[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[dad]

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


I have heard the claims that the flood would be impossible, because so much water falling down, under the laws of physics would cause enough heat to end life on earth.

One must also conclude, that the same laws make this verse impossible, in creation week. I agree. Notice that life was created, and put on earth DAYS later, so this massive planetary movement of water and land allowed life days later.

Either the present laws were not in effect, or the bible is a crock. I can understand the nominal believers, that claim it was not really days but long ages. This bit, they can reconcile. What about bible believers, in the more literal sense? How can you claim both that the bible is true, and that the present laws were in effect??

 

[Packrat]

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


I have heard the claims that the flood would be impossible, because so much water falling down, under the laws of physics would cause enough heat to end life on earth.

One must also conclude, that the same laws make this verse impossible, in creation week. I agree. Notice that life was created, and put on earth DAYS later, so this massive planetary movement of water and land allowed life days later.

Either the present laws were not in effect, or the bible is a crock. I can understand the nominal believers, that claim it was not really days but long ages. This bit, they can reconcile. What about bible believers, in the more literal sense? How can you claim both that the bible is true, and that the present laws were in effect??

My advice to you is that if you want a sane discussion or even a discussion at all, then drop your troll's club. Your statements are almost blunt to the point of being abusive. Anyway, I tend to believe in a day-age (age meaning simply a period of time) interpretation and not 24-hour days (this idea is something developed in later civilization I think). So since I don't believe this 6-7 24-hour-days interpretation to be Biblical, I'll have to relegate this matter to those who do.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

My advice to you is that if you want a sane discussion or even a discussion at all, then drop your troll's club.

Ditto

... Anyway, I tend to believe in a day-age (age meaning simply a period of time) interpretation and not 24-hour days (this idea is something developed in later civilization I think). So since I don't believe this 6-7 24-hour-days interpretation to be Biblical, I'll have to relegate this matter to those who do.

Packrat,
Scripture interpets Scripture. Sometimes the answers to our questions are hiding in places that you would not think to look. Creation theology in the 10 commandments, for example:

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made it in six days. To reinforce that thought, is this verse.

Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Do we honor the Sabbath every seventh age, or every seventh 24 hour period?


Dad,
I can believe the Bible account because I have a personal relationship with the Creator through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have never been able to believe that nothing managed to turn itself into everything. No matter how long it took. The thought that some of the nothing became sea, some of it dry land, some of it became trees, and some of it became animals....I can't even get a handle on that thought process.

 

[Packrat]

My advice to you is that if you want a sane discussion or even a discussion at all, then drop your troll's club.

Ditto

... Anyway, I tend to believe in a day-age (age meaning simply a period of time) interpretation and not 24-hour days (this idea is something developed in later civilization I think). So since I don't believe this 6-7 24-hour-days interpretation to be Biblical, I'll have to relegate this matter to those who do.

Packrat,
Scripture interpets Scripture. Sometimes the answers to our questions are hiding in places that you would not think to look. Creation theology in the 10 commandments, for example:

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made it in six days. To reinforce that thought, is this verse.

Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Do we honor the Sabbath every seventh age, or every seventh 24 hour period?

I don't honor the sabbath every seventh 24 hour period. I do it from dusk to dusk as it was supposed to be observed - not by 24 60-minute intervals. And depending on where you live and when it is, the day can be longer or shorter. If you live somewhere near the poles, then you can have a six-month day and a six-month night. God called the light day and the darkness night. That's the only thing we know about the day in reference to the Sabbath. Whether or not it came later, the ancient Hebrews I think observed a day as the period from dusk to dusk. I don't think they ever had a 24-hour day until maybe after the Greeks or something like that. That's why I say the 24-hour day is a later invention.

So by God's standards it appears that the day can vary quite a bit even with the Sun. However, it should be noted that God designated these periods of time days even before there was a Sun. What was he then going by? Why should we be the ones to say that he had a 24-hour day in mind?

Of course God could have also been basing his day on some sort of protostar which had not yet developed into our Sun, but even then the earth was still formless after the first day so I doubt it would have been rotating in any coherent manner so as to lay down 24-hour periods of time as days.

 

[dad]

My advice to you is that if you want a sane discussion or even a discussion at all, then drop your troll's club. Your statements are almost blunt to the point of being abusive.

Thanks for the advice. No idea what you are talking about, but hey, thanks anyway.

