# Old Creationism and a Regional Flood



## Peairtach

What are the reason(s) why Old Earth Creationists tend to believe in the Flood being local rather than universal?


----------



## rookie

One of the reasons, is that a local flood would not have destroyed Cain's descendants. If you do some research on "Branhamites" or "Serpent Seed" they have no choice but to believe in the local flood to make their theories (theology) fit.

Another reason they don't believe in the global flood, is that would make them accountable to the bible. Imagine if it was only a local flood, then how did all the fossils happen, grand canyon and a list of others.


----------



## jogri17

Really? Ever here of giving your brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt rookie?


----------



## TimV

Why? If the flood was as high as even a quarter way up Mt. Ararat, and the flood lasted 150 days or so, what would have happened to the rest of the earth? Google Mt. Ararat's elevations. If you pour a hundred gallons of water into a cup on your floor, where does the excess go? Straight up, or will the water cover the floor? A local flood story forces you to chuck lots of other stuff out the window.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't hold to the local flood. 

I'm just trying to ascertain the logical connection(s) between the two, as it may shed more light on long ages for the days, about which I am already highly sceptical.


----------



## rookie

1. The water was 15 - 30 cubits higher than the highest mountain. And since water levels itself out, it will look for the next highest mountain. So if the local mountains weren't high enough, the water would have kept going until it found another one higher and passed it.

2. Noah was in the ark for 6 months, if I remember correctly, so the water must have covered a big part of the earth, since he couldn't land anywhere

3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move, remember, he was building that thing for 100 yrs. Imagine the travels you could have done in 100 yrs, possibly around the world twice on foot?

To me, there are no biblical arguments that support the local flood. It mentions in scripture that all life with the breath in the nostrils perished.....


----------



## Marrow Man

rookie said:


> 3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move



This is a good point, one I've never thought of before. Thanks for pointing it out.

I was preaching through 2 Peter recently, and this passage from chapter 3 stood out to me with regard to this subject:



> Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.



Besides noting that the mockers hold to a form of uniformitarianism ("everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"), verse 6 clearly states that it was the world (_kosmos_) that was destroyed by flooding. I'm sure someone has come up with a way of exegetically getting around this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Here's my understanding of the OEC flood position:

The study of natural revelation necessarily excludes a geographically universal flood.
The text of Scripture _does not_ require a flood which was geographically universal.
The text of Scripture _does_ require a flood which was anthropically universal insofar as it encompassed the entirety of human civilization.
A geographically local yet anthropically universal flood is consistent with the testimony of both natural and special revelation.


----------



## rookie

I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.

Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.

But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?

I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......


----------



## Sviata Nich

To be honest I've never really given it much though, just always assumed the flood was global (and still lean that way). But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go? It wouldn't have anywhere to retreat too.  Any help?


----------



## Dearly Bought

Sviata Nich said:


> To be honest I've never really given it much though, just always assumed the flood was global (and still lean that way). But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go? It wouldn't have anywhere to retreat too.  Any help?


One quick partial answer is that the world's terrain changed during the flood. Picture catastrophic geological uplifts and subsidence radically changing the face of our planet.


----------



## Romans922

This is all I have to say about a 'local regional flood' 

View attachment 2148


----------



## CharlieJ

One of the strongest arguments for believing in creation rather than naturalistic evolution is the complex, fragile nature of ecosystems. If you take any recognizable ecosystem, say a marshland, a remove just a few key species, the marshland can no longer survive.

So, the problem with a global flood is the absolute devastation of plant life. If you have a flood covering the whole earth up to the mountains, enough to kill off literally every single animal on the face of the globe not in the ark, you lose almost all the plant life, too. Furthermore, you can't repopulate that plant life. Noah didn't take samples of all the plant species in the ark. What would the animals eat when they got out of the ark? And, I really have no idea what the answer to this question is, how would the salt and fresh water separate back out in such a scenario?

Now, it's possible that my tenuous knowledge of botany and ecology has led me astray. But, I've come across these objections before, and I've never really seen an answer to them. I'd love to hear one, though.


----------



## Skyler

rookie said:


> I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.
> 
> Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.
> 
> But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?
> 
> I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......



This calculation doesn't take into account the deadly effects of man's sinfulness during the antediluvian era of all but unrestrained evil.

