[__ Science __ ] Noah’s Ark: The Problem of Violent Waves

[KV-44-v1]

No, it leaked from the start, and had to be continuously pumped out. It's the nature of wooden vessels that large.

Just because a boat/ship CAN leak does not mean it WILL.

The nature of bugs is that they crawl all around. Does that mean that 5 bugs WILL crawl into my room on September 5th 2025?

 

[Who Me]

No, it leaked from the start, and had to be continuously pumped out. It's the nature of wooden vessels that large.

And your evidence for this is?

 

[KV-44-v1]

And your evidence for this is?

Yup. Nowhere in history, nowhere in the Bible did Noah's ark leak. If it did, the animals and stuff would get flooded out and die. There'd be a mention of it in the Bible. No reason not to be included. Clearly the "leaking ark" theory is full of holes!

He's just ASSUMING that nearly everything that is today, can rationally be applied to the past. Typical evolutionist-based thinking.
Trees pre-flood were way different from now. They were much better than today.

 

[KV-44-v1]

answersingenesis.org/family/gender/how-god-intends-use-men-in-world/


answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/case-creation/


answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/feedback-does-bible-encourage-masters-beat-their-slaves/

youtube.com/shorts/CS_5QrXnBTQ <Watch to the end. RIP old age belief.>

.

 

[Barbarian]

Just because a boat/ship CAN leak does not mean it WILL.

It's the nature of large wooden vessels. That's what they do. Large wooden vessels flex due to wave action, and this makes them leak. Every large wooden vessel does this.

And your evidence for this is?

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands

This is why creationists will never build a copy of the Ark and actually test it. It would take on water and sink.

 

[Barbarian]

He's just ASSUMING that nearly everything that is today, can rationally be applied to the past. Typical evolutionist-based thinking.
Trees pre-flood were way different from now. They were much better than today.

Making up "just-so" stories won't help. Just supposing "well, physics was different then" isn't a very good excuse.

If one is allowed to make up any sort of story to handle problems with one's beliefs, then all things are equally likely.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It's the nature of large wooden vessels. That's what they do. Large wooden vessels flex due to wave action, and this makes them leak. Every large wooden vessel does this.

As you learned, just because a boat/ship CAN leak does not mean it WILL.

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands

"Today a ship built with postflood trees sank so therefore an Ark built with PRE-flood trees will too!" Terrible argument. Still extrapolating today into the past, evolution-believer's M.O.

What wood type was Wyoming made from? Now compare that to Noah's Ark material.

We don't really know what properties trees had before the Flood, except they were in much better condition.
Clearly, they were such they could survive the whole duration of the Flood.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Making up "just-so" stories won't help.

Says the Evolution believer.

Next Time You Beat a Virus, Thank Your Microbial Ancestors (21 Aug, 2024, Univ of Texas at Austin). This silly story was echoed uncritically at Science Daily and other websites all the way to India. The Darwinos at UTA tell us not to thank God for our highly-complex and effective immune systems; no, we must bow down to bacteria, giving them thanks and homage for the sheer dumb luck that won them the lottery.

“Viral infections are one of the evolutionary pressures that we have had since life began, and it is critical to always have some sort of defense,” said Pedro Leão, now an assistant professor at Radboud University in the Netherlands and a recent postdoctoral researcher in Baker’s lab. “When bacteria and archaea discovered tools that worked, they were passed down and are still part of our first line of defense.”

We’re calling you out, Pedro. We demand Freedom of Information access to documents describing your instrument that measures evolutionary pressure. We want to see its units and error bars. How was it calibrated? We also want to know why your paper at Nature Communications assumes evolution (the Stuff Happens Law) instead of considering all the hypotheses that could explain similarities, such as common design. Why did you exclude non-Darwinian explanations? Are you a materialist? Fess up!

See more at crev.info/2024/08/weird-evolution-stories/

Drunk Theory of the Brain Proposed – CEH

crev.info

Darwinism, an Excuse for Lazy Thinking – CEH

crev.info

Darwinism Dumbs Down Science – CEH

crev.info

Evolutionists Wing It with Stories – CEH

crev.info

Darwinists Try to Overcome Just-So Story Reputation – CEH

crev.info

How the Story Lost Its Just-So – CEH

crev.info

Just supposing "well, physics was different then" isn't a very good excuse.