Anyway, I tend to believe in a day-age (age meaning simply a period of time) interpretation and not 24-hour days (this idea is something developed in later civilization I think).

You are welcome yo your beliefs. I think you might have a time of it, trying to prove your claims here, however. In fact, I am sure of it. Work on that.

So since I don't believe this 6-7 24-hour-days interpretation to be Biblical, I'll have to relegate this matter to those who do.

Guess so.

 

[dad]

Packrat,
Scripture interpets Scripture. Sometimes the answers to our questions are hiding in places that you would not think to look. Creation theology in the 10 commandments, for example:

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made it in six days. To reinforce that thought, is this verse.

Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Do we honor the Sabbath every seventh age, or every seventh 24 hour period?

Good points.

Dad,
I can believe the Bible account because I have a personal relationship with the Creator through the Lord Jesus Christ.

So can I. Don't think I don't believe it 100%. I do. I think the universe at that time had different laws, so that is why there was no killing heat. My question was that how could the waters and land of a planet be moved without heat, according to science, and known present laws?? My answer is that it could not be, the laws were different.

I have never been able to believe that nothing managed to turn itself into everything. No matter how long it took. The thought that some of the nothing became sea, some of it dry land, some of it became trees, and some of it became animals....I can't even get a handle on that thought process.

Of course not, I think that should be obvious to men. God created our universe, and life, and earth, and did so in a week.

 

[dad]

I don't honor the sabbath every seventh 24 hour period. I do it from dusk to dusk as it was supposed to be observed - not by 24 60-minute intervals.

Would that not include a morning and an evening, then??!! That is another marker for you. A confirmation of the measurements involved. Think about it.

And depending on where you live and when it is, the day can be longer or shorter. If you live somewhere near the poles, then you can have a six-month day and a six-month night.

So what??? What if a day used to be a little shorter, and a year, say, only 360 days, or some such, at the time??? Point is, a day was a day, was a day. It even had a morning and an evening, for the easily confused.

God called the light day and the darkness night. That's the only thing we know about the day in reference to the Sabbath. Whether or not it came later, the ancient Hebrews I think observed a day as the period from dusk to dusk. I don't think they ever had a 24-hour day until maybe after the Greeks or something like that. That's why I say the 24-hour day is a later invention.

How different was a day, really?? I do not read hours in Genesis anyhow, you are quibbling over a moot point.

So by God's standards it appears that the day can vary quite a bit even with the Sun. However, it should be noted that God designated these periods of time days even before there was a Sun. What was he then going by? Why should we be the ones to say that he had a 24-hour day in mind?

Well, I think God had the wherewithal to know what a day was even 6000 years ago. One lady in Prov 8 watched Him create the earth. Do you think the show lasted billions of years???? I mean really.

Of course God could have also been basing his day on some sort of protostar which had not yet developed into our Sun, but even then the earth was still formless after the first day so I doubt it would have been rotating in any coherent manner so as to lay down 24-hour periods of time as days.

In the new heavens coming, we need not the light of the sun, either. That is not the measure of a day in eternity. It is a pretty good clock, however, as we know, but not the be all end all.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Packrat,
Scripture interpets Scripture. Sometimes the answers to our questions are hiding in places that you would not think to look. Creation theology in the 10 commandments, for example:

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made it in six days. To reinforce that thought, is this verse.

Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Do we honor the Sabbath every seventh age, or every seventh 24 hour period?

I don't honor the sabbath every seventh 24 hour period. I do it from dusk to dusk as it was supposed to be observed - not by 24 60-minute intervals.

Packrat,
My saying "every seventh 24 hour period" might have been confusing. that is = to meaning "Do we honor the Sabbath day once a week as opposed to once every seven hundred years, or seven thousand years or every seven million years. Because Exodus says that God made the earth in seven days, and for that reason we are to rest on the seventh day. Point being, that Exodus says that they are literal days and not ages.

Dad,
As for how He did it, that seems to be a very strange point to debate. Scripture says that He spoke and it happened.

My understanding of Science is that science needs proof for everything. Christianity is a walk by faith, where the power is in words, in prayer, in blood, and in so many other things that can not be seen in a petri dish.

