forums.creationscience.net

Does the Bible talk about seasons before the flood? If the earth was in a perfect orbit around the sun and the earth was not tilted on its axis, would there be seasons? I just wanted your opinion. Jack

Genesis 8:22, NIV says, "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." In my opinion there were not seasons as we know them today before the flood. This is after the Flood. My personal view is that Earth's axsis of 23 1/2 degrees relative to the Sun is a result of God's initiation of the Flood. The Institute for Creation Research (have a link on my links page) believe that there were seasons before the Flood, although they propose that these seasons were very mild relative to after the Flood.

It seems to me common sense that there were season's after they were banished from the Garden of Eden. Winter and hot summer's would have been an effective punishment. When was it that man started calling on the name of the Lord?

The challenge of severse seasons before the Flood is that the temperature differentiation would have initiated the collapse of the water-vapor canopy of Genesis 1:6-8.

Seems like all the threads on this site are dying. But I just had to go back and look at some of them. I am still laughing w this one. Water vapor canopy, flood, young earth etc. You guys made my morning.
There is no evidence other than Genesis for this nonsense. If anyone has any please let me know. Thanks

Jukia,

There may be a thead of truth to your observation of the lack of activity on the forums lately. Sooooooo, thank you for your post. I hope I don?t offend you, but I?m going to let this sit for a little bit to see if someone responds. Whether someone does or not, I will respond in time.

Thanks, but in the meantime I have a ? related to this topic a bit. Did rainbows only appear after the Flood? If so why did they not appear pre-flood? Seems to me that the relationship between light, refraction through water molecules/vapor etc was the same before the Flood.
Thanks

Jukia,

Gen. 9:8 ? Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him:
Gen. 9:9 ?I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you
Gen. 9:10 and with every living creature that was with you ? the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you ? every living creature on earth.
Gen. 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.?
Gen. 9:12 ? 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:
Gen. 9:13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
Gen. 9:14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,
Gen. 9:15 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.
Gen. 9:16 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.?
Gen. 9:17 ? So God said to Noah, ?This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.? (NIV)

To the best of my knowledge, there are two schools of thought relative to the existence of rainbows before the flood, i.e. There were not rainbows. Rainbows existed, but were not instituted as a covenant sign until after the flood.

?The rainbow is the best known of all optical meteorological phenomena, consisting of a colored arch formed opposite the sun on falling raindrops, and visible whenever the necessary conditions of a passing shower on one side and a clear and not too high sun on the other occur.? (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.23, p.181,1969)

The indispensable essence (somewhat redundant : ) are the raindrop and light waves from the sun.

Before the Flood Earth was protected by an immense water-vapor canopy that rode upon the atmosphere (Genesis 1:6-8). This was an enormous reservoir of water. There are two schools of thought relative to the context of the canopy, i.e. it was in the form of ice crystals (cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals) or it was in the form of water-vapor. Computer generated models support the viability of both of these models. Although I?m not a scientist, I favour the theory of an ice-crystal dome. (In my mind this best fits the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:6-8.)

The Bible teaches that there was no rain before the flood of Noah (Genesis 2:6), but a mist that rose from the ground to water the surface of the ground (Genesis 2:6). Yes, light waves striking the water molecules that made up the mist would, at times, result in a rainbow. However, the canopy in place before the flood would defuse the light waves in such a way as to not produce a rainbow. For the scientific technicalities of how this would work I suggest going the the Institute for Creation Research web site (www.icr.com), which is a link on my site. If you do a search on rainbow, flood, world before flood, etceteras, you?ll find an enormous amount of excellent information relative to this topic. (The staff of ICR is made up of some fourteen scientists from various scientific disciplines with impeccable credentials.)

The Creation Evidence Museum (www.creationevidence.org) endorses the ice-crystal dome theory and has a wealth of information on this, to include an excellent video series.

If I might add again, evidence is directly relative to the credibility (faith) one puts in the source of the information relative to their personal world view.

Same old stuff. The "it all depends on where you are coming from answer". In your opinion the first thing anyone has to do is decide whether or not they believe in a literal interpretion of Genesis. If you do then you get to ignore all the scientific evidence that indicates the earth is billions of years old, there was not "water canopy" etc, there was no world wide flood, and you get to believe all the pseudoscience and other nonsense posted on the ICR and related sites. I continue to say that if those who "believe" rather than deduce wish to convert the rest of the scientific world they need to do more than publish in their own little corner of the world.