Strawman. I didn't say physics was different, I said the trees were.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Crev:

"
The article becomes a mystery story – a scientific Sherlock Holmes short story. So far so good. It becomes even better as Pennisi and the scientists she brings in as characters do something honorable: they stick to empirical observations and hypothesis testing. Off they go, trying to determine the cause of the spots and stripes that people have long wondered about. Only the facts: what happens when this gene is knocked out or mutated? They begin with an old theory by mathematician Alan Turing that certain molecules could enhance or inhibit one another as they spread through a tissue. That served as a heuristic idea; can it survive the rigors of testing?

So Barsh’s team turned to domestic cats to track the identity of molecular activators and inhibitors of coat color. A decade ago, they tracked down a gene, Tabby, that, when mutated, gives tabby cats black blotches instead of their usual dark stripes. HudsonAlpha geneticist Christopher Kaelin found that same mutation in king cheetahs whose spots were unusually big and blotchy, suggesting the same genes color both wild and domestic cats.

Like many mysteries in science, an answer to one question leads to other questions.

Researchers had already shown the Turing mechanism involving Wnt and Dkk4 sets up the formation of hair follicles—but not coat color—later in mouse development. Barsh’s team, however, found that the color pattern in cats and possibly other mammals is established well before hair follicles appear, suggesting early color patterns may guide hair follicle pigmentation.
That simple interactions among well-known molecules can explain the variety of coat color patterns in mammals is an example of nature’s thriftiness, Headon says. “It suggests that the same molecules and pathways are likely to be reused for patterning of very different structures and at very different scales to form the intricate elements of the vertebrate anatomy.”

The ending may feel unsatisfactory, because it leaves the reader hanging with a high perhapsimaybecouldness index. Pennisi uses the words “may” and “possibly” and “suggests” too many times in the last sentences. There isn’t a complete answer yet. Never in this article, though, do the scientists take the cheap way out of saying, “It evolved.” They know more work needs to be done, but they are striving to connect testable causes to observable effects.



That’s the secret to keeping the “just-so” out of storytelling: kick Charlie out of the lab, and send his Darwin Flubber out with him. Instead of confabulating in Darwinese, using jargonwocky as fogma to cover incompetence, expecting the emergence of a mythoid by a poof spoof, connect testable causes to observable effects. It’s so easy. Evolutionary biologists should give it a try.



"

 

[Barbarian]

Making up "just-so" stories won't help. You can't clear up problems with your beliefs by inventing new beliefs to cover them.

Says the Evolution believer.

Comes down to evidence. It's a rough game, but it works.

Next Time You Beat a Virus, Thank Your Microbial Ancestors (21 Aug, 2024, Univ of Texas at Austin). This silly story was echoed uncritically at Science Daily and other websites all the way to India. The Darwinos at UTA tell us not to thank God for our highly-complex and effective immune systems; no, we must bow down to bacteria, giving them thanks and homage for the sheer dumb luck that won them the lottery.

It's kind of the same thing. God created the world for us to live in it.

we must bow down to bacteria, giving them thanks and homage for the sheer dumb luck that won them the lottery.

That's what you're missing. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. God thinks of everything.

And it isn't surprising that key parts of our immune system are genetically and structurally similar to those of the Archaea. Eukaryotes and the Archaea are more closely related to each other than either is to Prokaryotes.

We’re calling you out, Pedro. We demand Freedom of Information access to documents describing your instrument that measures evolutionary pressure.

All you have to do is look in the literature...

Phys. Rev. X 5, 011016 – Published 17 February 2015​

Quantifying Selective Pressures Driving Bacterial Evolution Using Lineage Analysis​

Abstract ​

Organisms use a variety of strategies to adapt to their environments and maximize long-term growth potential, but quantitative characterization of the benefits conferred by the use of such strategies, as well as their impact on the whole population’s rate of growth, remains challenging. Here, we use a path-integral framework that describes how selection acts on lineages—i.e., the life histories of individuals and their ancestors—to demonstrate that lineage-based measurements can be used to quantify the selective pressures acting on a population. We apply this analysis to Escherichia coli bacteria exposed to cyclical treatments of carbenicillin, an antibiotic that interferes with cell-wall synthesis and affects cells in an age-dependent manner. While the extensive characterization of the life history of thousands of cells is necessary to accurately extract the age-dependent selective pressures caused by carbenicillin, the same measurement can be recapitulated using lineage-based statistics of a single surviving cell. Population-wide evolutionary pressures can be extracted from the properties of the surviving lineages within a population, providing an alternative and efficient procedure to quantify the evolutionary forces acting on a population. Importantly, this approach is not limited to age-dependent selection, and the framework can be generalized to detect signatures of other trait-specific selection using lineage-based measurements.