It seems impossible to me that someone could believe bits and pieces about God's power and ability and not believe all of it. Raising people from the dead goes against scientific rules. Making the blind to see the lame to walk and the deaf to hear. Walking on water. Taking prophets from where they are, to another place and time, and bringing them back with instructions to write down what they saw... science can't explain any of that.

You may say that the Bible is not accurate but a science book is, but what I hear has nothing to do with science or creation. What I hear is your need to build your faith in the Lord. I believe that the Bible proves many scientific points. When science and Scripture disagree, I choose to believe God...not something that some scientist has misunderstood.

 

[Packrat]

My advice to you is that if you want a sane discussion or even a discussion at all, then drop your troll's club. Your statements are almost blunt to the point of being abusive.

Thanks for the advice. No idea what you are talking about, but hey, thanks anyway.

Sorry, dad. When you refer to the Bible as a crock - whether or not you mean to call it that - your strong use of language comes off as very blunt and a bit abusive. Also when you repeat question marks or exclamation marks it tends to be labeled as "shouting" when on the internet. Some people are not well-versed in netiquette, so I apologize if I mistook your post for being offensive.

Anyway, I tend to believe in a day-age (age meaning simply a period of time) interpretation and not 24-hour days (this idea is something developed in later civilization I think).

You are welcome yo your beliefs. I think you might have a time of it, trying to prove your claims here, however. In fact, I am sure of it. Work on that.

You might notice that I make very few claims as to what a day was to God. I'm not upholding some billion-year day concept. In fact I'm saying that we don't know what it was. The only people here who may tend to make claims as to what a day is are those who try to interpret the culture of the ancient past with the preconceived notion that it was exactly as it is today.

There is no 24-hour day spoken of in Genesis. There is no measurement for an hour, a minute or a second. The only thing we are told is that a day was composed of light and dark. For the ancient Hebrews, the day was sunset to sunset and probably composed roughly a modern 24-hour day. For God, however, there was no Sun and probably no coherent rotation of the Earth. Whatever this light was that God brought into being didn't have to conform to our modern Westernized version of a day and therefore shouldn't be judged with our modern civilized belief of what a day should be or should have been.

For anyone still stuck on this, take your 24-hour concept of a day and throw it out the window. Don't think about it any more. A day is light and dark. A day is sunrise to sunset. So once the sun sets, the day is over and a new day has begun (it is the morning of the new day). So if the ancient Hebrews lived near the poles and they were told to rest every seventh day, then they would probably be resting at the end of six years (i.e. 8760 hours) instead of at the end of every six modern days (i.e. 144 hours).

I see your guys' line of reasoning, but I still reject it because it doesn't make sense to me in light of the ancient culture of the day. Correct, they were to rest after every six days, but their day just so happened to be more or less equivalent to our modern 24-hour day. Since a day is light and dark, a day could have been anything for God since there probably was no stable rotation of the Earth or any Sun yet. So I still believe that God rested on the seventh day, but what the six days were like beforehand I cannot say other than the fact that they were days (i.e. composed of light and dark).

And, yes, I've heard of the hypothesis that when light shined on the world it could have been God's light as when he gives his light to his people later in Revelation, but it is also surmised that in the Big Bang Theory there would have been a tremendous burst of light (if even for a very very short while) in the beginning when light was first formed. I admire people's faith; I really do, but I don't really like the idea of blind faith. God may bend the rules once in a while, and he may not. Just because contemporary science cannot explain a miracle does not necessarily mean that God bends the rules all of the time or even at all on any occasion. It just means that we have not yet acquired the understanding to explain how he chooses to work. In this case, both those who have blind faith and those who need some measure of logic in their faith can rest assured, because contemporary science does not contradict the Genesis account at least on this point.

I hope that helps to clear my position up.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Okey dokey.

I think I will keep my clock, my calendar, and my definition of what a day is, and I will mosey on from here.

Have a nice dawn to dusk. 8-)

 

[Packrat]

Okey dokey.

I think I will keep my clock, my calendar, and my definition of what a day is, and I will mosey on from here.

Have a nice dawn to dusk. 8-)

Dusk to dusk. : You have to remember the day began at dusk and ended at dusk. I feel like you still do not understand something or at least are still thinking in modern terms while trying to tackle an issue that began in premodern times. At any rate, I hope you gave me the same courtesy I gave you and read my post in its entirety.

 

[dad]

Dad,
As for how He did it, that seems to be a very strange point to debate. Scripture says that He spoke and it happened.

