff, and some well-known irreducible complexities like the mouse trap and flagella were covered.
I thought a lady diagonally in front of me was going to have a stroke.
She probably belonged to the humanist that were handing out brochures and an 11 questions-to-ask-list outside.
I got my hands on both, whoopee. Most questions were meta-physical/phylosophical/theological and few were right out pathetic.
At the Q&A time the humanists were dared to ask the first question of the list, but after two questions the leader of the Q&A time had to reiterate the question. Finally a young bloke read out question 9. I doubt he fully understood the question and I am guessing he had never studied the case quoted in the question, and Behe wiped the floor with him (imho).
Ultimately the planned "protest" by the Scottish humanist organisation was disappointing, almost sad.
I briefly spoke to one of the (brethren) leaders and said there were quite a few humanists, and he responded (to my liking) "good, we want to spark the debate", whereas most Darwinists want to censor, prohibit and maybe even criminalise Darwin-doubters.
They should take an example of us. Even though sometimes heated debates, we dialogue and communicate, which is part of our human rights: freedom of speech!


Lucien

Lee said: "I watched Bub's video and enjoyed it. I believe he makes a serious error however in asserting Fact 1. There is a natural process for altering genetic information and the proteins that perform it are known. During the copying process these proteins
occassionally make changes to the code. This is new information creation contrary to Bub's assertion. Bad mutation's don't live on. Only the neutral or very few positive ones do. The new neutral or improved information progagates. Each person and animal is unique as a result ..."

My reply: Bub's Fact 1 is: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code." You say he is in serious error. But it seems to me you set up a straw man when you say "alter" and he explicitly says "new" genetic information. It even seems to me you agree with his statement because you think only God can give "new" genetic information.

Or are you making the case that natural processes can produce "new" speciation (not "altered" - we know that can occur)? As far as I know that has never been observed. So once again he is correct.

I went to a source that we both respect -- Reasons to Believe -- to get their take on it. They say that for every good mutation there are 10,000 to 10,000,000 deleterious ones. For a new species to arise from an old one you must take into account the size, population, and generation time of the species (as well as the physics of the earth at the time of its existence) and compare the "time to new speciation" to the "time to current species extinction." Only bacteria could possibly qualify to speciate before extinction. In the 150 years of scientific probing there has not been any bacteria (let alone anything larger) observed to have been brought into existence by a natural process.

What am I missing?

Stu

Dear Stu

If you were talking to the police, by saying "and pointing out his error" you basically admit there IS an error.
Could it be that Lee is wrong or there is another explanation?

And what is the theological point in Matthew 1?
Isn't the theology in the Bible based in history?
(it better be, otherwise our faith is in vain!)
Theology not based on history is what I call fairytales, or just-so-stories, and just about anything can be invented.

Jesus walked on this earth.
So did His ancestors.
Names missing in-between the patriarchs (if any) do not help adding years to the age of the earth.
That is why theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists need to add in the millions of years into Creation week.
But you still have trouble, like Lee, placing Noah at 8,000-38,000 years before Jesus. With that statement Lee made, he'll need to add in so many missing generations, that not only the Bible genealogies' numbers are WRONG, it destroys the whole purpose of the genealogies (linking the Last Adam to the first) and makes a mockery of the Jewish scribes, who are renowned for being diligent, and the Jews who find the lines of their ancestors very important apparently are missing 250+ generations!

Do you see why I have a problem with missing generations (even though the Hebrew word DOES allow for it grammatically)?


Lucien

Lee -- Please know I don't see you as a Darwinist (plus you're too good looking :). I understand that you believe in macroevolution based on evidence and that God foreordained the genetic code differences. Thank you for the term that you use "Progressive Creationist." I'll respect that.

Thank you for reviewing Bub's clip and pointing out his error. That's why I sent it to you. Based on his assumptions his logic seemed solid and I was honestly looking for your critical review. I'll need time to digest your answer.

So we both agree that God put the genetic code in directly. It seems to me He did it the way He describes in Genesis -- He created most species directly with their own genetic code (the initial condition). Natural processes (steady state) take over from there including some genetic variations within limits (microevolution). There is no need for other elaborate (and I think obscure) natural law or scriptural explanations for the intial condition.