We also want to know why your paper at Nature Communications assumes evolution (the Stuff Happens Law) instead of considering all the hypotheses that could explain similarities, such as common design. Why did you exclude non-Darwinian explanations? Are you a materialist? Fess up!

"Common design" fails to explain the differences between homologous features (like the above) and analogous design (like wings on insects and birds). That being so, it explains nothing at all, and scientists don't use it for that reason.

And of course, assuming that trees were somehow able to cancel out the physics of sagging and hogging in wooden vessels is useless without some evidence. The evidence from structure of fossil wood shows that it was no different than wood today.

The titles you posted sound interesting. They deserve their own threads, if you want to talk about them.

 

[Barbarian]

That’s the secret to keeping the “just-so” out of storytelling: kick Charlie out of the lab, and send his Darwin Flubber out with him. Instead of confabulating in Darwinese, using jargonwocky as fogma to cover incompetence, expecting the emergence of a mythoid by a poof spoof, connect testable causes to observable effects. It’s so easy. Evolutionary biologists should give it a try.

You may be surprised to know that many of us don't spend much time in labs. Biologists spend their time observing populations to learn more about them. And early on, population geneticists observed how evolution actually works in the real world. And BTW, this led to another (the first) "instrument" for measuring natural selection, the Hardy-Weinberg Principal. Given the allele distribution of generation, X, the principle predicts the distribution for generation X+1. If the conditions remain constant, and the prediction fails, it is a measure of selective pressure.
It's accessible to anyone with high school math, so easier than more recent instruments:

Hardy–Weinberg principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a lot more to learn about how we know about these things in population genetics. Would you like to learn more about it?

Another good example is the genetic study of Darwin's finches over several decades. The Beak of the Finch is a good and not too technical description of how it went. Worth reading.

 

[Barbarian]

It's the nature of large wooden vessels. That's what they do. Large wooden vessels flex due to wave action, and this makes them leak. Every large wooden vessel does this.

As you learned, just because a boat/ship CAN leak does not mean it WILL.

Always does. No point in denial. It's just physics.

"Today a ship built with postflood trees sank so therefore an Ark built with PRE-flood trees will too!" Terrible argument.

It's a very solid argument unless you can show "pre-flood" trees were different. What do you have?

What wood type was Wyoming made from? Now compare that to Noah's Ark material.

Depends on the part of the ship. They use different woods for different purposes. Show us what tree Noah used.

We don't really know what properties trees had before the Flood, except they were in much better condition.

Since scripture doesn't say so, do you have some evidence for that belief? Keep in mind, it's not the condition of the wood that causes leaking, it's the length of the vessel that makes wood flex. If it didn't flex, it would break. Inferior wood sometimes does that in ships.

 

[Who Me]

It's the nature of large wooden vessels. That's what they do. Large wooden vessels flex due to wave action, and this makes them leak. Every large wooden vessel does this.


Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands

This is why creationists will never build a copy of the Ark and actually test it. It would take on water and sink.

For a scientist you are showing a remarkable unscientific attitude to information that does not fit your preconceived idea.

I've shown from a reputable source that the Wyoming would extinguish the boiler fires in storms.
You fail to recognise the difference between a new built vessel and a past its sell by date vessel.

You make a repeated claim that creationist will never build an Ark to test whether it would work.

As a Christian you know the Ark worked as described, if it was a made up myth then Christianity is made up.

Could the Ark have survived a year plus at sea subject to storms etc?

Why not, we don't know how many layers of planks made up it's structure or how it was

braced, but we do know it was coated inside and out with pitch, historically a by product of forestry.
There is no reason that you have provid3d that doesn't show why a well built Ark could cope with the stresses and strains of a year plus at sea.

In fact given the over a u dance of pla t and animal life in creation, it could well be that God's instructions for the details of construction considerably over engineered its struction.
We don't know, only that it worked.

 

[Barbarian]

For a scientist you are showing a remarkable unscientific attitude to information that does not fit your preconceived idea.

I've shown from a reputable source that the Wyoming would extinguish the boiler fires in storms.
You fail to recognise the difference between a new built vessel and a past its sell by date vessel.

They had to, to prevent damage to the engine. Which is likely why the Wyoming sunk in a storm. The leaks continued but were not pumped out in the storm.

You fail to recognise the difference between a new built vessel and a past its sell by date vessel.

It wasn't quite 15 years old when it sunk. From the start, it leaked heavily.

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.

Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You make a repeated claim that creationist will never build an Ark to test whether it would work.

For the reasons we've discussed. No way to stop leaking in a wooden ship that size.