I don't think it matters that much how He did it, but, present laws could not have been in effect, or life would not be possible days later. That He said it, and it was so is not an issue. If the laws were different, one would assume that the universe was in closer sync with His will, no?

My understanding of Science is that science needs proof for everything. Christianity is a walk by faith, where the power is in words, in prayer, in blood, and in so many other things that can not be seen in a petri dish.

But that proof is limited to things physical, and to things assumed to be in this present state of things, like laws. There is no proof for many so called science claims, and never will be anyhow. Such as the big bang, or the pond. That is just a world view, that we are pond scum, and animals, and beasts. We should try and separate what is actually well supported, and what is fables.

It seems impossible to me that someone could believe bits and pieces about God's power and ability and not believe all of it. Raising people from the dead goes against scientific rules. Making the blind to see the lame to walk and the deaf to hear. Walking on water. Taking prophets from where they are, to another place and time, and bringing them back with instructions to write down what they saw... science can't explain any of that.

Of course not, any more than a fairy tale can. Those things involve more than the physical only mandate of science, that is, the spiritual. That is out of the box of science.

You may say that the Bible is not accurate but a science book is, but what I hear has nothing to do with science or creation. What I hear is your need to build your faith in the Lord. I believe that the Bible proves many scientific points. When science and Scripture disagree, I choose to believe God...not something that some scientist has misunderstood.

Me too, except, I also have found that science does not disagree at all, in any way, shape, or form. It is just too limited in scope to look at the past with more than casual, baseless assumptions.

 

[dad]

Sorry, dad. When you refer to the Bible as a crock - whether or not you mean to call it that - your strong use of language comes off as very blunt and a bit abusive. Also when you repeat question marks or exclamation marks it tends to be labeled as "shouting" when on the internet. Some people are not well-versed in netiquette, so I apologize if I mistook your post for being offensive.

Oh, OK. No, I do not personally think the bible is anything but the true word of God.

You might notice that I make very few claims as to what a day was to God. I'm not upholding some billion-year day concept. In fact I'm saying that we don't know what it was. The only people here who may tend to make claims as to what a day is are those who try to interpret the culture of the ancient past with the preconceived notion that it was exactly as it is today.

Well, since it was qualified with the morning and evening were the first day, etc, it really is not rocket science, there. Noah saw it rain hard for 40 days. Does that mean he was millions of years old, if a day is really thousands, or millions of years??

[quote:e4a6b]There is no 24-hour day spoken of in Genesis. There is no measurement for an hour, a minute or a second. The only thing we are told is that a day was composed of light and dark. For the ancient Hebrews, light and dark was the period of sunrise to sunset and probably composed roughly a modern 24-hour day.

Bingo. Close enough. A day is a day, is a day.

For God, however, there was no Sun and probably no coherent rotation of the Earth. Whatever this light was that God brought into being didn't have to conform to our modern Westernized version of a day and therefore shouldn't be judged with our modern civilized belief of what a day should be or should have been.

I agree, but a day does. Light did not. How else could light get here from far stars if it was this light we know??? That is far too slow.

For anyone still stuck on this, take your 24-hour concept of a day and throw it out the window. Don't think about it any more. A day is light and dark. A day is sunrise to sunset. So once the sun sets, the day is over and a new day has begun (it is the morning of the new day). So if the ancient Hebrews lived near the poles and they were told to rest every seventh day, then they would probably be resting at the end of six years (i.e. 8760 hours) instead of at the end of every six modern days (i.e. 144 hours).

You assume that the only way to mark a day was day and night. If someone trekked to the poles, they would still have an idea what a day was. So did God, before He made the sun.

I see your guys' line of reasoning, but I still reject it because it doesn't make sense to me in light of the ancient culture of the day. Correct, they were to rest after every six days, but their day just so happened to be more or less equivalent to our modern 24-hour day. Since a day is light and dark, a day could have been anything for God since there probably was no stable rotation of the Earth or any Sun yet. So I still believe that God rested on the seventh day, but what the six days were like beforehand I cannot say other than the fact that they were days (i.e. composed of light and dark).

Not just any light and dark, morning and evening. It could not be anything.