---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

In other words, you have no idea how many of those ended up as casualties prematurely. That would tend to limit the population somewhat.


----------



## Andres

CharlieJ said:


> One of the strongest arguments for believing in creation rather than naturalistic evolution is the complex, fragile nature of ecosystems. If you take any recognizable ecosystem, say a marshland, a remove just a few key species, the marshland can no longer survive.
> 
> So, the problem with a global flood is the absolute devastation of plant life. If you have a flood covering the whole earth up to the mountains, enough to kill off literally every single animal on the face of the globe not in the ark, you lose almost all the plant life, too. Furthermore, you can't repopulate that plant life. Noah didn't take samples of all the plant species in the ark. What would the animals eat when they got out of the ark? And, I really have no idea what the answer to this question is, how would the salt and fresh water separate back out in such a scenario?
> 
> Now, it's possible that my tenuous knowledge of botany and ecology has led me astray. But, I've come across these objections before, and I've never really seen an answer to them. I'd love to hear one, though.



Very interesting...but not all vegetation was completely destroyed. For example, the dove Noah sends out brings back an olive leaf. 



> Gen 8:6-11
> 6At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. *11And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. *So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.


----------



## rookie

Skyler said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.
> 
> Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.
> 
> But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?
> 
> I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This calculation doesn't take into account the deadly effects of man's sinfulness during the antediluvian era of all but unrestrained evil.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------
> 
> In other words, you have no idea how many of those ended up as casualties prematurely. That would tend to limit the population somewhat.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree with you 100%, and I mentioned in my post that my math was flawed in this calculation. But I was simply pointing out, that there was more than just 1000 people living on the planet at the time. But this number here, that I have calculated, simply shows that the possibility is there. I have NO scriptural support for that number, just showing that even myself, I thought there was only a few million people. 

That math showed me there were no doubt more than a few million....


----------



## CharlieJ

Andres, the olive leaf itself seems to point toward a regional flood. Olive trees aren't that tall, maybe 50 feet or so. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions. So, this water wipes out all the animals on the planet everywhere - kills them - but there are intact leaves on a standing olive tree in the middle of a flood zone?


----------



## Andres

CharlieJ said:


> Andres, the olive leaf itself seems to point toward a regional flood. Olive trees aren't that tall, maybe 50 feet or so. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions. So, this water wipes out all the animals on the planet everywhere - kills them - but there are intact leaves on a standing olive tree in the middle of a flood zone?



Perhaps I am completely misreading/misunderstanding the passage, but I read it that the waters were in fact completely covering all land, including vegetation. That's why verse 9 says the dove had no place to land. Then Noah sends the dove out again after waiting a week and the dove brings back the olive leaf showing the waters had _subsided_. Subsided means that they've gone down, meaning they were at one point higher and covering the land.


----------



## TimV

> . And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.



Did you even bother to look it up? Or did you look up Armenia's elevation? Or do you think that's a poetic exaggeration as well?


----------



## Afterthought

Dearly Bought said:


> Here's my understanding of the OEC flood position:
> 1. The study of natural revelation necessarily excludes a geographically universal flood.
> 2. The text of Scripture does not require a flood which was geographically universal.
> 3. The text of Scripture does require a flood which was anthropically universal insofar as it encompassed the entirety of human civilization.
> 4. A geographically local yet anthropically universal flood is consistent with the testimony of both natural and special revelation.


That is the OEC flood position. However, I would substitute the word _nature_ for _natural revelation_ (although the OEC position I held does use the word "natural revelation" in the way your post expresses; indeed, I think that is an important part of the OEC position). Incidentally, this is also the kind of argument for long ages in the days of Creation that I held to and knew about too. A similar argument is that the Scripture is ambiguous and/or silent on these issues and so we must turn to science to see what happened.




Sviata Nich said:


> But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go?


According to one YEC theory, look at our modern oceans. From what I understand, the (simplified) idea is that the land sunk underneath the water and then geological activity raised land above the water again.


----------



## Peairtach

I'm more interested in the logical connections between holding to a long period of time for the days and therefore holding to a local flood.

Is it the case that since OECs hold that the fossil record is the period of time of the long age/framework days they don't like the idea of a global flood because it would spoil or at least confuse their strata?

Is this the case, or are there other reasons why OECs _in particular_ as opposed to YECs would be local floodists?