As a Christian you know the Ark worked as described, if it was a made up myth then Christianity is made up.

Some people say Christ's message is a myth because He used parables, too. They're wrong. So are you.

You might also argue that God just placed a magic shield around the hull that kept out the water. But adding miracles to make one's interpretation work is not a good idea.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Matching Dinosaur Footprints Separated by Atlantic Ocean

A new find makes one fossil trackway even more incredible because the trackway is split between two continents and separated by the Atlantic Ocean.

answersingenesis.org

twitter.com/aigkenham/status/1831287617360425145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
twitter.com/aigkenham/status/1830917797666316680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://rae.org

.

 

[Barbarian]

The Twitter stuff mistakes day-age interpretations with allegory.
The link set off all my malware systems. Be careful.

 

[Barbarian]

"The fact that fossil trackways (footprints) exist is in itself incredible—footprints aren’t routinely fossilizing in the present."

They are. They are just rare, as they always have been.

"The land later catastrophically broke apart, and the continents quickly moved (via catastrophic plate tectonics) to their current positions."

That's the problem. You see, the energy required to suddenly accelerate continents to velocities of roughly five and a half miles per day, and then rapidly decelerate it to the observed rate of a few centimeters per year, would have to be removed as heat.

Energy is 1/2 mass times (velocity squared). Given the density of granite and the volume of the continental crusts involved, we can determine the energy that would be given off. The relatively lower-mass oceans would have boiled, even with the high specific heat of water. I can do the numbers for you, if you really want to see them.

"The flood explains most of the fossils."

Knowledgeable YE creationists admit that it doesn't.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[KV-44-v1]

They are. They are just rare, as they always have been.

Where? In a few lucky incidents, right?

AIG: It takes unique conditions to rapidly bury footprints before they can be washed away

answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/footprints/matching-dinosaur-footprints-separated-atlantic-ocean/

"The land later catastrophically broke apart, and the continents quickly moved (via catastrophic plate tectonics) to their current positions."

That's the problem. You see, the energy required to suddenly accelerate continents to velocities of roughly five and a half miles per day, and then rapidly decelerate it to the observed rate of a few centimeters per year, would have to be removed as heat.

You didn't factor in the "fountains of the deep".
As the Floodwaters evaporated, it is likely they slowed down.
So? that heat would go somewhere.

Fun fact, the grand canyon is smooth. If millions years were real, it should be raggedy rough, or nonexistent, due to erosion.

Energy is 1/2 mass times (velocity squared). Given the density of granite and the volume of the continental crusts involved, we can determine the energy that would be given off. The relatively lower-mass oceans would have boiled, even with the high specific heat of water. I can do the numbers for you, if you really want to see them.

Hmm, ok.

"The flood explains most of the fossils."

Given that it takes rapid burial to preserve intact, workable fossils, yes.
Slow processes would mar them beyond usability, IF NOT OBLITERATE them.

Knowledgeable YE creationists admit that it doesn't.

Here's what Freddy's saying:
Freddy Davis on July 20th, 2024 - 1:32pm
I’m not fully familiar with Dr. Wise’s approach to this, but it appears to me that he simply asserts that there is not enough data out there on this topic to give a scientific evaluation of those who claim there are legitimate transitional forms. But it doesn’t matter what anyone says because all that is out there is nothing but speculation based on their previously held naturalistic philosophy. What does the actual science say? [...] And when it comes to “transitional forms,” anything anyone says about it is pure speculation. There simply is no science (actual observation and experimentation) to back it up. [...] No one can begin with science and make a case for any part of a naturalistic worldview.(K2KE)

marketfaith.org/2024/07/11735/

Did we ever observe the thing "transitioning"?? No, there is just a guess. Did we do DNA testing and confirm DNA transitioning into another DNA from the stuff kurt found??

The Flood was a global, diluvial catastrophe —explaining the commonness of fossils,46 the rarity ofextensive bioturbation,47 the high species preservability,48and the first-order randomness of the first appearance ofhigher taxa;49(e) The Flood was transgressive — burying plant-animalcommunities in the sequence they were encountered (thusexplaining the second-order sea-to-land first-appearanceorder of major taxa,50 the high disparity/diversity ratioscharacteristic of modern biological communities, speciesand higher-taxon stasis,51,52 the rarity of stratomorphicintermediates,53 and the distinction between Palaeozoicand Mesozoic biotas);(f) After the Flood residual cat

creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

How does Darwin explain the commonity? Those next 2 things? And the rest?