And, yes, I've heard of the hypothesis that when light shined on the world it could have been God's light as when he gives his light to his people later in Revelation, but it is also surmised that in the Big Bang Theory there would have been a tremendous burst of light (if even for a very very short while) in the beginning when light was first formed.

That requires millions of non existent years, and is pure religion.

I admire people's faith; I really do, but I don't really like the idea of blind faith. God may bend the rules once in a while, and he may not. Just because contemporary science cannot explain a miracle does not necessarily mean that God bends the rules all of the time or even at all on any occasion. It just means that we have not yet acquired the understanding to explain how he chooses to work. In this case, both those who have blind faith and those who need some measure of logic in their faith can rest assured, because contemporary science does not contradict the Genesis account at least on this point.

I hope that helps to clear my position up.

[/quote:e4a6b]
Well, why make a planet under laws that needed to be bent?? Otherwise, we all would get cooked?? I see no reason NOT to assume that the universe of the time had different laws, and no reason to assume it did. I mean, why need 6 trillion little fairies cooling rocks, and 8 billion angels blowing on the earth to cool it, in the time frames given?? It is simpler to assume different laws then. Remember Occam, the monk's famous concept.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

...If the laws were different, one would assume that the universe was in closer sync with His will, no?

Closer sync with His will?
Yep. Creation was pre-fall.

**edit**

dad, It just occurred to me that this might be what you are looking for.

Notice Gen 2:5, that it had not rained.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Here is the first record we have of rain. At that same time, the 'fountains of the great deep' were broken up.

Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


That 'law' that you are searching for that made the earth so different, might be what is recorded here. Because of sin, the earth was very different before the fall than it was after the fall. Also, because of sin, the world wide flood changed things dramatically. I have heard studies that talk about what the earths atmasphere might have been like before and after the flood, and the changes that took place.

I wish I had the names of those who have researched the topic. Perhaps you can find something on line that gives some insight into the pre-flood world.

 

[Packrat]

Sorry, Gabby, about my last post. I reread my post and found that I had mentioned light and dark being sunrise to sunset and then drew a parallel between that and the day. The day should be sunset to sunset and is composed of light and dark. It isn't sunrise to sunset. My bad for confusing both of us. :-D

I'll try to write up some more on this later. So far I think I've read everyone's posts, but I don't have the time to post back yet.

 

[dad]

...If the laws were different, one would assume that the universe was in closer sync with His will, no?

Closer sync with His will?
Yep. Creation was pre-fall.

OK, so you seem to admit a major major change pre fall, and one would assume you admit the new heavens coming. Now, why at the fall? What support do you have from the bible, or science for that??

**edit**

dad, It just occurred to me that this might be what you are looking for.

Notice Gen 2:5, that it had not rained.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Here is the first record we have of rain. At that same time, the 'fountains of the great deep' were broken up.

I agree, the no rain is a symptom of the different state. Now, why not extend that to the flood, and a bit past, to allow for a real flood??? I looked into it, there is no reason!

Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


That 'law' that you are searching for that made the earth so different, might be what is recorded here. Because of sin, the earth was very different before the fall than it was after the fall. Also, because of sin, the world wide flood changed things dramatically. I have heard studies that talk about what the earths atmasphere might have been like before and after the flood, and the changes that took place.

Ah, but think about it. The water coming down from above would also cook all life, by the laws of physics, just by falling, that much water! Now, why would we assume that it still never rained after the flood?? Think about it. See if you, or anyone else can come up with an answer for that.

I wish I had the names of those who have researched the topic. Perhaps you can find something on line that gives some insight into the pre-flood world.

Yes, that it rained no on the earth, but a mist came up to water the earth is very very well known.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

OK, so you seem to admit a major major change pre fall, and one would assume you admit the new heavens coming. Now, why at the fall? What support do you have from the bible, or science for that??

In the case of the fall ~ judgment. God cursed the ground. Keep in mind, He has a plan. To claim back what man gave away. A deeper study of the word will reveal how the Lord Jesus Christ took the curse when He hung on the cross. Right down to that crown of thorns.


Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is]
the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

... I agree, the no rain is a symptom of the different state.

I don't really understand this part of your question.

Now, why not extend that to the flood, and a bit past, to allow for a real flood???

I looked into it, there is no reason!

As far as a reason? Judgment again. Again, His plan is to save whosoever will.