----------



## yoyoceramic

What did the author of Genesis 9 mean by using the word "earth". Did he have conception of a globe?


----------



## Andres

yoyoceramic said:


> What did the author of Genesis 9 mean by using the word "earth". Did he have conception of a globe?



Yeah, I'm pretty sure God knew what that was/is.


----------



## CharlieJ

TimV said:


> . And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look it up? Or did you look up Armenia's elevation? Or do you think that's a poetic exaggeration as well?
Click to expand...


Well, I know that they grow in the Mediterranean Basin, which I assumed to be the coastal areas bordering the Mediterranean Sea and excluding the mountainous regions. Perhaps I am mistaken? In any case, I thought about it some more, and I no longer think that the olive leaf has much to say either way.


----------



## gracea1one

Marrow Man said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point, one I've never thought of before. Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> I was preaching through 2 Peter recently, and this passage from chapter 3 stood out to me with regard to this subject:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides noting that the mockers hold to a form of uniformitarianism ("everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"), verse 6 clearly states that it was the world (_kosmos_) that was destroyed by flooding. I'm sure someone has come up with a way of exegetically getting around this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...


Speaking of ways of exegetically getting around this...
Some who hold to Old Earth Creationism do not believe the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 refers to Noah's flood. Rather, some that hold to Gap Creationism (or the Gap theory) believe there was a universal flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and this is what is being referred to in 2 Peter 3. So beginning with Gen 1:3 we have re-creation. Then they typically hold that Noah's flood was a local flood.

For the record, I didn't claim it was _good _exegesis...


----------



## Marrow Man

gracea1one said:


> Speaking of ways of exegetically getting around this...
> Some who hold to Old Earth Creationism do not believe the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 refers to Noah's flood. Rather, some that hold to Gap Creationism (or the Gap theory) believe there was a universal flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and this is what is being referred to in 2 Peter 3. So beginning with Gen 1:3 we have re-creation. Then they typically hold that Noah's flood was a local flood.
> 
> For the record, I didn't claim it was good exegesis...



 now that's a great example of eisegesis!

But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?


----------



## Skyler

Just because I'm a technical person like this, I'm going to point out that I don't believe in a universal flood either.

Although it would be interesting to ponder what would happen if the solar system was covered in water, I tend to believe in a _global_ flood.


----------



## gracea1one

Marrow Man said:


> But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?



Well, i'm not sure of anyone truly noteworthy...but if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah). The only reason I'd consider him "noteworthy" is because of the number of people he has the potential to "reach" with his bad/heretical theology (and the list is long).

If you aren't familiar with him, here is a nice little summary at CARM: Shepherd's Chapel | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## rookie

gracea1one said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, i'm not sure of anyone truly noteworthy...but if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah). The only reason I'd consider him "noteworthy" is because of the number of people he has the potential to "reach" with his bad/heretical theology (and the list is long).
> 
> If you aren't familiar with him, here is a nice little summary at CARM: Shepherd's Chapel | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Click to expand...

 
Isn't he one of the teachers of the "Serpent Seed" as well?


----------



## Marrow Man

gracea1one said:


> if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah).



Oh, I remember watching Arnold Murray way back in the days of cable. He also advocated that the OT dietary laws were still in force, If I recall correctly.


----------



## gracea1one

rookie said:


> Isn't he one of the teachers of the "Serpent Seed" as well?



Yes, indeed.


----------



## rookie

As well as William Marion Branham (Branhamites)


----------



## Peairtach

I'm more interested in some elucidation of this aspect of things:



> All long-age compromises reject Noah's Flood as a global Flood - it could only be a local event, because the fossil layers are accepted as evidence for millions of years. A global Flood would have destroyed this record and produced another! therefore, these positions cannot allow a catastrophic global Flood that would form layers of fossil-bearing rocks over the Earth. This, of course, goes against Scripture, which obviously teaches a global Flood (Genesis 6-9).



The above is from a booklet by Ken Ham ("Six Days or Millions of Years?", p37)

Is Ham hamming it up? Or are OECs liable to interpret the Flood as local because of their view of the Days and therefore of the fossil strata? Is the above the main or underlying reason why OECs tend to believe in a local Flood, if it is the case that more/most OECs believe in a local Flood.