Since we are not omniscient beings, we ALL walk by faith (belief), the question is, Where does one place their faith (belief)?

That seems like a cop-out to me

Jukia,

On the surface this might sound like I?m begging the question, however, I do believe (pun intended it?s true. I often ask an audience, Do you believe that God is omniscient (all-knowing) and most all respond, yes. Then I ask a different question, and it is significantly different, How many of you know, NOT as an expression of your level of belief, that God knows everything? To say this as a result of cognitive, analytical thinking, one would have to know everything to know that God knows everything. If one does not know everything, then one of the things they might not know is that God does NOT know everything. This may sound like double-talk, but it?s not. Since man does not know everything (except that brief time when one is seventeen years of age), whatever he believes about anything is just that, a belief. Sooooooooooo, I don?t believe : ) this is begging the question, e.g. Stealing is wrong! How do you know stealing is wrong? Because the Bible says so! How do you know the Bible is right? Because the Bible says so!

I suspect you have an answer ready to pound me with--but I believe in gravity. Is that just a belief or does it really exist?

Please understand that I do not think that I have everything figured out, i.e. ?If any man thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know as he ought to know.? (1 Cor. 8:2). And I do not wish to ?pound? anyone. I appreciate your comments and will always respond as openly and honestly as I can.

Gravity: ?... I believe in gravity.? Yes, I BELIEVE in gravity too. As you undoubtedly know, the Scientific Method is based on observation. A phenomenon is observed and the question is asked, how or why did it happen --- what caused it? (Causality) From this observation a scientific hypothesis is formed. The guess (hypothesis) is assumed to be true and is subjected to the Scientific Method of investigation through controlled experimentation. If the hypothesis is demonstrated to be valid it becomes a scientific theory and if, through controlled experimentation, it is demonstrated to be without exception, it becomes scientific law, thus the Law of Gravity. When God (Law Giver) created the physical universe He put this Law into effect.

Like one?s belief in God, belief that God exists doesn?t make Him exist if He does not exist, as belief that He does not exist make Him not exist, if He does exist --- God either exists or He doesn?t and what one believes about God has nothing to do with whether He is or is not.

Daily Walk a Walk of Faith: Some years back I did a seminar in San Francisco. On Friday evening I was speaking of this issue, i.e. all human being walk by faith since human being are not omniscient. A man in the audience caught my attention. He told us of a Chinese restaurant in South San Francisco that was closed down by the health department because they were putting cat meat in their food. It seems someone had reported they?d seen a person putting a plastic garbage bag in the dumpster behind the restaurant. The bag tore open and cat carcasses fell out! The health department investigated and the restaurant was closed down. I wonder how many people ate at that restaurant believing they were eating pork, beef, etceteras.

The manual for my truck tells me to use gasoline with 86-88 octane that contains no more than 10% ethanol. When I put gasoline in my truck I do so based on my faith that the labels on the tank are correct. In reality, how do I know but what the gasoline contains 15% ethanol or has an octane rating of 82? Bottom-line, I don?t.

There are people I know that will tell I something and I take it with a very large grain of salt, i.e. I don?t have much faith in them relative to their truthfulness or accuracy (fortunately, these are few).

I believe the key word here is ?believe? : ) My belief in the Law of Gravity is so strong that I would express it by saying, I know that gravity exists. But at the tap-root level, it is still a statement of belief (faith). One?s belief that they in fact do exist is a belief. I would be so bold as to even change Descartes? (1596-1650) famous statement, ?I think, therefore I am.? to ?I think I think, therefore I think I am.?

I understand the scientific method. And that is the reason that I believe the generally held scientific notions that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no world wide Noachian (sp?) flood, and evolution is a fact.

Your rephrase of Descartes is interesting but also begs the question. I do not "think I think", I know I think. I don't just "think I am", I know I am. If I really am not, bummer. I sort of remember that issue of being from Plato---shadows on the wall of a cave? Not sure, been a long time could well have my early Greek philosophers confused. But it seems to me that I have to have some faith in the real world around me and what it tells me. I am here, in Connecticut, it is cold and snowing, my teacher wife has the day off, my kids are all healthy, I need to make some $ to pay the bills. Those are all "real" things. I do not just "think" they are real.

In any event, I cannot understand how you are willing to ignore the weight of scientific evidence, developed through the scientific method which you quote, which indicates more support for my 3 beliefs noted above and you base your belief on a book cobbled together over time whose real purpose is not to be a scientific text but to show the relationship between God and man and to ask us to foster and explore that relationship.

Gots to go.