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

... Ah, but think about it. The water coming down from above would also cook all life, by the laws of physics, just by falling, that much water! Now, why would we assume that it still never rained after the flood?? Think about it. See if you, or anyone else can come up with an answer for that.

Who is assuming that it never rained after the flood? Also, not all of the flood came in the form of rain.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
I found a web site that might answer some of your questions. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html


As far as your statement that it would "cook all life"....it pretty much did. Notice that God had a plan to save Noah and his family, and the animals. Again, I am not sure what you mean by a "real flood".

I think that the lesson to be learned here is that God created the laws of physics, however, just like time and space, He is not bound by them.
As for me, when the laws of physics (or anything else) seem to contradict Scripture ~ I choose to believe God.

 

[dad]

In the case of the fall ~ judgment. God cursed the ground. Keep in mind, He has a plan. To claim back what man gave away. A deeper study of the word will reveal how the Lord Jesus Christ took the curse when He hung on the cross. Right down to that crown of thorns.
Of course He has a plan. But what exactly do you think the ground is??? Is it the earth we walk on

... I agree, the no rain is a symptom of the different state


I don't really understand this part of your question.

Now, why not extend that to the flood, and a bit past, to allow for a real flood???

What I meant there was, if the laws of physics were different in creation week, why not have them different at the flood, as well? That explains why the flood seems so impossible to present science.

I looked into it, there is no reason!

As far as a reason? Judgment again. Again, His plan is to save whosoever will.

I meant no reason by science, or the bible to think the laws were the same in the flood year, any more than creation week. Not sure about who you think was getting some judgment, or when, or why. -Unless you mean the fall?

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Right, I think most know why man had to be wiped out there. The issue I raised was not IF the flood happened, or why, but under what laws of physics, or different laws.

... Ah, but think about it. The water coming down from above would also cook all life, by the laws of physics, just by falling, that much water! Now, why would we assume that it still never rained after the flood?? Think about it. See if you, or anyone else can come up with an answer for that.

Who is assuming that it never rained after the flood? Also, not all of the flood came in the form of rain.

I don't know whether it did, or not, do you?? Of course it rained in the flood , but afterwards, who knows??

Maybe the rain as a regular thing started when the present laws of the universe began. If that was after the flood, then, we could still have the old water coming up to water the earth from below. No??

As far as your statement that it would "cook all life"....it pretty much did. Notice that God had a plan to save Noah and his family, and the animals. Again, I am not sure what you mean by a "real flood".

The earth was not cooked, it was drowned. Big difference. The kind of heat we are talking about would have cooked Noah as well. If water to cover a planet came down from the sky, there would, I am told, be far too much heat produced. (under current laws)

I think that the lesson to be learned here is that God created the laws of physics, however, just like time and space, He is not bound by them.
As for me, when the laws of physics (or anything else) seem to contradict Scripture ~ I choose to believe God.

No, I see no evidence of any laws of physics as part of creation at all. On the contrary, they could not have been part of it, as the OP brings out. The laws of physics only contradict the bible, if they were in place at the time. They couldn't have been. I also see no evidence that there will be present laws of physics in the new universe, or, 'new heavens' coming. The present state of the universe, and it's laws will pass away, they are not eternal. The bible makes it clear that this earth we know, as is, will pass away, as well as the heavens we know.

I see the current laws and state as likely having been only here since after the flood.

 

[wavy]

The 'days' of Genesis are literal. When the Hebrew yom is used in conjunction with a numerical adjective ('day one', 'day two', etc.) it always means a 24hr. literal day. There are absolutely no examples in the Hebrew bible, as far as I am aware, that specify a number of days and the days aren't literal.

Genesis makes it even clearer by dividing the day into evening and morning, a technical phrase meaning a literal day (cf. Daniel 8:14).

And the idea that the laws of physics in the mind of the author(s) of Genesis 1 (as they would understand 'physics') weren't in place is absurd, as it implies that God created more laws after the six days were complete, contradicting the fact that he rested on the seventh day from creation according to the narrative.

 

[wavy]

So by God's standards it appears that the day can vary quite a bit even with the Sun. However, it should be noted that God designated these periods of time days even before there was a Sun. What was he then going by? Why should we be the ones to say that he had a 24-hour day in mind?

This argument would work if God actually narrated in the first person the events of Genesis 1. However, it is the author who employs the use of time periods to describe the events of creation. He was describing them in his own vernacular.