How would this affect a biblical interpreter's assessment of day-age, framework, etc, approaches to Genesis 1?

There's a good hermeneutics exam Q !


----------



## rookie

Well, looking at the word "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew is "Yom", and just as english, it can mean a time period "In my father's day" which doesn't mean one specific day. 

But, according to Hebrew scholars, everytime the word "Yom" is accompanied by a number (first day, second day, third day....) it means a 24 hr period.

Which is further more supported by Exodus chapter 20, when Moses gives the commandments and refers to the 6 day creation.

Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?

And if the first six "days" are time periods, did Adam and Eve and all their descendants really only 930 + yrs old?

Based on the way it's written and read, the context and consistency has to remain the same through out the book. 

You can't change the context and consistencies within the same chapter 4-5 times to try and make evolution fit.


----------



## Afterthought

Peairtach said:


> I'm more interested in the logical connections between holding to a long period of time for the days and therefore holding to a local flood.
> 
> Is it the case that since OECs hold that the fossil record is the period of time of the long age/framework days they don't like the idea of a global flood because it would spoil or at least confuse their strata?
> 
> Is this the case, or are there other reasons why OECs in particular as opposed to YECs would be local floodists?


As far as I know it is the view of many of the honest OECs (at the very least the day-agers), the line of thinking is like this. We have science telling us one thing. We have the Bible seeming to tell us another. Does the Bible allow for an interpretation that is in accordance with what science is telling us without doing any harm to the rest of faith and practice, especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue? Since an interpretation of the days of Creation and the flood could accommodate science, then we should accommodate there.

The "logical" link then I don't think is so much in the hermeneutic but in the motivation for using that hermeneutic, namely (1) an attempt to reconclie the Bible and science, (2) a belief that either it is highly improbable that science is wrong on this issue or that it is easier to re-interpret portions of the Bible to accommodate science when that re-interpretation does no harm elsewhere than to "re-interpret" science itself, and (3) a belief that God would not lie in either nature or in the Bible--that is, that nature and the Bible are on the same level--(and our interpretations of either could be wrong and so are on the same level of fallibility) and so when they appear to contradict, someone mis-interpreted somewhere and why not us Christians with the Bible when the scientific evidence backs its interpretation so much more than the evidence for a contradictory (to science) interpretation of Scripture?

If that's interpreting the Bible differently so not to confuse the strata or because it is already believed that the fossils are millions of years old, so be it, though no honest OEC would say that's what they're doing nor would they be aware of it. Indeed, they would think they are honestly looking at what the Bible alone says.


Also, the creation scientist brand of YECs (especially the "no animal death before the fall" strand) pretty much have to believe in a global flood in order to account for the fossil record and various geological changes that otherwise would have taken many, many years to form. However, I do know some honest OECs who accept a global flood.


----------



## PreservedKillick

On the points made above concerning vegetation, surely a universal flood would not kill all edible vegetation--seaweed at the very least is edible. Plus, aren't olive trees notoriously difficult to kill?


----------



## TimV

> Well, I know that they grow in the Mediterranean Basin, which I assumed to be the coastal areas bordering the Mediterranean Sea and excluding the mountainous regions. Perhaps I am mistaken?



Yes, you're mistaken, but even without a knowledge of agriculture, the key is Mt. Ararat. It's not in a coastal region. If you start from the standpoint that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, even towards the bottom then you can't have a regional flood lasting 150 days. So, the location is something else that you have to say is a lie.


----------



## rookie

And besides, the Noah waited for a week for that dove to come back, how far can a bird fly for 3.5 days.....assuming it was flying in a straight line. And my big question, is why bother bring 2 of every kind of animal on board to preserve them if it was only a local flood. As I mentioned before. God: "Noah, move 5000 miles away.. I am going to flood this area"

And who cares if it's 10 000 miles...there was a 100 yr span, and at this point, couldn't other men go along with him, if they suspected something and survive as well? What if someone was already living that distance away.....they would have been spared....


----------



## Peairtach

*Raymond*


> especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?



Thanks for that post Raymond.

It seems that some OECs may be likely to plump for a regional flood partly based on their view of the strata being associated with long creation periods, but also, as likely, or more likely, because they are more open to current popular science having weight in interpreting the Bible, anyway. Therefore if people posit that a global flood is impossible, the OECs are more likely to go for that.