Because the land mammal-to-whaletransition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory andevidenced by the fossil record)
Okay now he strays into error here.
News flash, even YEC are fallible. We all are because of what Adam n Eve did.

 

[Barbarian]

Where? In a few lucky incidents, right?

Where an animal walks in soft sediment that hardens and then is covered again in different sediment.

You didn't factor in the "fountains of the deep".

Wouldn't add one millionth of the cooling and lubrication of the oceans. But even the oceans couldn't absorb all that heat without boiling. Physics is what it is. It's not just Newton; it's the law.

Fun fact, the grand canyon is smooth.

Doesn't look smooth to me...

If millions years were real, it should be raggedy rough

And it is.

Due to erosion. The reason it's deep is that the land is being uplifted, trapping the river in its channel. Old rivers usually meander, cutting new channels constantly because of differential erosion at bends. Uplift makes the river cut deeper and deeper, though millions of years of old sediment.

Barbarian said:
Creationist say:
"The flood explains most of the fossils."

Knowledgeable YE creationists admit that it doesn't.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Given that it takes rapid burial to preserve intact, workable fossils, yes.

So either there have been lots of floods in the world, or there was just one big one. And you know what the evidence shows.

I’m not fully familiar with Dr. Wise’s approach to this, but it appears to me that he simply asserts that there is not enough data out there on this topic to give a scientific evaluation of those who claim there are legitimate transitional forms.

Well, let's see what Dr.Wise actually says...

Evidences forDarwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (betweenrhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates),and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists there foreneed to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Did we ever observe the thing "transitioning"??

Sure. The apple maggot fly, for example. Last few hundred years. It is now a reproductively isolated population from the original species.

The Flood was a global, diluvial catastrophe —explaining the commonness of fossils

Fossils are very rare except for marine species that are readily fossilzed and have hard parts. But small, marine organisms with hard parts are very common. As one would expect over millions of years. Large land animals are quite rare as fossils because they don't readily fossilize

The Flood was transgressive — burying plant-animalcommunities in the sequence they were encountered (thusexplaining the second-order sea-to-land first-appearanceorder of major taxa

As Dr. Wise admits the fossil record of whales presents an unsolvable objection to this assumption.

the high disparity/diversity ratioscharacteristic of modern biological communities

But there are the high disparity/diversity ratios of trilobites, dinosaurs, mammal-like reptiles, and many other ancient groups.

the rarity of stratomorphicintermediates

I note Dr. Wise's long list of stratomorphic intermediates. They seem rather common.
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.
Dr. Wise

and the distinction between Palaeozoicand Mesozoic biotas

This was written before the K-T extinction event was understood. So it's not surprising that almost all land animals weighing over a few pounds disappeared at the K-T boundary. And shortly after that, a whole host of new animals (but as Dr. Wise points out, transitional from earlier species) appears.

Okay now he strays into error here.

He's just being honest. His admission:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Part 3 of 3“But how can the days of creation in Genesis 1 be ordinary days when the Bible says a day is like a thousand years?”Over the past two days, I’ve provided the first five parts of my answer to this objection, below are the final three:6. I have found the main reason many Christians try to reinterpret the word day in Genesis and use this passage from 2 Peter 3 to justify this is that they really are trying to fit the false millions of years belief into Scripture. But how will making each day 1,000 years help accommodate millions of years—it won’t! 7. The Hebrew word for day, yom, is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament, but I don’t hear anyone questioning what those days mean by claiming a day is like a thousand years. So why is it that they only single out the use of the word dayin Genesis 1? Again, it’s because they’re impacted by millions of years, and they’re trying to fit long ages into Genesis 1. Do we ever hear anyone claiming Jonah was in the great fish for 3,000 years because a day is like a thousand years? Of course not. 8. Now, if we take Genesis 1 as written, and look at the context for the word day, yom, for each of the days of creation, we can come to no other conclusion than those days are ordinary approximately 24-hour days. When yom is qualified by night, evening, morning, or number, it always means an ordinary day. All six days have yom qualified by evening, morning, and number. Day one also qualifies yom with night, and day seven is qualified with a number. All seven days in Genesis 1 are ordinary days.Yes, the days in Genesis were ordinary days! We need to take Genesis 1 naturally—as written and not try to reinterpret the days because of outside influences.

x.com/aigkenham/status/1831657007897514357?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1831657007897514357%7Ctwgr%5Eac19b58c9f32ec0fc0f8936400b741a998f94d22%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fanswersingenesis.org%2F

The Origin of Language

The Babel event in Genesis 11 gives us the proper foundation for understanding much of what we observe in our world today.

arkencounter.com

.