Lucien -- I thought the main variances of the generation accounts in the Bible was because the geneological records routinely skip generations. The historical record is not the main point - rather the theological message is(e.g. Matthew 1).

Lee

you commit the fallacy of bifurcation in your assertion that either Luke or Genesis is wrong.
You leave out the copyist error.
(http://creation.com/cainan-can-you-explain-the-difference-between-luke-336-and-genesis-1112)
Yes, you are right in saying that the two contradict, so error must have crept IN.
If you do not clarify this to non-blievers, you have just opened the door to dismissing the rest of Scripture.
The original Scriptures were of course God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).
Although copyists followed extremely diligently their procedures and rules, there are some differences between scripts. Mosts are basically different spellings of names, and a few typos crept in.

If we go with the bifurcation fallacy, I could possibly also say:
either the KJV or the NIV is wrong, because they are different.


I could have a few comments on the rest of your posts, but I trust that Bret and Stu will answer you.
But I am very surprised you ask where the water has gone. Tip: look at a map of the world or a globe...


Lucien

Lucien,
Luke threw in an additional generation in the sequence. Athough, this is not much addition in time, it makes it questionable whether the Genesis sequence is complete. There is conflict right there in the Bible.   One could conclude that either Luke is wrong or the author of Genesis is wrong. However, I prefer to believe that the ancestory is incomplete.

Luke 3:35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech.  

Stu,

I watched Bub's video and enjoyed it.  I believe he makes a serious error however in asserting Fact 1. There is a natural process for altering genetic information and the proteins that perform it are known.  During the copying process these proteins  
 occassionally make changes to the code. This is new information creation contrary to Bub's assertion. Bad mutation's don't live on. Only the neutral or very few positive ones do. The new neutral or improved information progagates.   Each person and animal is unique as a result: from an article I read revently, I recall that roughly 1 in every ten thousand nucleotides is different between any two people alive today. The Darwinian evolutionists believe these changes are random or based on luck.   I believe they are predetermined by our Creator (or made real time during natural copying processes based on your understanding of time).   

Even after many long detailed explanations of my creationist views, for some reason you Continue to associate me with the evolutionists like it's a dirty word (all Darwinists without any distinction according to your descriptions).   Let me state again that I am a Progressive Creationist (a branch of theistic evolution with God directing the mutations). 

You never have explained clearly why you think this is so bad.   Our disagreement is based on how these changes get there. I claim that they are God guided predetermined changes enacted through natural processes. I spelled it out extensively in my posts as well.  

You are claiming that God inserts the genetic code directly I believe. Or are you claiming that God brings each being into existance fully formed ex nihilo?  Please describe your new species and reproduction process further if I am mistaken about your view.

Bret,

There are three problems with the simple interpretation you propose: 1) due to the earth's curvature, the author cannot see from his location on the planet's surface all of the mountains, so that there is no way for him to know if they are covered or to what depth. In the Mesopotamia area, he likely could not have seen any mountains, since the flow of the water would have carried the ark down hill toward the shallow oceans and nearly flat lands in that area near Arabia or onto a flood plain away from the mountains during the forty days of rain 2) the ancient Hebrew language didn't distinguish between small hills and mountains. The ancient Hebrew text could have been translated stating hills or mounds of sand instead of using the word 'mountain'.   It is most presumptuous to include the many distant mountains on earth that none of the people alive then had ever seen. 3) Your interpretation of these verses brings about an unnecessary violation of the physical laws; i.e. what happened to all of the water if it was a global flood, why aren't the mountains still covered with water. Did the winds that dried the water up blow the water into space?  

This exageration of a global flood is unnecessary if God was exterminating the evil inhabitants of a relatively flat low area in Mesopotamia where the only human population existed.        

Lee

Genesis 11:


10 This is the account of Shem’s family line.
Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father[d] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.[e]

14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Harran.

Genesis 12:
4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran.


Adding up years makes the birth of Abram 352 years after the Flood.
Are we starting to see the point?
If you want to believe the records are not complete, that is one thing. But if you want to place the Flood over 10,000 years ago, you must believe the numbers in the Bible are WRONG!