But OECs think the scientific evidence for a very old earth is very strong, whereas the evidence for evolution is very weak. If popular current science has got evolution wrong, may it not have got geology, etc, wrong?

*rookie*


> Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?



I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.

On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.

Day One begins at Genesis 1:3


> And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.



Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).


----------



## rookie

Peairtach said:


> *Raymond*
> 
> 
> 
> especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *rookie*
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.
> 
> On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.
> 
> Day One begins at Genesis 1:3
> 
> 
> 
> And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).
Click to expand...


So verses 1 and 2 are a completely different context and creation? That now gives room for the evolution debate. I know sometimes we try to count how many angels could dance on a pin head (trying to go over technical). But at the same time, IF evolution had never surfaced, would anyone believe in that gap between verses 1 and 2?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

rookie said:


> I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.
> 
> Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.
> 
> 
> But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?
> 
> I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......



Now what does that tell you about the age of the Earth? If people have really been around for 200,000 years as scientists suggest, what do you think our world population would be today?


----------



## CharlieJ

Bill The Baptist said:


> Now what does that tell you about the age of the Earth? If people have really been around for 200,000 years as scientists suggest, what do you think our world population would be today?



Impossible to tell. Continuous population growth is a modern phenomenon fueled by technological advances in agriculture. Before the late medieval/early modern period, world population was capped by food production. In fact, a relatively stable population was assumed to be an unchanging fact of human existence. Pre-modern economic theories were built on this hypothesis.


----------



## Peairtach

rookie said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raymond*
> 
> 
> 
> especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *rookie*
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.
> 
> On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.
> 
> Day One begins at Genesis 1:3
> 
> 
> 
> And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So verses 1 and 2 are a completely different context and creation? That now gives room for the evolution debate. I know sometimes we try to count how many angels could dance on a pin head (trying to go over technical). But at the same time, IF evolution had never surfaced, would anyone believe in that gap between verses 1 and 2?
Click to expand...


I don't hold to the "ruin/reconstruction" theory. All I'm saying is that the text appears to indicate that the unformed and unfilled heavens and earth were created before Day One. We don't have a Day on which the unformed and unfilled heavens and earth were created. On which of the Six Days was this "blank canvas" created?


----------



## Afterthought

Peairtach said:


> It seems that some OECs may be likely to plump for a regional flood partly based on their view of the strata being associated with long creation periods, but also, as likely, or more likely, because they are more open to current popular science having weight in interpreting the Bible, anyway. Therefore if people posit that a global flood is impossible, the OECs are more likely to go for that.
> 
> But OECs think the scientific evidence for a very old earth is very strong, whereas the evidence for evolution is very weak. If popular current science has got evolution wrong, may it not have got geology, etc, wrong?


An OEC wouldn't think that way, or at the very least the day-age strand wouldn't, and the question pretty much answers itself. There are two reasons why they wouldn't follow popular science on evolution. Firstly, OECs tend to see evolution as not actually science but rather as a religious sort of thing. Secondly, they also see evolution as causing some big problems in the Bible (e.g., was there a literal Adam?)--and so the Bible cannot be re-interpreted to include it (although I did once see a TE create a literal, albeit unlikely, interpretation that included a literal Adam!)--while they see long ages and a regional flood doing no harm--and so they re-interpret the Bible to accommodate those things. On the other hand, they see the science for an old earth and a regional flood as quite correct.

Because they see the evidence strong in one case and weak in the other, they accept one and reject the other (along with the reason that they see it as causing theological problems). There is much good scientific evidence for long-ages and no global flood, but there is little to none in evolution's case (which is why it is seen as bad science). Because they see popular science in the case of evolution as not science at all, they don't feel that the method of science in general, which shows the earth to be old and to have no global flood, is wrong; in their case, they would see evolution as departing from true, good methods of science while in the other cases popular science remains true to its methods. So it's not so much a matter of following popular science in interpreting nature but following (what they see as) good science. Since good science and popular science intersect at many points, there's no reason to reject popular science at those points. But since popular science turns into bad science in the case of evolution, it is rejected by OECs. Although popular science is wrong in one case, it isn't wrong in the other because it investigated the data properly according to the methods of science.


----------



## Peairtach

Thanks for that explanation from someone who was OEC.


----------