Lucien

If it matters.
I thought the clip was good, did not mock evolutionists but did point out two important points of the problems of (atheistic) evolution.
It was fast-pased, but this might actually work well in this day and age.
I have no problem with the whole clip, in fact, I believe I would fully endorse it as a YE.

L

For the record I was not ignoring or dismissing God's word. I was simply replying to the easier portions of Lee's post. Quite honestly I have a hard time being dogmatic about the flood being global or local and look forward to studying Gen 7 et. al. and praying more about it as you all debate the matter. I'll let you know where I land.

I think we need to point out to Lee there is a fixed amount of years between Noah and Jesus and it can be proven from Scripture.
Lee says he believes the records are not complete (there is no evidence provided by Lee why he believes this), but even if there are people missing (I don't think so), the years clearly add up to the Noahic Flood about 2400 years BC. Are you in?
We would need to quote the generations in order with amount of years, and of courses the Bible verse(s) that relate to that number.

Stu

I am disappointed that you are disappointed with Lee's ignoring/dismissing of a man-made clip, when in the midst of all his long posts with difficult words, Lee forgets the simplicity from Scripture. Gen. 7:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

I don't care for the brain gymnastics involved to make this a local flood. This was a global catastrophe, no matter what Lee says.

Lee -- I am disappointed with your first three points. What you are saying is that you are a committed evolutionist, so Berlinski and the Veracity clip have nothing to say. That sure doesn't sound like the open minded Lee I know.

I'll tell you my view on the genetic code modification process and how God knits together animals in the womb. I think it is fundamentally similar to yours. Our differences are in the mechanism and the timing: The genetic information is given by God -- it does not and cannot occur through natural processes. Don't you agree? Once it is given then the natural processes that God created take over, e.g., in the womb. In my view, evolution is unnecessary.

Bub does not mock evolutionists in this clip. It deals directly with genetic information. I will be very disappointed if you don't at least take a few minutes to view the clip before you dismiss it out of hand.

Berlinski arrives at his position based on evidence, not religious dogma. He deserves a hearing from those predisposed to evolution but dismiss him out-of-hand because of his contrarian view.

Bret, I haven't watched the Veracity Project Clip. But if I know Bub, he probably mocks the evolutionists quite well. I've read quite a few books on this subject however, so I don't think I've missed much. I am curious what you might have gotten from it though.

All, I am specifically interested in how you believe each life form's genetic code is modified to make each organism unique. Also, how do you think this ties into the natural birth process? How does God knit animals together in the womb?

David Berlinski is a well spoken intellectual that doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution. I don't know much else about him or how he believes the genetic code is altered. 

 Noah's Flood was an actual event that happened.  I believe water covered the local area of the planet where mankind existed and the local flood occurred for the duration stated in the Bible. I don't have a firm viewpoint on how long ago it occurred but possibly between 10 and 40 thousand years ago.  I believe the ancestry records in the Bible are not complete in contrast to what others would have all believe.  

If large and dense enough, any object will take on a spheroidal shape due to the intense pressure that it's mass generates in it's interior. For example, mountains on earth won't get much higher since their enormous weight causes them to sink into the deformable lithosphere. The same gravitational forces affect the shape of the moon; solids such as rocks will deform or fracture due to the great pressures exerted by the large amount of orbiting collected debris from the earth's outer crust. 

Also, the collisional energy that was released as the debris aggregated heated the forming moon and softened the debris making it more deformable or melting it into a liquid. This would facilitate the reforming of the moon into a spheroid.   

This event happened on Day 1. It reduced the thick opaque atmosphere to a translucent thin one allowing light to pass through to the water surface of the newly formed planet for the first time.  Please refer to Genesis 1:1-10 and Scientific Account Comparison related to verse 3 and near the end of the post on Sept 18 2009 for more details. 

Lee 

I wish I had more time to post, but it would be stolen from somewhere else for me. All my best to Gail!

D

I love those guys at the Discovery Institute -- Christian professional scientists engaging the world for God with Truth and Grace.

Enjoy http://www.discovery.org/v/2231

ps -- Great to hear from you Dave -- we miss you. And Thank You Sir Lord Fry for taking the Administator reins!